What if O.J. didn’t do it? Film suggests serial killer—not Simpson—murdered Brown, Goldman

[TPaine7]

44. Do you think that Ron Goldman's fists had extensive bruising because he repeatedly punched a wall

instead of OJ for minutes? Why was he, in a several minutes death struggle, unable to put a mark on OJ?

And why is it impossible that whoever planted blood on that sock--and forgot to keep it from bleeding through to the other side--couldn't have planted OJ's blood at the scene?

And how did the conveniently "incriminating" poorly planted sock manage to move itself into place after the initial photos?

And why would a detective in one of the most corrupt police forces carry around a suspect's blood for extended periods of time?

Any one of these in isolation would raise reasonable doubt. Together, they make the prosecution's case look like Swiss cheese.

The best science in the world is no good if it's based on bad data. And it is more likely by far that there was planted evidence than that the blood actually did pass through OJ's ankle or that Ron punched OJ repeatedly and left no physical evidence.

There is such a thing as over-reliance on technology. That's why technical types are warned in school to test their advanced math and technical analyses using common sense.

Simple physics--blood can't pass through an intact ankle, for example--trumps FBI lab tests.