Reply #60: I watched the whole thing too (I was unemployed) [View All]

And I came to the following conclusions:

1/ OJ did it or was directly involved, including being at the scene.

2/ The police planted evidence designed to make it a slam dunk and instead, they cast doubts that would free OJ.

3/ The prosecution was inexperienced and/or incompetent.

4/ The jury, based on the evidence, including the fact that the police planted some of it, and with the errors in handling of blood and the "hail mary" of returning to the scene and "finding" more "overlooked" blood created a situation where there was reasonable doubt.

I weighed all that together and I came to the conclusion that OJ did the crime, but he was not proven to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that resonable doubt was introduced by the Los Angeles police department. The jury was correct, the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

However, OJ still did the crime, he just didn't have to do the time because of "legal technicalities", as happens not infrequently with serious crimes.

BLAME BUSH FIRST!

Click here for "BLAME BUSH FIRST", and other fair and balanced yet stunning buttons, magnets and stickers