"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

SteveB wrote:
"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.

You're wrong here. Are you trying to deny the fact that jurors can
legitimately have differing opinions? The law doesn't have a problem
with that, provided that they are honest opinions based on the evidence.

If one or two jurors disagree with the rest, they may be convinced to
change their minds. Or they may convince the other jurors to change
their minds. But ultimately, if their honest opinions differ, that isn't
misconduct. In the US it would, as you say, result in a mistrial. In
England a majority verdict may be accepted.

Remember the Phil Spector case last year? That ended in a mistrial
because the jurors couldn't agree. That doesn't mean that the jurors
were doing anything wrong. It's just life.

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.

Personally I am of the view that there were similar amounts of doubt in
both cases. That's what concerns me. I did explain some of my thoughts
about the doubts last night.

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

Steve, you're a sick man.

Chris