albacized

DNA evidence and the OJ trial

Rate this topic

30 posts in this topic

Yes, I realize this is a moot point - but I'm bored (and curious). At the time of that trial, DNA was a new science to the criminal court scene. There were other elements involved as well (prosecutors making mistakes, underlying social accusations, etc). However, nowadays, I think people in society have a much better understanding of DNA science. There were pundits who proposed the notion that the jury's lack of understanding of this science was a major factor in the outcome. So I ask, do you think a jury today would've came to the same verdict, given the assumption that today's jurors would have a better grasp of DNA evidence? Or would some of the other factors that may have played a roll led to the same verdict? Personally, I think OJ would be in prison right now if this exact trial took place in more recent times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnny Cochrane won that trial when he empaneled the jury and "africanized" OJ.  Remember that he tampered with OJ's house by getting rid of all the "white" decor and replacing it with African-themed decor.  He managed to get a jury of minority folks with chips on their shoulder against whitey and the LAPD.  They toured the "crime scene" and it fit the theme Johnny was pushing that "Whitey" was after a brother.    

 

 It worked.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Threw out the testimony of the detective due to the fact the detective said he didn't use the N word for ten years a nd a women said it was 8years...I believe it was f Lee Bailey who told the detective manno to manno ,marine to marine when was the last time you used the N word...or very close to that I'm not trolling just saying it may not be a perfect quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 mins ago, albacized said:

Yes, I realize this is a moot point - but I'm bored (and curious). At the time of that trial, DNA was a new science to the criminal court scene. There were other elements involved as well (prosecutors making mistakes, underlying social accusations, etc). However, nowadays, I think people in society have a much better understanding of DNA science. There were pundits who proposed the notion that the jury's lack of understanding of this science was a major factor in the outcome. So I ask, do you think a jury today would've came to the same verdict, given the assumption that today's jurors would have a better grasp of DNA evidence? Or would some of the other factors that may have played a roll led to the same verdict? Personally, I think OJ would be in prison right now if this exact trial took place in more recent times

OJ would be convicted by any non-prejudice jury regardless of when it was tried.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine how shocked Nicole Brown’s and Ronald Goldman’s family must have felt. 
 

If I was her father, I’d probably be in jail while OJ walks around a free man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some who felt...

It was plausible that his son was the guilty party and he was covering up for him. Plus, it would explain the DNA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.  he did it.  Even gave the knife to Kardashian (who re-newed his bar license and membership to establish an attorney client relationship with OJ and to protect the evidence [i.e. "lose it"]).  

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world would be a much better place if oj had lost. We wouldn't have been exposed to 15 mind numbing  years of Kardashian crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BlueHwy said:

if the glove don't fit you must acquit

That's another thing his defense team did:  They knew that the glove had been covered in blood and would have shrunk in the evidence room.  To compound that, they had OJ STOP taking his anti-inflammatories and arthritis medicine which caused his hands to swell.   There was NO effing way that Gove was going to fit.  All Cochrane had to do was give THAT particular jury reasonable deniability and the butcher walks.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.