Why do you say that? Please explain.
I'm confused.
BTW, I'm a natuiralized American and I've always thought this is the best system in the world. If non of you believe it, why don't we change it? I don't understand. Educate me please.
"Best" does not mean "perfect".
The number one mistake was the head D.A. (Garcetti?) consenting to a change of venue to LA Central. O.J. wasn't tried by a jury of his peers, he was tried by a bunch of racists who didn't want to see "the man" get a famous black guy (despite the fact that O.J. has spent his entire life trying to be white.) That was the D.A.'s fault.
Also drew a bad judge who didn't control his courtroom and rein in the crazy defense lawyers who were playing the race card for all it was worth, plus a team of not-too-competent ADAs who botched the presentation of their case. Combine that with a jury that was too stupid to understand the evidence and had no intention of convicting from the get go, and you have a guilty man going free.
All those things went wrong at once. Doesn't happen that often, happens more often in high profile cases where the defendant has money to throw around like water. No human system is perfect, this one is as good as it gets, but it presumes competent participants.
It sounds to me that you probably weren't living in the US at the time of the trial. DNA evidence showed that OJ was at the crime scene. Our judicial system operates on the idea that it is better to let a guilty person go than to convict an innocent person. OJ did it.
NO system of justice is perfect. None. If so, we'd never have an innocent man, woman or child in jail, but it does happen (I point you to the Duke Lacross "Rape" case for a present version of miscarriage of justice).
The OJ trial, with all the evidence against him, blood of the victims on his shoes, socks, clothes, in his truck, droplets up OJ's driveway to his house, even in his washing machine is a pretty good indicator he was there, if not participating. His alibi fell apart. Yet the jurors found him innocent. Why? Because they chose race over justice. And the fact that the police were painted as racists didn't help.
But remember this, in a civil trial he was found responsible for the deaths, and was ordered to pay some $30+ million in damages.
It is all a matter of semantics.
You are using the word "guilty" to mean "convicted of that crime in crimminal court". In that sense, you are correct and O.J. is "not guilty".
The talk show hosts are using the word "guilty" to mean "I believe he committed that crime" which might be sloppy use of the legal language but is their right under the First Amendment.
One thing you should keep in mind about the U.S. legal system is jury nullification which means that a jury can be shown indidputable proof of a certain crime and the jury can then totally ignore the evidence and totally ignore the law and reach a wrong verdict that even they know is wrong if they so please.
We are saying it's not perfect.
Are you serious?