[posterchild]

6+ Billion people on the planet, and they ask the ONE GUY who has already been 'PROVEN INNOCENT' to find his opinion on how it might have happened. I just don't understand the media.

[Callahan]

Remember when OJ was universally known as a pleasant, likable guy. Seems like a million years ago.

[Oberon]

...they ask the ONE GUY who has already been 'PROVEN INNOCENT'...

He wasn't proven innocent...he was found 'not guilty.' That means that the jury might have strongly suspected he was guilty, but didn't believe that the state proved its case beyond doubt.

Big difference between 'innocent' and 'not guilty.'

[Arizona Carolyn]

He wasn't proven innocent. They moved the jury into downtown LA, a district that even if he had stood up and said he did it they would have aquited him... there was a civil trial where he was shown to have definitly commited the murder.

That was the beginning of DNA and the totally over the heads of the jurors... that he got off is laid right at the feet of the DA and Marsha Clark and Chris Darden that they moved the trial so they could have a larger courtroom for TV and the two Asst. DA's spent too much time playing footsie along with a dip wad of a judge.

[Smittie]

6+ Billion people on the planet, and they ask the ONE GUY who has already been 'PROVEN INNOCENT' to find his opinion on how it might have happened. I just don't understand the media.

Actually he wasn't proven innocent just found "not guilty". I wouldn't trust the jury at his trial to judge a pie baking contest much less be able to determine a court case.