“I feel that both juries reached the right conclusion, even if they may have done it for the wrong reasons.”
There was overwhelming evidence presented in both trials about his guilt. There was no evidence of tampering.
I respectfully disagree, at least to the criminal trial. I watched that trial, the entire thing, and the prosecution didn't even REMOTELY prove their case. They were completely inept. If I had been on that jury I, too, would have voted to acquit.
Perhaps you had to have been there.
1999 CNN story about LAPD cases being thrown out because of testimony of evidence tampering. If the Rampart Division had a history of faking evidence in order to win convictions, how short a leap to conclude that Fuhrman and Van Natta also knew how to fabricate evidence, including mixing O J's blood (with preservative already present) in the DNA evidence that allegedly proved that O J was at the crime scene.
Goes to "beyond a reasonable doubt", your honor.