I have ben reading for about 14 years ..... Did O.J. really do it I read Furman I thought O.j.did it?

Bit now I have other thoughts Can any one answer...

You and about seventy percent of the country hought O.J. did "it". but this is what the problem is. Legally he was found not guilty. Why? The chain of custody of the broken on the blood evidence. The blood tests were inconclusive given the fact that the majority of it was a pool of blood was a mixture of three of more DNA's which technicians and policement stepped through with or with out shoe coverings. The second glove, Furman found at Rockingham managed to be in a place where nobody had been in months surrounded by spiderwebs that showed no sign of damage. The only witnesses to the alleged return home were conflicting as to when they heard what and that all seemed to be related to barking dog, barking for reasons unknown. The only witnesses saying they saw Simpson's Bronco on the way to the house sold their story to a tabloid before the police investigation even ended. The blood in the Bronco seemed to be similar to the blood from at the mourder scene but it seemed to only be in locations that made no sense for it to be. Simpson , who should have been covered with blood from Goldman's wounds and Nicole's wounds left almost no blood in the car, a car that was lacking in security in the police impound as photographs made their way into more tabloids. Add to this that no murder weapon was ever found or confirmed for that fact. The blood clothes were never found, the infamous Bruno Magli shoes were never found, and the gloves which where supposed to be Simpson's did not fit and if you ever watch the movie "The Suspect" with Cher you might just find another pair just like them. In case you are wondering, the only reason Simpson was found liable for the murders was because the burden of proof was lowered to allow more evidence in and make it easier to get a verdict against him. The burden went from beyond a reasonable doubt down to a preponderance of the evidence, or basically 51%. So, the original jury decided he did not kill them, and the second jury using more circumstantial and brady material decided that he likely was responsible for the murders. That is why he lost most of his money for a crime the law says he did not commit but could have.

And as for his recent problems, this centers around a supposed robbery for items that did not belong to the man who possessed them and more than likely still belong to Simpson until a court finds, otherwise. So, that should be a fun case also.

In my (not very educated) opinion, it was a setup, by person or persons unknown. The business of the gloves simply does not make sense.