Patterico's Pontifications

8/20/2006

The O.J. Posts — Part One: Introduction

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:32 pm

[This is Part One of a series of posts on the O.J. Simpson trial.]

A lot of you folks responded to my recent post in which I told you how I had predicted a guilty verdict in the O.J. case. One commenter reminded me that I have told you in the past that I have a few stories about the case to tell. So I thought that, over the next few days, I could tell some of my O.J. stories. I’ll start tomorrow; today is merely the introduction.

I don’t mean to build this up too much; I certainly don’t pretend to have any key insights that will astound and amaze you. But I do have a small bit of insight into some issues in the case. So if you’re one of those people who is still fascinated by the case even though it is more than 10 years old, stick with me over the next few days. If you’re not — well, maybe the guest posters and I will be able to come up with something else that will interest you.

I should say that I come at this with a perspective: I think O.J. Simpson is guilty of the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. I think he got away with murder. Part of the object of these posts is to explore why.

I should also say that, while I am a Deputy District Attorney, I was not one at the time of the trial. I have no vested interest in making excuses for the District Attorney’s Office. I am a big fan of Vincent Bugliosi’s. I read his book “Outrage” with great interest, and agreed with most of his severe criticisms of the prosecution case. I think that Marcia Clark and Chris Darden made several highly questionable decisions and I’m not afraid to say so. I do not know Clark or Darden. (I do know Bill Hodgman, but he had heart trouble early in the case and did not have the same level of involvement that he otherwise would have had — which I think is a shame, for reasons I’ll explain in a future post.)

But despite the fact that I think Clark and Darden screwed up the case, I still think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. Tomorrow I’ll explain why I don’t think it made a difference to the jurors.

P.S. My site has a disclaimer on the sidebar that says that everything I say on this site is said in my personal capacity, not my official capacity, and does not necessarily reflect the views of my office. I think that it bears repeating here, given that I am talking about events and people relating to the office, albeit the office as it was over 10 years ago.

In Which I Pretend I’m Atrios

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:48 am

Yeah, yeah, another stupid open thread . . .


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2395 secs.