Originally Posted by George Foster
Your right the law says "reasonable doubt" NOT "beyond the shadow of a doubt." Unless you have a video recording of the murder in HD, there will always be doubt, but is it reasonable?
If you threw out all the blood evidence, there were still footprints of the murderer all over the crime scene. Those shoes were size 13 Bruno magli shoes. The prosecutors office produced a credit card receipt that Simpson purchased a pair of size 13 Bruno Magli shoes, that Simpson said he lost while traveling. What would common sense say happened? What is reasonable? How many people can afford or wear these shoes? Who would want her dead, and who had assaulted her in the past? It just so happened he lost them? Again what is reasonable?
Guilty.....behond a reasonable doubt.
There is rarely a trial where there's more evidence.