Has always fascinated me how people can judge whenever someone is guilty or not when they were not even there to watch the actual act happen. They base their opinions (and that's all they are) based on what they read or heard; heresay evidence. Based on previous characterizations, in this case football achievements, a few admire him, but others deplore him based on his race, marrying a white woman, quick temper (Nicole called 911 more than a couple of times on him), behavior after the fact (Bronco ride). So many christian folks ignoring "judge not, lest ye be judged". Yet the jury judged him to be innocent while others in the civil trial found him guilty. Who to believe?
DISCLAIMER: I posted long ago that a few months before the dirty deed was done that I got O.J.'s signature on a football card. That did not make me think he was innocent, nor his lawyer's statement, if the gove doesn't fit, you must acquit. Mark Furhman's lying and prejudicial attitude towards 'N-words'.
A real conundrum. If all this sounds like I have an opinion on his guilt or innocence, I don't, because like others who think they do, I really don't know.