OJ had to be found innocent because the tests of the blood found in his home, on some of his clothing and, specifically, on the glove were screwed up first by the detectives that snagged the items and, second, by the lab during testing. The items picked up at OJ's house were bagged and tagged but, instead of being put immediately into evidence, the detectives carried them around in the trunks of their cars for a day. The blood evidence began to deteriorate (decomposed and mix with bacteria) and the chain of evidence was broken. Because the few samples the lab was able to get were contaminated during testing, they were worthless as evidence. Once the blood evidence was tossed there was nothing substantial that connected OJ to the crime.
The Zimmerman case is just Florida and the South redux. This is why it's so frustrating. Zimmerman, like any other anonymous citizen, sees someone, leaves his car and confronts the person (which most of us consider a threatening act because Zimmerman has no authority to do so) then, when the person he confronts fights back, he has a right to kill him? Nope. This skewed situation might work in Florida but most of the states would consider it undue force: manslaughter.
Both oj and zimmerman are guilty.
It is the jury. A different jury probably would have come up with a different verdict. They say a case is won or lost because of the kind of jurors you have.
OJ had money.
i agree with Woof
Money buy everything
