Let's go back to a continued theme of this thread. Jive is scary because he doesn't understand the basic functions, definitions and methods of our legal system but is very eager to proclaim he knows someone is a murdered.
For instance:
OMG you're so dangerous to society!!! That man went to trial and was declared innocent. How dare you lack the critical thinking skills to feel that he's guilty!!
By the way, you do think he was guilty, you're just too much of a pussy to say it
OJ was declared not guilty at trial. There were some flaws in the trial, but mostly just of the system. By and large the trial was as fair as could be expected and there was very little demand he be re-tried criminally. He was found liable in a civil trial. In our system, for better or worse, that means he is criminally not guilty of the crime. Neither verdicts, however, did or were designed to prove innocence. Neither juries were ever tasked with proving or disproving innocence.
How is it possible someone could be found not guilty of a crime and still have done in? Well, because there's a difference between criminal guilt and inbred retards with pitchforks guilt, or at least there should be.
It's possible for exactly the reason you state here (minus the incorrect and ignorant statement that we saw zero footage of the prosecution questioning anybody on the stand):
This is partly what I felt at the end too. I mean, sure the prosecutors didn't want to be involved, but we also saw next to zero footage of the prosecutors questioning anybody on the stand that put the defence in a bad light. I refuse to believe that.
And no reasonable human being could look at the evidence thatwasincluded in the doc and come away with a guilty verdict. Therehadto be more we didn't see
Remember, jurors aren't tasked with determining if someone committed the crime. In fact, despite the DA constantly tell them their job is to find the defendant guilty, their job is actually to presume he's innocent and provide a verdict of not guilty if there is "reasonable doubt" as to whether the person committed the crime. The point of the documentary is that even if there was some evidence that seemed concrete, you can't ever know the absolute truth, so when there is also a lot of evidence and proceedings that could give a discerning person reasonable doubt you're supposed to return a verdict of not guilty.
The fact you've seen a guilty verdict, think that means he did it, and are then assuming evidence existed that supports that is absurd. Our entire legal system is built around overcoming exactly that sort of bias and ignorance. It's scary to think there are people like you, and a jury like in this documentary, that basically said to themselves: yeah, there is a lot of evidence that makes me have reasonable doubts, and I know the instructions were that the DA has to prove he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I'm pretty sure he did it and boy some of the other evidence sure is interesting and points in Avery's direction...
In fact, your two quotes here alone are everything our entire trial system is set up to overcome, and the fact even with a documentary highlighting the very deficiencies in our system aren't enough for you to smarten up about your own bias and ignorance is absolutely terrifying. You should be permanently barred from ever having jury duty because your ignorance is going to kill someone.
