Quote:
|
Did you not read in my post where I stated that it doesn't matter what you or I think?
|
Did
you not read
your own post! Apparently not.
What
you said, what
I quoted, and what I quote again in part now is "a case that he clearly could not win."
When you say something like "a case that he clearly could not win"
you are offering your opinion. Now maybe you don't think before you offer an opinion, but I am certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you do. And you told the board, including me, what you thought.
If you feel free to offer your opinion, I feel free to offer mine. And I certainly don't appreciate being chastised for it, particularly when you started the discussion by saying that the prosecutor brought "a case that he clearly could not win."
Now as to the point you were making, namely, "The prosecutor cost the citizens of the county millions of dollars in a case that he clearly could not win," you are cockeyed to imply the prosecutor was wrong to bring the case. The prosecutor had a duty to bring the case since the evidence against OJ was overwhelming. It didn't overwhelm the jury, for sure, but any fair-minded person had no doubt who the culprit was. The fact that the jury was closed-minded has no bearing on the merits of the case.
As for your contention that "The only thing that counts is what the jury thinks," that is your standard. Whether the prosecutor in fact wins or loses is up to the jury, but the standard for bringing a case is not your standard.