Screen Shot 2015-11-18 at 4.55.47 PM

We have just finished watching ‘The Office’. It came out years ago. Never got round to watching it until this week and then only by accident. Anyway, the format took a little getting used to, but I enjoyed it.

Screen Shot 2016-02-18 at 6.52.29 AM



I have this series lined up.



I first watched this series when I was still at school doing ‘O’ levels and I took ‘O’ level law. Actually, I was so good, it was recommended that I jumped straight into ‘A’ level law. I never did. Can’t quite remember why.

Anyway, here I am 30+ years later, back in law. Life is strange. I do remember enjoying the series. I hope by watching it again it doesn’t spoil the magic.



The third season old chap.



Still way behind, and likely will take some time to watch this series as I’ll have homework etc.


I’m about half-way through the OJ Simpson murder trial. The prosecution have rested and the defence has got underway.

It has to be said that Johnny Cochrane is a far more accomplished speaker that the two prosecutors. His delivery is silky smooth. So far he has raised reasonable doubt as regards the murder timeline. This would in isolation, be enough to acquit OJ.

The gloves clearly don’t fit. In hindsight, the prosecutor, several years after the trial raised the issue of evidence tampering. If any suspicion existed, it should have been dealt with at the time. The gloves not fitting in Court however was quite a powerful visual image for the jury.

I haven’t yet reached the forensic part of the case, the so called “blood and fibre” evidence. This for me at least is the crucial area. The timeline, while important, is flexible, and is composed of testimony, which is inherently unreliable. The gloves…pah.

The forensic evidence however provides statistical factual evidence. This needs to be disproven, or challenged in a manner that raises reasonable doubt.


The OJ Simpson trial.

Obviously as I start law school next year I have an interest in observing how trial lawyers try to manipulate the Judge, Jury, opposing counsel and the evidence itself.

I picked up on the “inference” in law. Inference is mentioned in the text books at various points, but no really clear examples were provided. Inference is the subject of extended submissions preceding the summations. This clarified greatly the boundaries.

Next Page »