"Christopher Tidy" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:

Since never. It is just that you went into the subject with such verve
that it appeared that you were spouting facts rather than opinion. My
mistake.

It's interesting to note that the verdict returned by the jurors is based
on their opinion of the evidence. What is reasonable doubt? It's a matter
of opinion. There isn't any useful definition. So like I said, in certain
cases when it's borderline as to whether there is reasonable doubt, two
juries can return different verdicts without either of them being wrong.

I am just saying that if I had been on that jury, I am not sure I would
have reached the same conclusion. I think that's a reasonable thing to
say.

Best wishes,

Chris

Then it is simple. You would have been removed as a juror. The law reads
that evidence should lead a "reasonable man" to conclude ........... You
would have been removed, or a mistrial would have been declared by hung
jury.

And I do have to say that if I had been on the original Goldman/Brown
homicide jury that I could not have voted to convict because the defense did
present plausible arguments, there was gross incompetence in the handling of
evidence, and there existed "reasonable doubt."

This case was totally different. None of that existed. The prosecution's
case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is what is required to
convict.

Please send OJ some cookies and KY. The KY is for when he runs out of
cookies.

Steve

Steve