Looking at it in retrospect, it was rather strange that as devoted as they are to using DNA evidence as a tool to free those who are quite probably innocent, that they got themselves involved in a case that required that they kind of prove the unreliability of DNA evidence to help free someone who they had to believe was quite probably guilty.

I do, however, believe that the DNA evidence in the case was very likely compromised and/or tainted and therefore unreliable, and that there quite possibly or probably was misconduct on the part of members of the LAPD.

But I also think that the case against OJ was strong enough to convict him, all of those other factors notwithstanding.

I did read a very interesting book by Alan Dershowitz in which he makes a very compelling argument that the verdict, based on the way in which the case was presented and the way that the trial proceeded, was quite reasonable.

But I'm not looking to turn this into an OJ discussion, either.