I feel that both juries reached the right conclusion, even if they may have done it for the wrong reasons. Simpson was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because the defense offered evidence of blood sample tampering (which, it was later revealed, was not an unusual thing for LAPD to do when it really needed a conviction) that the prosecution did not successfully refute. I also felt there were holes in the timeline about when/where Simpson was while he was back at Rockingham after the crime was committed.
The civil journey had the lower bar of “preponderance of the evidence” (better than 50-50 he did it) and also had the additional evidence of the Bruno Magli shoe prints at the crime scene, which was not introduced in the first trial.
I think Bailey’s “new evidence” is a red herring anyway. Just because another person might have been in the area, doesn’t exonerate Simpson at all unless you can prove Simpson was *not* in the area.
If memory serves, the Bruno Magli shoe prints were in the criminal case too. What was new to the civil case was the photos of him wearing them while doing his sports reporting. Remember the phrase, “I would never wear those ugly ass shoes”?
“I feel that both juries reached the right conclusion, even if they may have done it for the wrong reasons.”
There was overwhelming evidence presented in both trials about his guilt. There was no evidence of tampering.