Originally Posted by B-Line

Wait one sec.. Lets just back up..

Just because OJ was not found "guilty" beyond a "REASONABLE DOUBT", does not mean that he is innocent.

If a jury acquits someone, that does not mean they are not guilty of the crime, it only means they are not "found guilty under a court of law." And since the burdeon of proof is on the prosecutor, it can easily be argued that the tampered evidence and race issue with Mark Furhman were enough to raise "doubt" with the jury about the evidence of question.
-- FINE, I agree.

But to say that OJ is innocent... Well, come on...
"Found-not guilty" does not equal innocent.

B