However - unshakable evidence like DNA, hair, cut on finger, blood in the Bronco, long police Bronco chase, and many other things, is more incriminating than someone getting a moderator's name wrong on a forum
I stand by my statement. Again, if the truth was that obvious (enough to speak for itself), you wouldn't have been arrested to begin with, no one would ever be wrongfully convicted, heck no innocent person would ever step into court.
I'll tell you this, if I was innocent I wouldn't be driving down the freeway in my car with a tonne of cash, a gun, my passport, all while being chased by the police.
I would be looking forward to my day in court to clear my name, not running away from it.
If the evidence is truly unshakeable, then either the prosecution or the jury screwed up.
The system is governed by a very simple principle, which is hard to fault, despite one's view of any particular case: Every defendant who walks into a courtroom is presumed innocent. The defendant only becomes guilty when the prosecution persuades a jury (or a judge, if the defendant doesn't want a jury) that the defendant committed the crime. If the prosecution can't do that, the defendant walks. The defendant doesn't have to prove or disprove a thing, only challenge the prosecution.
In the vast majority of cases that go to trial, the prosecution succeeds. And as everyone now knows since the advent of DNA evidence, there are at least as many (and probably more) wrong convictions than wrong acquittals.
There's a gut-level appeal to making an exception for a particular case where "everyone knows" the defendant is guilty. But that road leads to places that I think most of us wouldn't want to visit.
I think both screwed up, but especially the jury -- who were starstruck by OJ the Celebrity and also wanted to win one after the Rodney King case. Cochran played the race card, and it worked.
But what about the "beyond a reasonable doubt" gimmick? I've always heard that if a reasonable doubt can somehow be raised, then the defendant must be found Not Guilty. Which to me has always been scary, because IMO you can always raise something that could be reasonably doubted with a murderer, if you want. In that case, all guilty defendants could walk free ("well, maybe the witness lied to feel important," "maybe the witness wore glasses and never saw the crime committed as she claims because she rubbed her eyes a lot on the stand")... [courtesy of 12 ANGRY MEN]
Truthfully, all it tells me is that there are some defendants the jury have no trouble convicting, and some they do have trouble with. I'm sorry - I just think our system is flawed. I can't tell you how we can arrive at a better one, no -- but I just think it's flawed and people are getting away with murder.
Ideally, yes, but not always in the real world. As a good example, look back on the saga of Richard Jewell. Here was a guy who should have been hailed as a hero for saving lives, but instead law enforcement and the media targeted him, and pretty much all of America "knew" that he was guilty as sin. It was only dumb luck that they found the real guy.
In this case, I think that Richard Jewell would have been better suited by the likes of Johnny Cochran than somebody who would simply let the truth speak for itself.
As far as Johnny Cochran goes, I have a lot of conflicting opinions. I will not fault him for effectively doing his job, however, and I agree that I'd want a lawyer just like him if ever I was accused of a crime.