Dear Huan Yi and Juju,
It is the dream team's job to create doubt. You make it sound as though they did something bad.
It was the job of the prosecution to prove guilt in the first trial "beyond a reasonable doubt." They failed. It was their job to make sure there were no "convenient doubts." It was their job to make sure that all doubts were clearly unreasonable and easily dismissable with any thought at all.
It think it is racism to blame the jury for the failings of the prosecution and its case and the presentation they made of the case. Vincent Bugliosi had a look at the case, wrote a book about it, and concluded that the prosecution had blown it. Bugliosi had also been an LA prosecutor with a long string of winning murder trials. He had the experience to come to that conclusion.
The standard "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a higher standard, one more difficult to reach, than the one that was required to be met in the civil trial. This was "a preponderance of the evidence." This means more than half. This lesser standard was met without any trouble at all in the second trial.
The conclusion I reach is that the question was not one of racism but one of competence. If the jury in the first trial had been presented with a case which met the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," I believe it would have convicted, though it would have been, for many reasons, including some with racial overtones, reluctant to do so. The issue never came up.
I remind you that there is no such thing as an "innocent" verdict. Once a defendant reaches trial, he or she can never be thought of as innocent again because of the effort that has been made to ruin their reputation by representitives of the state. Some of that effort will always stick, so matter what. The best that can be offered by the legal system is the much less satisfactory "not guilty." From the first trial, O.J. will always be a bit more obviously "not Guilty" than other people in his position, with the emphasis on the "guilty" part of the verdict and the understanding here that the "not" part of it means more exactly "not proven."
Efforts to go beyond the verdict are probably evidence of our own particular prejudices.
O.J., then is probably more than fifty percent guilty, but not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, at least with those particular lawyers and that particular jury at that time.
Ask me, though, and I wouldn't want my daughter to marry the guy. He simply doesn't seem to have a great track record for impulse control, and he has a propensity for foolish plans.
Yours, Bob Kaven