I need help on OJ's case

I need freeper's help on this matter. I heard many conservative talk show hosts believe that OJ is guilty of murder. Does it mean non of them believe our court system? OJ was found not guilty by 12 peers. It was not a mistrial. There was no appeal to the case. I understand he was found guilty in the civil case. I've never seen any company ask about civil lawsuits in their new employee questionnaire. My question: "How do those hosts know OJ is guilty?" I do not believe any one of those hosts was in that courtroom through the whole trial but those jurors were. I don't believe any one of those hosts studied the whole court record (transcribe), those 12 people did. I'm so confused . Where is the "reasonable doubt"? Where is the "defendent does not have to prove innocent?" I love our system but seems like most conservatives do not believe it. They are willing to condemn a person without thorough study. They do not believe their peers. I heard many times that people say most WHITE people believe OJ is gulity but I've never believed it. To tell the truth, I start having doubt now. Al Sharpton made a most outragious racist statement yesterday about Letterman show, come to think of it, he probably knows something I don't. My freeper friends, help me to understand.

Sorry sir, you misunderstood me or I should say I've not expressed myself clearly. English is not my first laguage.
I'm an outsider looking at the case, or maybe I should say I'm a new comer to the system. I do have questions because I've never experienced this kind of reactions from conservatives before, even talk show hosts I listen all the time.
If you read all responses, most of them blame the jury. I understand that. But from my stand point of view, why no blame to the civil court jury for voting "GUILTY" to make a statement? Why nobody point out those black jurors at the civil court was Swedish hostage?
That's how I look at it, from a person who is not a white or a black but who is an America.
To tell the truth, I really learn a lot from this thread, a real eye opener.

Thanks! Happy Thanksgiving!

Many appear to think that "reasonable" doubt over one small piece of "evidence" by itself is enough to claim the "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" cop-out...

Not to open up this can of worms again... but!

The way the evidence was mis-handled by the police introduced a heck of a lot of doubt into the blood evidence and the glove evidence, which were at the heart of the Prosecution's case. Whether that mis-handling was due to incompetence or because of a scheme to concoct evidence does not matter at the end of the day.

But the fact remains that a Detective found one glove at the crime scene, and that same Detective later vaulted the wall and was by himself on OJ's property when he found the matching glove.

The fact remains that you have the police searched the Bronco and the crime scene time and time again for OJ's blood, and found none until after a Detective took OJ's blood sample, put it in his pocket, and visited the crime scene and the Bronco. If you remember, in the days after the murders, OJ's attorneys obstructed like crazy in order to delay the taking of OJ's blood. At the trial, we found out why. If the Police had obtained OJ's blood in a timely fashion, there would not have been four or five failed searches of the crime scene and the Bronco before Van Atter had a chance to visit them with his little vial of blood.

Once doubt is introduced into the glove evidence and the blood evidence, the Prosecution was down to footprints and barking dogs, and the case was lost.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.