A while ago, on a show (might have been Hard Copy or the like) they had the prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi on, along with two of the O.J. Jurors (both were Black females). Bugliosi went over every piece of damning evidence with the two women, and even with his expert opinion, the two women brushed off every single piece of evidence with the generic "even if there's a shred of doubt we won't convict him" card.
Basically, they cared little about the evidence and how much it pointed towards O.J.'s guilt. From the start those two and the jurors were not going to convict O.J. regardless of how damning the evidence was. I don't think they even considered any possible rioting if they did find him guilty. They just wanted to let the juice off the hook. Mark Fuhrman and the issues with the sampling were just gravy to the jury. Again they weren't going to convict him from the start even if these issues didn't come up, but it only made things 'easier' for them.
The only way the jury would have ever found O.J. guilty is if they personally saw him committing the crimes from video, or any evidence they simply cannot brush off.
|