Sir, You are in very large company in your conviction that OJ is guilty but a jury of his peers found him not guilty, which must mean you reject a system of justice that uses the jury system. All can comment, and many do, re court decisions made by jury but in our system of law they give the final word, therefore despite your strongly argued conclusion, OJ is “not guilty”. You don’t speculate on the actions of the LA police and the possible evidence tampering (pretty widespread when, the claim is made, “to insure the conviction of a defendant” obviously guilty. Also the possible involvement of drug deal gone wrong added to the likelihood that OJ was there to spy on his former wifes activities, discovered the crime went to the bodies to confirm what he saw then returned hurriedly to his house to make his booked chicago, flight knowing he would be the prime and probably only likely suspect. Well my speculation is I suggest as good as any other. But I am glad that time has brought you a measure of maturity, politically speaking!
