Dvergar wrote:
I like it how all the armchair lawyers with less than a passing understanding of what happens in a trial all come out to rail against a decision based on some snippets they learned from a sensationalist media story.
See sig.
Dagery wrote:
Still, it's basically just O.J. 2.0. A lack of "concrete" evidence most likely due to fuckups on the part of the investigative team. She obviously did it and will be universally hated for it for the rest of her life, though like somebody else said, she's probably not going to be alive much longer should she be released back into the wild. But fuck, man, Florida sucks.
Not quite. Several important differences:
1. OJ was rich. This girl is not.
2. There was never any evidence unequivocally associating OJ with the body. Here, we quite literally
habeas corpus. We have the body in one hand and the owner of the closet in the other.
The case is substantially stronger than the case against OJ.
3. Unlike with OJ, the investigative team seems to have done a thorough and competent job with this case - but the defense made a bunch of specious appeals to the contrary. In fact the defense even perjured in doing so (claiming that state standards were violated in the examination of a skeletal skull when the person who authored the standards testified that there was no such regulation).
My point is this: OJ narrowly got off the hook because he had money and celeb status. That
narrowly bought him a legal victory.
This woman is in a far worse situation legally and financially. But she got out of a much worse situation because her advantages - race, gender, appearance and background - were more powerful.
I would prefer inequity driven by wealth than inequity driven by bigotry. Any day of the week.
