Now we'll be subjected to documentary and film dissecting this man all over for a while- I was alive and old enough to be aware of the facts and how it all transpired. There's so much this case doesn't discuss, and even more that's come to light after it was made. Whether he was guilty or not was not for me to say- and this nonsense of white vs black regarding the verdict is absolutely ridiculous- many of my white friends simply did not see enough evidence to support his guilt. Many of us watched the trial in its entirety, and the evidence just simply did not support the case put forth by the prosecution. Absolutely abhorrent prosecution, a very educated and effective defense team, an incompetent criminal investigation into the case left the door wide open for the defense to pilot directly through holes so large that you could fly a 747 through them.
Furman was and still is a complete monster, the handling of evidence was demonstrably wrong, the trial judge was completely incompetent and should have been removed from the case the moment his ineptitude was revealed, and Marcia Clark/Chris Darden were just outwitted and outmatched at every single turn.
Now we have the revelation by the jury forewoman that the verdict presented was due in its entirety to the racial divide and having almost an entirely black jury was not inconsequential to that supposition. She point blank said that there was discussion in the jury room regarding this, and much of the questionable evidence was outright ignored. The glove farce was what sealed the deal, and so close to the end of the trial, played a large part in the verdict. Love them or hate them, the defense team was incredibly effective and very good at what they did. They managed to make a fairly experienced prosecution look like amateur hour, and inevitably won over the jury. I've sat on 4 separate juries- 1 being a federal jury, 1 a grand jury and 2 county court juries; I've been the foreman for 3, and I can say with absolute certainty, whether you like it or not, likability plays a huge part in guilty vs not guilty. When prosecutors are arrogant, ignorant and conceited, even if the evidence completely supports the case, juries will go out of their way to find loopholes to punish people deemed deserving. Cases aren't necessarily won or lost based on this, but it can make all the difference when sentencing is made or different degrees of guilt are offered.
Furman was and still is a complete monster, the handling of evidence was demonstrably wrong, the trial judge was completely incompetent and should have been removed from the case the moment his ineptitude was revealed, and Marcia Clark/Chris Darden were just outwitted and outmatched at every single turn.
Now we have the revelation by the jury forewoman that the verdict presented was due in its entirety to the racial divide and having almost an entirely black jury was not inconsequential to that supposition. She point blank said that there was discussion in the jury room regarding this, and much of the questionable evidence was outright ignored. The glove farce was what sealed the deal, and so close to the end of the trial, played a large part in the verdict. Love them or hate them, the defense team was incredibly effective and very good at what they did. They managed to make a fairly experienced prosecution look like amateur hour, and inevitably won over the jury. I've sat on 4 separate juries- 1 being a federal jury, 1 a grand jury and 2 county court juries; I've been the foreman for 3, and I can say with absolute certainty, whether you like it or not, likability plays a huge part in guilty vs not guilty. When prosecutors are arrogant, ignorant and conceited, even if the evidence completely supports the case, juries will go out of their way to find loopholes to punish people deemed deserving. Cases aren't necessarily won or lost based on this, but it can make all the difference when sentencing is made or different degrees of guilt are offered.
