[QUOTE="Rekunta"]Could be. I believe the defense was completely incompetent, but that does not negate the fact that OJ was able to exploit that fact by being able to afford the best lawyers money could buy. I think it's idealistic to believe that money does not play a factor in the finding of guilt or innocence of someone. Do you believe that no one has taken bribes for false testimony, etc?
You don't think money plays a role at all? If so, I won't argue with you......but to be honest that's a bit naive.
The_Ish
It's a business, money plays a large role. But in OJ's case, it didn't. Both attorney and prosecutor were at the same level, and the jury was isolated (I am not sure what the legal term is, but its when they are not allowed communication with anyone not having to do with the case and the lawyers for the duration of the case).
It could have been that OJ's lawyer was better, or that OJ really was innocent. His money did not help.
Oops, I meant to say in my original post that I thought the prosecution was incompetent, not the defense.
Log in to comment