whitehall
Diamond Member
It wasn't "the murder weapon" because there was no evidence to link it with the crime.
It was "similar" to the type of knife used in the murder... and so is at least one of the kitchen knives in over 50% (pulled off the top of my head) of american kitchens.
OJ was aquitted of the murder - he is an innocent man - at least legally.
If he committed the murder and got away with it then he is either very lucky or very good. If he was lucky then the police would not have "manufactured" evidence trying to link him to the crime. If he was good then it is likely that he has had practice- there isn't a line of dead people following him so I believe what the court found - NOT GUILTY.
He didn't commit the crime and he didn't pay someone to do it. Someone else did it and the police are clueless as to who that might be because they screwed up so bad when they ignored the other evidence and tried to pin it on an innocent man. Now the other evidence is gone and so is the guilty party.
I beg to differ, it is the murder weapon if the perpetrator says it is. Who is better qualified to make the statement (if it's true) than the man what done it??