Ah, demonstrating ignorance on yet another subject you know nothing about.<quoted text>
Credibility is relative, depending on the jury.
Recall the O.J. Trial where the jury didn't give a flying f*ck about credibility, evidence or guilt. They went solely by skin color.
Wake up and get off your high horse, Doodette.
The Bronco was broken into while in police custody.
The LA County District Attorney's Office and the Medical Examiner's Office could not explain why 1.5 cm³ of blood were missing from the original 8 cm³ taken from Simpson and placed into evidence.
Defense medical expert Dr. Henry Lee of the Connecticut State Police Forensic Science Laboratory testified that the only way such a pattern of blood stain could appear on the sock was if Simpson had a "hole" in his ankle, or a drop of blood was placed on the sock while it was not being worn.
The gloves didn't fit.
Prosecutors claimed that the presence of O.J. Simpson's blood at the crime scene was the result of blood dripping from cuts on the middle finger of his left hand. Police noted his wounds on June 13, 1994, and asserted that these were suffered during the fatal attack on Ronald Goldman. However, the defense noted that none of the gloves found had any cuts.
The policeman who found the gloves turned out to be a virulent racist and perjured himself on the witness stand.
Fuhrman was called back to the witness stand by the defense to answer more questions about the discovery of the blood marks and leather glove that he supposedly found on Simpson's property hours after the murders took place. When questioned by attorney Gerald Uelmen, Fuhrman, with his lawyer standing by his side, pleaded the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination to avoid further questioning.
Bottom line, the jury was not about to convict Simpson on the basis of testimony from a racist cop and mountains of tainted evidence.