Sadly, this isn't limited to liberals...there are plenty of such posts from conservatives. When you belief in some ideology overcomes logic and reason, we all lose.We want the culprit to be punished and when we think the culprit isn't punished, we have to blame the Idiot of choice - the prosecutor, defense attorney, judge or the jury. Then it becomes - the Medical Examiner judged it a homicide. He didn't test for drowning for some reason. So then, how does he prove it was at the hands of another when it is equally true the forensics support another conclusion that he could have ruled out?

As for the OJ case, I am amazed at the arguments that still persist that aren't evidence or can't be supported by testimony or direct science. The worst one is the Marcia Clark "mountain of evidence" claim! What is your mountain of evidence. At pre-trial hearing you allege a particular knife was used and made a big deal out of it. (Was that the package that the special master held awaiting someone to call for it?) You fail to find a knife, you fail to show even a kind of knife was used (single edge, double edge) you have no evidence to refute real DNA and blood science and analysis! You put a person on the stand who perjures himself - the same guy that claims he saw blood when others didn't! The defense didn't put the glove on Simpson, Mr. Darden did. So, please where is the mountain of evidence?

There is no hard and fast rule. It is nebulous and can't be defined in a rule. When the jury is given instructions on this, it is often something like "if you believe a, b and c are all true, you must convict. If any one of these is believe to be unproved or not proved to a reasonable doubt, you must acquit!

Now the judge is an idiot! Can someone actually think here, use facts or evidence to support their theories? How was the judge an "idiot?"

You certainly are a real deep thinker Donald!

I didn't mention the glove at all. Mr. Darden was the one who took up that task! If you care to tell me how what I placed before you was countered by the prosecution, I'd be happy to address it.

It didn't mean an automatic get out of jail free card. You use Ms. Clark's argument about a mountain of evidence. What mountain are you talking about?

PD did things against their own rules! Why do they do that in a high profile case...mere Mistake. There was a rush to judgment and the prosecution got caught with their legal pants down. Had they charged him later after they had the evidence, the outcome may have been different. As it was the prosecution did not provide a mountain of controvertible evidence, but I am willing to listen to your use of testimony and evidence in the trial if you wish! If I cherry picked, please tell me how?

Law class in high school! Good for Canada! Parole for murderers is a bad idea. Eliminating the death penalty is also a bad idea!

Where did I say you can't have an opinion? You jumped to a conclusion not supported by the evidence. I support the death penalty and if you google, you will find that I am quite conservative. That means that I support the Constitution and the protections it affords all of us. Far too often the State abuses its power to get a conviction. Convicting someone under the Constitution requires the prosecutor to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. If someone is charged with capital murder, does it follow that they are guilty of that crime? I asked you to think about how you may feel were you or a family member charged with a capital crime? Would you want a jury to use a high standard of proof to determine the guilt? Follow the law? Or say: He or she is probably guilty and by snetencing them to death I may prevent a homicide as a standard?

correct!

The ME's conclusion was not supported by the evidence as the jury saw it. Homicide is the killing of a human being by another. His conclusion was supported by his theory of what happened but the tape was not found on the mouth and could have had another purpose. Motive is not an element of any homicide crime...it is investigatory in nature and may be used to support a version of events by either side. The killing of another human being with malice a forethought is a general common law definition - motive isn't there as an element. It also doesn't enter into any of the lesser included offenses of manslaughter rubrics and of course not in accidental death.

Then please define reasonable doubt for us. It is quite nebulous and difficult to define in any case!