Vince Bugliosi, wrote an excellent book on the subject in which he poitns out numerous errors on the part of a lot of people: Gil Garcetti, Judge Ito, The prosecutors, etc. etc. A reading of this book clears up any confusion on OJ's guilt or innocence. He did it, no doubt about it.
As for the jury, they were F----n idiots who did not have the brains of turnips. The evidence was there, but presented in a terrible fashion.
If Ito had any balls he would have been justified in throwing out the verdict and directing a guilty one. But he was too much of a lame ass.
It wasn't just the presentation that was flawed. When you have a senior investigator who talks about "niggers" freely, it raises a real question as to why his co-workers shrugged off his apparent racism. The jury was justified in considering - based on the experience of its Black members - that the 'evidence' might very well have been tainted by a general racism in the police department that only found its plainest expression in Fuhrman's words.
If Ito had any balls he would have been justified in throwing out the verdict and directing a guilty one. But he was too much of a lame ass.
Judges can only direct 'not guilty' verdicts.