🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <45ovn1$3o3@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> djshane@ix.netcom.com (Dennis J. Shane ) writes:
>In <45oscs$29r@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> jon21@ix.netcom.com (jonhoutex )
>writes: 
>>
>>In <45o3lq$fsg@newsbf02.news.aol.com> kenconner@aol.com (KenConner)
>>writes: 
>>>
>>>Did I miss something?  I thought the verdict was not guilty.
>>>
>>>Ken
>>>
>>unless you are blind, deaf and stupid you missed everything. this
>>definitely was a case of  a jury with a cause. not guilty in this t.v.
>>court doesnot mean not guilty in the public court' which for this
>>bastard means everything!
>
>Then why not do away with the entire jury system while we're at it? 
>Personally, I think he did it, BUT and here's the biggie...  the jury
>followed the Judge's orders to a T...  there was a shadow of a doubt. 
>Actually, there were a few shadows of doubt.  The jury had no choice,
>given the instructions given to them, to find him not guilty.  However,
>the civil suits will be different... he can be found guilty by the
>preponderance of the evidence and only 9 out of the 12 have to think
>he's guilty in order to get a conviction...

That's the problem lots of people seem to have in convicting someone of
murder--they get hung up a obsure possibilities and conspriracy theories
like in this case. The overwhelming evidence tied him directly to the 
scene of the crime and the murder. What more do you want a video? The
point here is REASONABLE doubt, and given that his blood match with
a probability of 99.99999%, I cannot see any even with the alleged
incompatencies, consipiracy theories, and every other excuse the
defense could conjur up.