O.J.Simpson

[Metalhead Steve]

My only question Frater is that if the evidence doesn't point to him then to who does it point to?

There was nothing wrong with the trial (except for the fact that it lasted like a year, lol, that's speedy justice for you). The fault was with the evidence. I already explained you how your very own legal system works, now try to think a little

You said that you have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defendant is guilty. That is the law, very true.

What I am saying is that it could have been done if the prosecution was not flawed beyond belief. The prosecution had plenty of evidence linking him to the crime they just did not prove their case to the extent that they should have. DNA evidence should be the be-all end-all in court in proving guilt. Back then they did not use DNA evidence, but blood evidence. The blood found in his Bronco was of her type. I can almost guarantee if the trial was held again today he would be proven guilty(well I can guarantee because he won't have Johnny Cochrane pulling the race card).

The first and biggest mistake the courts made was moving the trial. He was not tried by a jury of his peers.

peer1 /pɪər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[peer] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1.a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers. 2.a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.

IMO this means he was not tryed by a jury of his peers. There is a specific jury screening in the USA in which the defense and prosecution must agree on the jurors. The prosecution possibly did a very poor job here, that is not for me to say but I believe they did not do very well in the jury selection phase.

This case should have been easy for the prosecution is what I am saying but they screwed themselves.