Originally posted by lukster
I think the jury had something to do with it.
Yes but they only followed the law as it was explained to them.
The police and prosecution bungled the case throughout
From the contamination to the DNA evidence to not explaining to the jury that leather can shrink after its been wet. "If the glove doesnt fit"
Because of this. The defence was able to poke enough holes in the prosecutions case to create reasonable doubt however small.
Remember. The jury was only privy to what was shown inthe courtroom and not what was broadcast on national TV.
So there was alot that we saw in our homes and alot we heard discussed the jury wasnt able to.
Keeping that in mind. and following the law as it was explained to them. They had no alternative then to come back with the verdict they did.
I think many of the jurors beleived he was guilty also.
But they couldnt come back with a guilty verdict based on how they were allowed to rule by law