I thought both verdicts were good verdicts. In a criminal trial, the defendant must be found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Reasonable doubt is similar to the feeling one gets when they leave the house and wonder if they locked the door or turned the coffee maker off; enough to cause one to return home to check. In the criminal trial, enough police wrongdoing was uncovered to provide reasonable doubt. The apparent tampering with evidence engaged in by the cops provided the reasonable doubt. Among other things, the glove was likely planted; Mark Fuhrman's testimony was so coached it sounded like a law school textbook was being read: "I thought someone's life was in jeopardy in that house." The crime had occurred hours before, and in my opinion, insufficient evidence was presented to justify use of the "exigent circumstances" exception to the search warrant requirement. Judge Ito gave all the breaks to the prosecution, and those Bozos still couldn't convict OJ, notwithstanding the "mountain of evidence" they purported to have on their side. Some here have suggested that the verdict was solely based on Mark Fuhrman's false testimony regarding use of the "n" word, but that was only the tip of the iceberg. Mark Fuhrman was a renegade cop who wanted to be a superstar and in my opinion contributed to the demise of the prosecution's case. Marcia Clark's statement shortly after the trial that the verdict was "payback" for Rodney King and other civil rights abuses by the LAPD was an effort to shift the blame for what amounted to a disgraceful showing of prosecutorial incompetence.
However, I also agree with the verdict in the civil trial. The standard of proof in a civil trial is a preponderance of the evidence, which means more likely than not. Clearly, OJ had motive, and there was a substantial amount of evidence linking him to the crime. I agree that enough evidence was presented to provide at least 51% likelihood that he was the culpable party.
It is possible OJ didn't do it, despite overwhelming public opinion to the contrary. Mr. Simpson's been adjudicated not guilty, and all of us ought to respect the decisions of the courts, regardless of our opinions as to their accuracy. Our system isn't perfect, but it's better than most, and it's the only one we've got. If a guilty man has to walk so as to keep innocent folks free, so be it.
Edited by - 144thousand_and_one on 19 December 2002 0:31:57
