not debating your conclusion, onlyt how you seemingly got there. I felt at the time the prosecution missed out on OJ. They presented a terrible case.
That would take a *long* time to fully explain.It has to do with my personal experience with lawyers (my case was connected to an individual who somehow made $75 million of other people's money disappear.It was written up in papers from coast to coast).It also has to do with my experience with women who've claimed to have been raped (decades working in a big city ER).And there are other factors as well.
As for OJ...the prosecution's mistake was to present a case designed for jurors with an IQ of 100.Johnnie Cochrane knew that moving the trial "downtown" was his only hope.