> How much time would it take to infer the guilt of OJ
> Simpson from a cursory glance at the most damning evidence?
> I'd say about a minute; five tops.
Well, that's the problem. My first answer to your question was "all of it" -- and that's what we have juries for. The fact that the rest of the non-Jury population feels that they have the ability to make a valid decision about something is just lunacy. The fact that he was acquitted should underscore that point to you, despite Dennis Miller's quip that "There are two kinds of people: those who believe OJ isn't guilty, and those who are very, very stupid."
> I was under the impression that perhaps Schiavo isn't a
> vegetable. (I could be dead wrong about that. Though I haven't
> paid much attention to the case, it's apparent that there's a
> lot of bullshit floating around out there.)
I'm laughing just reading this. You've just made my point concretely: you (and most of the media I've encountered!) have absolutely no place forming an opinion about this issue. Period.
It's not just you: there's been exactly one useful piece of information in this thread: John Costello's pointer to this site:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
If you really want to participate in this conversation, this should be required reading. It's clear to me that almost everyone here who has repeated false information didn't bother to follow this link.
/jordan