Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
Sure. His goal was to get his client acquitted, and so he wanted the jury to like his client, identify with his client, sympathize with his client, empathize with his client, etc. Managing their perceptions of OJ was part of his strategy, and the "dressing" of OJ's house in particular was very well done.
I don't feel like re-educating myself about the trial, but my recollection was that Cochran also did an excellent job in the courtroom in questioning witnesses (certainly better than F. Lee Bailey or any of the goofballs from the DA's office). And Barry Schreck's shredding of the DNA testimony was masterful.
|
No doubt a combination of things led to O.J. getting off. Cochran and Scheck did a good job raising doubt in the jurors and convincing them that their client wasn't a bad person. The fact that the prosecutors were a pair of idiots didn't hurt. And the cops' racism and mishandling of the crime scene didn't harm OJ any either.
I guess my confusion was over the fact that you said in your post that all you took out of the case was that Cochran and Scheck were amazing lawyers (presumably because of the staging of OJ's house, which seems like the first thing anyone with half a brain would think of if the jury was going to be there). But I'm not trying to find an argument where there isn't one. I just thought there was a little more that came out of that case.
TM
