Innocent until proven guilty

I totally agree that the police contaminated the scene and so the jury rightly found him innocent. I don't know enough about the case to know who else might've been guilty, but I have always said that the jury found the right finding.

As the guy in my avatar would say "trust but verify". That said I think there was ample evidence in court that the police tried to improve their case. By doing so they contaminated the scene to the point where it would not be worthwhile. I actually believe another person did the murders. I have someone specific in mind who fits the evidence better than OJ but, as the case is closed, I will not make such accusations. There is no viable way for the person to be cleared once accused and that would be improper. I do believe the inability to get a solid trial is the fault of those who thought they could strengthen their case by breaking the rules. Judge Eato allowing the defense to provide good seats at a knicks game for the jury while the lead prosecutor watched and said nothing is a perfect example of wrongdoing on all sides(testified to by a jr prosecutor in a later news interview). People often embrace the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" as a theory. When given a specific case for example they tend to fall back to "guilty until proven innocent. I ask again. What if you were the accused? Could you trust a political candidate or appointee who did not embrace the "innocent until proven guilty" concept in life as strongly as in theory? I realize people think I am nuts when I say OJ is innocent. My instructors at the police academy all disagreed. My point is that I believe in the system. Despite it's flaws it is still the best in the world. Without it we could not trust ourselves in the hands of the court. There are cop killers in prison who have fans calling them innocent political prisoners. There are killers freed by the court who people still call killers. Can we, as a society, afford to ignore the presumption of innocence in those found not guilty? Can we afford to ignore guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in those found guilty?

Friends and family of the victim are expected to desire revenge regardless of the trial outcome. The concept of an "avenger of blood" dates back to the bible and i don't know to many people who don't desire revenge for lesser crimes. Break my nose or steal my favorite toy and I will be looking for payback. Is it acceptable, for those not tied to either party in the case, to continue accusations of guilt after the court has proven otherwise? If the court clears you of shoplifting is it alright for people to still treat you like a thief. Certainly there are those who are cleared of charges despite being guilty. That was the trade off our founding fathers accepted to keep innocent people out of jail or the noose. Since we are presumed innocent until proven otherwise, and the court has failed to prove otherwise, shouldn't people give the benefit of that (reasonable) doubt? Could you trust a politician who did not accept the presumption of innocence?

Think of OJ prompted this thread. In fact I believe the prosecution and investigators made a great many mistakes that led to his acquittal. Mistakes like that make it difficult to get past reasonable doubt so that even I could not have voted to convict him. I think it is possible he did it and perhaps even probable but, the mistakes left room for doubt. This leads me to wonder if someone could support a congressman, senator, president or other elected official who espoused the view that he was guilty. These folks represent and uphold the law and the constitution and both say he is innocent. Let's say you are OJ. The Mistakes, mishandling of evidence and possibly even planted or invented evidence make you look guilty. Those things came out in court and you were acquitted. Now let's say you actually are innocent. Let's say, as some have supposed, that someone you love committed the crime, you took the heat to protect them and you are free. Do you trust candidate for office who says you were guilty and justice wasn't served? Do you trust them not to invent another reason to haul you back to trial or otherwise harass you? OJ is in jail for a crime they could prove and I see that as just but I can't see trusting anyone who holds a position of power but doesn't respect the constitutional view of innocent until proven guilty. The state didn't prove it's case so, legally and publicly he is innocent of murder.

That seems to be the common view. thanks for your honest view.