i thought he got off on technicality, i was way young back then and don't know much about the case, maybe i should read up, can anyone provide a summary
O.J. got off because the jury didn't trust the police. Part of it was when Mark Furman was asked if he'd ever used the "N" word; he said no under oath, then tapes were played of him using it endlessly, as well as bragging about framing witnesses and planting evidence. (This was to a supposed writer who was going to write a book loosely based on his experiences.) There were more material problems as well; the state presented fiber evidence placing O.J. at the scene, yet the defense was able to show photographic evidence of the bodies covered with a blankets from Nicole's home prior to forensics arriving which were likely to have O.J.'s hair. Some of the evidence had been improperly stored so that it was destroyed, yet findings were still submitted as evidence even though experts testified that the evidentiary value was destroyed long before it was tested. And if memory serves, some of the evidence from O.J.'s house was actually taken to the crime scene before blood was found, breaking the chain of possession. All in all, the jury thought O.J. did it but the state had totally wrecked its credibility. O.J. later wrote a book that pretty much admitted the killings.
It's well worth reading about if you can find an account that isn't biased one way or another.
Facebook
Twitter