Definitive Analysis Of OJ Trial

Did OJ do the crime and get off scott-free? If so, what went wrong?Of course he did, and what went wrong falls largely on the shoulders of the prosecutors.

Imagine this scenario: Someone runs into the court room in the middle of the trial yelling he took a video of OJ doing the murders. Then OJ stands up and says, "Yes, I killed them". Then God speaks and says, "Yes, OJ killed them". Also, imagine OJ had a drunken, broken-down, public defender during his trial. The jury still would have set him free, and let's assume all of them were honest people doing their best to be fair. The prosecutors had more to do with the verdict than all the evidence, testimony, and lawyers put together.

The prosecutor's reasoning followed these lines: They had an air-tight case which they just knew would convince anyone and everyone that OJ is guilty. However, if the jury was chosen at random, or full of whites, then the people in the Hood would riot, because they would believe this was just another case of a high-tech lynching of a black man. In order to prevent this, the jury should be largely black and from the Hood. The evidence would be so overwhelming that they would have to find him guilty, and the danger of rioting would be lessened. This reasoning and logic are excellent, but the fear and hatred of the police because of daily injustices, real and/or preceived, outweighed any evidence and was underestimated by the prosecutors.

If, as it was assumed at the start, these were all honest citizens trying to be fair, they really believed the cops were framing OJ. They would think the video, God's voice, and OJ's admission were faked. Is it possible that some...or even all...would vote to free him to get even with the white man? Of course, it is. The point is that the jury would set him free regardless of lawyers, testimony, or evidence.