The prosecution also didn't have the video showing Simpson wearing the same type of Bruno Magli shoes - also an unusual and expensive style - that the killer wore. That evidence was given in the civil trial, which Simpson lost.

I've always thought that the prosecution lost the case mostly because they let it go on way too long. All those months gave the defense loads of time.

OJ had arthritis. Easy for him to make his hands swell. The glove was leather, which shrunk as a result of being wet. Of course it didn't fit. Why would they even make him try it on?

It was taught by a very well-respected former police detective and we spent some time examining the OJ trial. He was not shy in his issues with the police investigation and the prosecution. I remember him saying that the police started with OJ as the suspect and attempted to fit the evidence around him being the suspect, instead of using the evidence to lead them to the suspect.

And that made the investigation extremely sloppy.

He concluded that while he believed OJ was guilty, the case presented was not without doubt and therefore the jury was correct in its verdict.

The scary truth is: many Americans, including many minorities, have been sentenced to prison, or even death, with much weaker cases than OJ's. While there might have been reasonable doubt, reasonable doubt likely only benefited OJ because he was rich and famous. Had he just been plain ol working class DJ Sampson instead, he would have gone to prison. No question.

It just goes to show what you can get away with if you're rich and famous.

I would have voted to acquit not because I thought he was innocent, because I didn't. but because there was some doubt due to the incompetent and racist investigation.

and OJ got off easy every time due to his wealth and being a celebrity. 12 times! His whole profile fits with the typical domestic violence abuser. He controlled her from the start. Domestic violence should be the bigger picture to focus on and not OJ dying. This needs to be discussed out in the open and not brushed under the rug.

I told him that he and I knew a lot more about the evidence than the jury in the criminal trial did. I said that the jury made the right decision based upon the evidence that they heard. He was...unhappy with that statement. He threw down the stuff he was carrying and took a menacing step forward. (Little did he know that my wife had come up behind him and was, I'll say, prepared.) But it ended peacefully.

The prosecution bungled the case in numerous ways. Judge Ito was less than efficient as well. The defense was well prepared overall and pushed all the right buttons with the jury.

It was almost as if the prosecutors said this to the jurors, "Hey, remember, we're basing our entire case on this glove, we guarantee it was worn by the killer, so we're going to have OJ try it on, if it fits him, you know he might be the killer, but if it doesn't you know he's definitely not the killer...wait, I mean, it might have shrunk or something, so, um, er..."

was being questioned by Christopher Darden. Darden asked if the witness if the author was disturbed by facts disclosed by Mark Fuhrman. The author responded she was disturbed by Mark Fuhrman's disclosures. She said yes. Darden then asked an open ended question: "Why didn't you ask him to stop?" instead of "did you ask him to stop?"
The author then went on to say Mark Fuhrman was telling her how the LAPD planted evidence on black people.
All of this transpired after a prolonged debate over allowing testimony regarding the LAPD planting evidence on minorities. Why would the prosecutor open the door that brought that information into the trial after arguing for days to keep it out of the trial?
That's about the best I can remember.

Would the prosecutors have done a better job?

When on Good Morning America, after Dan ABRAMS and another (legal expert?) did the customary re-hash, in taking their leave the other person wrapped it up saying it was too bad, so sad that SIMPSON's "LEGACY" would be forever subsumed, that this *LEGACY* consists of how he was one of the first ones to transform (advertising?) how an athlete became a BRAND since now they can name their own BRAND, and all those other outstanding things - blah blah about sports, movies.

And. not. a. word (in her wrap-up, I came in late to the main discussion part) about Nicole BROWN and Ron GOLDMAN. And not a word about the rest of his legacy - the multiple domestic violence episodes, how he disdained other Blacks in favor of White social circles.

*** My re-hash from yesterday: In a thread about "the part" most remembered about the trial ("celebrity justice" coverage), my post (can't find it anymore) is how at work we got the word that the verdict was going to be read, how in those pre-computer and rigid work rules days (no t.v. at work) we rushed in the lunch hour to a restaurant with t.v., and at the outcome most of the customers ROARED in approval, with the majority in favor being WOMEN. That's what I remembered most, my shock at the verdict and the women approving.

Which would explain the DNA. The questions about the knife would not mean anything if the son was responsible. But I don't think those questions would mean much of anything to the jury. They were not "stupid" as many have claimed. They just wanted to stick it to law enforcement for generations of racist practices.

I don't think that story was presented to the jury either.

I should say that I THINK I remember that.