Gnu:

I can only refer you to Bugliosi's book. I don't have the time or inclination to restate the evidence from OJ's trial.

However, your statement that you would not have voted guilty 'and not just because he was not proven guilty' is astounding and I hope you didn't really intend the literal meaning of those words. What you said, in effect, that even if he had been proven guilty, you would still have voted to acquit. If guilt had been established beyond a reasonable doubt, it would have been your duty to convict.