...if you Google "Butcher of Brentwood" and click on images you'll see a bloody image of Nichole.
That "jury" had their minds made up to let him loose before the trial even started imho.
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. If you do...you are misinformed---Mark Twain
Explain...
**~Not my circus, not my monkeys...~**
What part of "imho" don't you understand?
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. If you do...you are misinformed---Mark Twain
...if you Google "Butcher of Brentwood" and click on images you'll see a bloody image of Nichole.
I think Simpson's guilty, but don't know what Googling "butcher of Brentwood" has to do with it. Nor do I understand why you put "jury" in quotes. Regardless of how you feel about their verdict, they were the jury on this case.
I don't think they necessarily had their minds made up from the start. We tend to forget that the jurors didn't see or hear everything the public did at the time. They were instructed to only consider what testimony was presented to them in court, which was far less than those of us in public at the time heard.
As upsetting as it was to me at the time, not being able to separate what the jury heard versus what I'd heard, I understand why the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty.
Outside observation: The decision to allow Mark Fuhrman's arrogance and stupidity trap him into lying about his prior use of racial slurs.share
Prior to Fuhrman's testimony, the other two detectives involved in the investigation had given compelling statements, which were largely free of bias and exaggeration. The defense was unable to get the police to admit to any wrongdoing, and the only “questionable” areas were the brief storage of evidence not in crime lab, and the claim that Simpson wasn't a suspect when he was notified ?of the crime, although a video clearly showed him being handcuffed when he arrived at his ex-wife's home.
The defense really couldn't do much more with that raise minor doubts that might not remained in the minds of the jurors by the time the DNA evidence was introduced. Then along came Mark Fuhrman, and everything went to hell from there.
Fuhrman came across as the smug a*shole that he was, and he confidently testified about his role in the matter and what evidence he had found. Although things looked straightforward initially, that quickly changed as soon as Fuhrman was asked about his use of a very specific racial epithet.
Proving that his overinflated ego was the least of his personal failings, Fuhrman preceded to lie to a defense team comprised of some best attorneys in the United States. Since years of experience in court system should have made him consider that they already had answers for any question they would ask him, his decision to lie bordered upon the imbecilic.
The defense then produced a tape recording of Fuhrman repeatedly saying the very word he claimed to have never uttered multiple times and in a manner that made it clear to listeners that he had used it before. Fuhrman perjured himself on the stand, and thus undermined his entire credibility.
All you have to do is Google "Butcher of Brentwood" and then click on "Images" to see. (the really gruesome part of the photo is blacked out)
I put jury in quotes because I don't think they were serious and I do think that they purposely ignored evidence.
If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed. If you do...you are misinformed---Mark Twain
Did you watch the ESPN show? The photos you're talking about have been seen over and over throughout the web for the last 20 years. But ESPN showed a few of them without the redacted black marks, plus others never before seen. Truly ghastly photos. The stuff of nightmares.
As to what the jury saw, they saw that, and more, including photos from the autopsy table.
I agree they ignored evidence. The prosecution did a terrible job, as did Ito, but so did the jury.