Blood evidence where of what?

@ Nevergiveup - here we go, as always. For background, I watched the whole prosecution case. Did you? (This thread is dead officially now, right?)

A) bullshit - by which concise, erudite argument you refer to which aspect..?
B) there was blood evidence all over the place, and they chose to ignore it ... Blood evidence where of what? The shady cop with a mad on for OJ, who shouldn't even have been there found the bloody glove at the scene and oh my also finds its mate at OJ's? That's case-killing BS right there. Nothing was presented effectively in court.
C) he had no alibi and plenty of motive - alibi and motive are irrelevant if the State fails to hang the evidence on you. Many prosecutors and cops are so sure someone's guilty, but the law requires more than hunches and feelings.
D) guilty as sin - possibly. Probably. Doesn't change that the prosecution failed = jury did the just thing. Humanly just does not always equal true justice, obviously.

It was a travesty, regardless of his guilt or the outcome.

Subjects: