I haven't read Bugliosi's accounts of the OJ trial but IMO it was a hard trial to get a conviction from the get go. OJ was a hero to not just the black community but also to everyone with his athletic prowess at USC and Buffalo and the Hertz commercials, etc. The last person in the world who -unless you knew him personally-would be expected to commit such a horrific crime. Then the case was downtown L.A. as opposed to Santa Monica which would have been the proper venue. I think that may have been done so that any conviction would not be tainted with an "all white" jury. Then there was the fact that no murder weapon was ever found. Then the lead detective Mark Furman was proved to be a racist. Then Barry Scheck destroyed the criminologist on x exam displaying how little anyone knew about DNA evidence-which at best is confusing. Remember DNA evidence at the time was relatively new and was the ONLY evidence connecting OJ to the crime. Today DNA can be explained much easier to a jury and is far less suspect. I am sure that when Scheck was through with the criminologist re his DNA testimony the jury was hopelessly confused. Since that was the ONLY evidence they had it was not difficult for thim to come back with a not guilty verdict on a defendant everyone love and respected-except those who really knew OJ's dark side. While all my friends and acquaintances were "shocked" at the verdict many of my criminal defense lawyers were not and had even predicted the outcome.
Of course none of this means OJ didn't murder Nicole it just means that the case was ripe for a defense verdict.
