Fred - yup. I recall that rather vividly... because my ex had the trial on as soon as we got home from work and, after it was done for the day, she played the tape of what she missed while at work. I'm not saying he is innocent. I'm saying that DNA is not ABSOLUTELY conclusive in conviction, as many laymen have been "led" to believe by prosecuters. It certainly can be in exclusion, which is a completely different analysis. As for my point, if DNA is offered up as grounds for conviction, again, by those not aware of the pitfalls, a jury of twelve stupid people may convict an innocent man... and we all know there are twenty four stunned arses in the line. (BTW, DNA trepidation was not the only reason OJ was found innocent, but the prosecution put so much weight on it while attempting to obscure the fact that so many things were handled poorly, especially the blood samples, that the jury , I think, felt slighted. Judge that on your own.)

I don't want to start a discussion about OJ. I just pointed out that 84,000 others could have been there watching him do it and got a nick in the fray. Perhaps we should charge all of them as accessories ?