re: Is there anyone who actually thinks that OJ is innocent?

quote:

---

I might be remembering it incorrectly, but I think the shoe print wasn't determined to be OJ's until the civil trial. Yes, they had the imprint and approximate size, and they knew it was a Bruno Magli shoe but they couldn't connect them to OJ.

It was the civil trial that found the picture of OJ wearing Bruno Magli shoes.

Again, it's been 30 years.

---

You are correct. They didn't identify the shoes as his until the civil trial when they found a picture of him wearing the shoes. I don't think the question is about the criminal trial, but whether you believe him to be innocent. The shoe picture was icing on the guilt cake for me.

The criminal case was botched badly so I wasn't surprised by the verdict. Law enforcement and the prosecution lost that case, but I believe he was guilty or he was on the scene at some point, at the very least.