主题：【原创】我观点的转变 -- 坐看风起云涌时

法制没有完美的，但是不能因为任何原因去玷污法制的权威性，判错也得买单，就是这个道理～～美国百姓也不会去批评陪审团，他们做了自己该做的事～～

（另外，精英叫扣帽子的话，那律师剔除陪审员是不是也叫扣帽子？但是，歹徒，强盗，小偷等，这些帽子是不能随便扣的，另外，当精英不好吗，美国的libral arts的college 不就是培养社会精英的吗？）

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O._J._Simpson_murder_case#cite_note-court_tv_17-11

“DNA evidence

Samples from bloody footprints leading away from the bodies and from the back gate of the condominium were tested for DNA matches.[8] Initial polymerase chain reaction testing did not rule out Simpson as a suspect, and in more precise restriction fragment length polymorphism tests, matches were found between Simpson's blood and blood samples taken from the crime scene, in both the footprints and the gate samples.[7][8]

Police criminologist Dennis Fung testified that this DNA evidence put Simpson at Nicole Brown's townhouse at the time of the murders. But in cross-examination by Barry Scheck, which lasted eight full days, most of the DNA evidence was questioned. Dr. Robin Cotton of Cellmark Diagnostics testified for six days.[12] Blood evidence had been tested at two separate laboratories, each conducting different tests.[12]

Despite that safeguard, it emerged during the cross-examination of Fung and the other laboratory scientists that the police scientist who collected blood samples from Simpson to compare with evidence from the crime scene was a trainee who carried the vial of Simpson's blood around in his lab coat pocket for nearly a day before handing it over as an exhibit. While two errors had been found in the history of DNA testing at Cellmark, one of the testing laboratories, in 1988 and 1989, the errors were found during quality control tests and had not occurred since.[12] In the 1988 test, one of the companies hired for DNA consulting by Simpson's defense also made the same error.[7] What should have been the prosecution's strong point became their weak link amid accusations that bungling police technicians handled the blood samples with such a degree of incompetence as to render the delivery of accurate and reliable DNA results almost impossible. The prosecution argued that they had made the DNA evidence available to the defense for its own testing, and if the defense attorneys disagreed with the prosecution's tests they could have conducted their own testing on the same samples.[12] The defense had chosen not to accept the prosecution's offer.[12]

On May 16, Gary Sims, a California Department of Justice criminalist who helped establish the Department of Justice's DNA laboratory, testified that a glove found at Simpson's house tested positive for a match of Goldman's blood.[12]”