No evidence of that. About the father, the best way to approach his acquittal is to consider what the jury saw. They heard the Fuhrman tapes where he made highly derogatory statements about blacks then lied underoath. The lead investigator in charge of the whole case freely admitted in court that he took a vial sample of OJ's blood from the lab and carried it back into the crime scene, which is against police policy. The jury saw a video taken by paparazzi of OJ, Nicole, Denise and their parents talking in a nice peaceful manner right after attending OJ/Nicole's daughter's dance recital - and Denise even kissed and hugged OJ (all this was a few short hours before the murders). There never was the amount of blood on OJ's body, clothes, car or house consistent with someone who had done this crime in person. The jury saw that the glove truly did not fit - it was the wrong size (heat shinks not moisture). The murder weapon was never connected to OJ or even found. There were no witnesses. The jury was taken to OJ's house and did not see a rumored large blood trail. The book "if i did it" deals with one chapter that is hypothetical and labeled fiction - a great part of the book likely is OJ defending himself against false allegations. Some may disagree with the jury verdict but it's unfair to state with absolute certainty that this person is guilty. OJ has always maintained his innocence.
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.