Look, the one major component of O.J.'s first trial debacle was when, obviously, the gloves that were used in the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman were displayed as evidence, and of which were an obvious miscarriage of the justice system in the evidence demonstration. Let me explain why. Such a simple, little fact that was obviously overlooked in the original trial. Here is what it appears to me to be. When O.J., the devious, snake that he is, was the one to kill his wife and the restaurant waiter. When Goldman came to Nicole's home, he only meant to return a pair of glasses that Nicole had left. That was Goldman's error. Never personalize with clients. Now, when O.J. came to do Nicole "in", at the time Goldman was there, he (O.J.) was wearing a pair of surgical gloves on his hands at that time. Nobody wants their "prints" all over everything. So, wearing the surgical gloves, he previously bought a pair (or had someone buy for him) of leather gloves, smaller in size than O.J.'s hands are. O.J. knew that preponderance of evidence would swing out from O.J.'s obvious presence at Nicol's house, to someone else...as someone else must be smaller in size than O.J. is. These gloves, he was wearing at the time of the murders, although the gloves were "small", they could fit over O.J.'s hands, tightly...but a fit anyway, as he dempnstrated in court, and as his attorneys so obviously made clear...it could not be O.J., no way...these gloves belong to someone else. Then, why did not the plaintiff attorneys then argue that what my point is above...it could have changed the trial around. I have the actual trial proceedings written down (in book form, verbatum) and a friend of mine in California sent it to me several years following the trial. This point I made, and several others, lead me to believe O.J. was not to be made accused to the murders. But this new trial showed him guilty...obviously...as there are videos to prove it this time. No evidence tampering this time. No lies this time. Not "this time", O.J. Stumblebum!

Oh...just one more point...sorry...the "hat" or ski hat was also "small". So were the shoes that were brought into evidence when the murderer...or someone else walked in the blood of the victims...could be an accomplice of O.J. He was not alone...and it is a wonder...that there were no "hair sample evidence" inside the hat to show anyone had ever worn it. The original trial was a complete farce.

O.J. got what he deserved, he was tried and convicted on the evidence provided to the jury on that incident only. As far as killing Nicole and Ron , he got away with 2 murders, and should have fried for it. This is a perfect example of KARMA!!!! Have fun with BUBBA O.J. You don't even deserve jail....jail is too good for you!!!!

"justacommenter"...yes, you are right...the trial was convened and the evidence that was presented was actual evidence...with blood on that evidence that matched the DNA of Nicole and Goldman. But it was how that evidence was described and presented to the jury in the trial, that my point is trying to make, by O. J.'s attorney team. They are the ones to turn this murder trial into a circus. He will fry in hell later for this, believe me. He got away with it on earth, but, although O. J. cannot be tried twice for the crime, and an adjudication has already been made, a higher court later on will certainly throw this guy away where he really belongs.

Johninphilippines.....i stated my opinion about the Nicole and Ronald isuue without facts, my opinion thats it!!!!! I...on the other hand gave my opinion about his recent trial bases on the facts ...actaul facts and gave my opinion , don't come on here and totally twist my comment all together.So, my dear ....vocal ......know it all .....friend....in the end you pretty much feel the same as me , but word it different to make yourself sound professional, and all that...when in actualality, you really sound stupid most of the time...half the time you make no sense, and even as hard as we try.....we still say wtf????

You people missed the boat concerning Pat LaMarche's article. It's not just about O.J.'s innocence or guilt, it is about men who abuse women. The stats are frightening. How many women who get raped don’t even report it? Afterall, it is always the victim that carries the shame, while tabloids have a field day exploiting people's misery, or the media diverting us with silly gadgets nobody needs, or an SNL skit on Sarah Palin? How about the so called liberal press which is a fiction concocted by the elites who own the airwaves? Why can't people face the truth that their own government would plot heinous acts against American citizens, to get us into endless wars for oil and empire building? How many women get stalked in our major cities. How much is any of this really reported? Ms. LaMarche raises the greater question, with Simpson just as an extreme example of the wife beater turn murderer. He is the symbol of the ultimate abuser. What right does any man have to assault female children and adults, or commit incest? What does this say about the moral imperatives of this American empire? The only morality in this country is about whether I have more than you do, i.e.: a huge monster SUV, or a posh house, even though I can't live within my means. In a culture of excess, violence deepens--until we have a civilization gone mad, with no sense of the past, with no lessons learned through a carerful study of history. Ms. LaMarche offers a partial solution, at least one where we can do something, however small, to make a commitment to sanity and righteousness. Finally, for any kind of freedom to work, men too must be liberated from the violence that has been inculcated in them from birth, beginning with glorification of male prowess through violence, guns and inappropriate sexual conduct. Men in America have been handed a false blueprint. They somehow feel they are lords of the manure pile. This just shows that many men feel inadequate and bring their problems home, and seek the easy scapegoat. A great poet once said, “To be men not destroyers.”

“You can help victims of domestic violence by donating to your local domestic violence shelter. And if you’re in danger call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 800-799-7233 or go to its Web site at www.ncadd.org.” Just do it. I am.

"justacommenter"...and you missed my point completely. Apparently you do not have any legal experience, license, or education in that field. I do. My comments are not stupid. I told you that I have the complete portfolio transcript on the trial, sent to me by a friend of mine in California. I dount you have the transcript with the actual words in your library. Now, I realize that you had no facts and you just discussed your opinion. i must agree with you on that, and do, completely understand and respect that opinion; but apparently you don't want me, or accept mine! Someone told me just yesterday that some people do not have a life...and they don't want other's to have one, either. Seems that is your position.

"marccreate", your blog is well-taken. The subjects do get off-center from the original article...but Pat LaMarche made statements concerning Simpson, and that was the point from where the rest of the comments went flying. Simpson is the "doer", but the problems lie in the darned justice system. That is the system that took Simpson off the hook...not Simpson himself. The system is allowing these situations you described to increase, and not go without enforcement and punishment. It is human nature to go more than an inch every time the tolerance bar is raised. Thanks for your comment, it is a good one and well-takeb.

"justacommenter"...if you do not understand what I say in my postings, I think you may not understand the subject matter, cannot comprehend English translation, or simply do not follow my wording and writing style to the subject you may not know anything about in the first place. Now I'am not going to use this system to have a peeing-contest with you, or any other person who just expresses their opinions and emotions to others; yours sounds irrational and incomprehensible to others - possibly. It is just that nobody is wanting to get into a war of the words. I speak 3 languages and use them daily in both speaking and in posting emails and website postings. Maybe it could be a word or two out of place, but most people can see through it. So...these "OMG"s, "WTF"s...and all the rest, just show your mentality. Lastly, my comments on Simpson were "conjecture". A "what could have been". There were not facts...but could be facts if the court did it's job to counter-argue the case back to the defense attorneys.