Maybe Scheck's IP work can help wash off the OJ stuff, including this post-trial appearance with Peter Neufeld on Charlie Rose. Given they are surely intelligent enough to discern their client's actual guilt, I think they both come across as endzone-dancing dickheads.

Yah I don't find the "son theory" plausible because even if one theorizes that OJ could have given away those Bruno Magli shoes to him, one of the big loose ends would still be, why O.J. had a significant cut on the middle finger of his left hand, a cut he provided no good reason for, when interviewed by police. And…

And this "Worst of OJ Simpson 'The Interview' (1996)" video uses the song Brilliant Disguise.

Yah that was a slight biff in the review.

On another note, not sure if it was intended, but that waiter interaction brought to mind Ron Goldman, as he was of course a waiter when OJ killed him.

"Kardashian dropped the Bible like a rock. OJ knows Robert knows, and lost him forever as a friend."

Yah I realize Kardashian eventually went public with his doubts about OJ, but I still fault him for partying with his friend Nicole's killer at the post-verdict bash.

As do Amanda Knox, Jodi Arias, and Steven Avery.

Cuba Gooding looked so tiny when he got up to make the "real killer" speech at the party. That particular shot was not nearly as forgiving as when he was seated or in close-up. He did a good job, I think, but his casting meant any simulation of OJ's size and depth of voice, was off the table from the jump.

Vincent Bugliosi said the jury was biased and not very intelligent, citing, among other things, at least one jury member's dismissal of the DNA evidence, which was not as well understood in 1995. I would guess he was right on both counts.

Here's a second photo of the Kardashian and OJ at the post-verdict party, presumably taken within moments of the other one.

FINALE. Very good.

If you actually read my comments without the filter of your emotion, and with the benefit of actual case facts, you might see they are even-handed and based in objective reality, while your own are needlessly sneering, smearing, and faith-based.

They are not "baseless" questions or points, but rather are based in documented facts of the case, and represent legitimate reservations about Mr. Echols' supposed non-involvement that an objective reading of the case would raise. If one or more of the points provided is not based in fact, I welcome hearing about it.

Great, thanks. So you'd rather our journalists be storytellers.

As to whether wrongful convictions happen — of course they happen. Steven Avery's conviction for rape in 1985 is an example.

"Obsession… worked up… were you their prosecutor… are you just some random authoritarian…"

I hear you. My own concern, now, is the airbrushing of history, and a casual lack of journalistic integrity.

To fill in a couple of blanks: Echols' 12-yr-old phone galpal Jennifer Bearden told police that when she'd tried to reach Mr. Echols at 8 or 9pm, she was told he was not at home. She went on to say that later on that night, when she asked Mr. Echols where he'd been, he replied that he'd been out with co-defendant…

It's a testament to the effectiveness of movies/books produced by the convicted and their advocates (along with the rubber-stamping of wm3 innocence by a truly lazy, complacent media) that mention of the objective possibility of guilt now results in predictable, kneejerk reactions of disgust.