Just like Bush skipping out on the Air National Guard. May be true, may be not but when fake evidence is introduced, you have to give a reasonable doubt or there would be no reason to fake the evidence.
Cutting to the chase, I think he did it but I also think the jury had reasonable doubt to conclude otherwise. There was no confession, no murder weapon found, nothing (at the time) to prove Simpson was at the scene other than the blood evidence and the blood evidence was planted which we later found out was a frequent method of L.A. cops. Later the Bruno Magli shoes pretty much sealed the case but that was only established at the civil trial, not the criminal one.
The prosecution was incompetent. Judge Ito a joke. Marcia Clark supposedly slept with her prosecution partner during the trial. What a California circus.
The jury was doing the mirror image of what happened to Emmet Till. Sure, in Emmet Till's case the white jurors couldn't prove that the white men who came looking for the young black boy and took him out of the house at gunpoint were the same ones who beat him to death and dumped him in a river. I mean, no one saw the actual murder, so the jurors had to let the men go, because they said they let Emmet go after scaring him, so somebody else must have beaten him to death. The O.J. verdict was payback for centuries of crap like this.
The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt.
O.J. is as guilty as Emmet Till's killers, and he got off for the same reason -- malignant racial solidarity -- and the verdict is just as disgraceful. I understand that African Americans have suffered in America, but two wrongs don't make a right.
A big laughline from Cedric the Entertainer in Barbershop is when he talks about things black folks know are true but can never, ever admit in front of white folks, and amongst them is "O.J. is guilty." Blacks laughed in the theater because they all knew it was true. (And the joke worked on another level, because Cedric the Entertainer knew that white folks would see the movie, ironically being let in on the gag.)
...you make your points well, but I think you're missing the larger picture, Krauthammer's main point...the jury did not need the evidence to be tainted to reach their verdict...had the blood not been botched, the conclusion would have been the same...and for the same reasons, that OJ was a victim of police malfeasance...
The blood evidence was not planted. Tell me, genius, how did the cops get OJ's blood to mix in the Bronco with both Ron's and Nicole's blood while Simpson was not even in L.A. when that blood evidence was collected? He took a flight out of L.A. before the bodies were discovered, and only returned the next morning after the police located him and notified him of Nicole's death.
According to Johhny Cochrane and Tall_Texan. I'm waiting for you to start screaming "If the glove don't fit....you must acquit". Pathetic.