My 2 Cents

Many people say that OJ Simpson was guilty. But according to the law, a person is guilty if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Maybe he did it, who knows. But according to the evidence there are too many pieces left open, which creates reasonable doubt, such as:
Ron Goldman was in the peak of his prime physically. OJ was old and had arthritis. Ron Goldman had alot of bruises and cuts. This indicated that there was a long struggle. If there was a long struggle, then OJ would have had bruises as well. OJ had NO bruises. None. Zilch. Also how could an old OJ hold off a young well built guy with ONE HAND (OJ would have had to be holding the knife in the other). In fact OJ had to hold of Ron Goldman AND his X-WIFE with one hand AND not get bruised, and some how miraculously not get any of the truckload of blood on himself so that no blood gets on/inside his Bronco AND get home and within 6minutes shower. FUNAMENTAL LAW: You are innocent until proven guilty. PROVEN GUILTY: Must be done without any doubt. If there is reasonable doubt in the case, then there cannot be a guilty verdict.

Mark Fhurman on his second time on the stand when asked the yes or no question "did you plant evidence?" stated "I wish to assert my 5th ammendment right. "

OJ had a cut on his hand. The bloody glove found did not have a cut to match. NOR DID THE GLOVE FIT.

OJ is not guilty in two ways: because of the police planted evidence, he did not get a free trial which is a RIGHT. There's too much doubt. Too many pieces of the puzzle missing.

You can't tell me the above stuff I stated doesn't make you wonder.