Reverend said:
I like to describe the OJ trial as being about three murders: the killing of Ron Goldman, Nicole Brown, and the case against OJ Simpson.
In a summary of the Simpson trial, legendary LA prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi described with eloquence how the case against Simpson was botched from start to finish by terrible police work and brutal incompetence on the part of the prosecutors. People forget that when Simpson returned from Chicago after the murders, he sat with police and agreed to be interviewed without counsel. In that interview, Simpson made so many incriminating statements that Bugliosi made a compelling argument that he could have convicted Simpson with no other evidence but the statement itself. And yet, almost unbelievably, Marcia Clark never introduced the statement into evidence because she didn't want the jury to hear Simpson say that he was innocent without the ability to cross examine him. Considering that the entire premise of the trial was that Simpson had pleaded not guilty, this is tantamount to prosecutorial malpractice.
Is it possible that Hernandez will have the good luck to discover police misconduct or be tried by a band of incompetent prosecutors? Sure. But it's highly unlikely. And absent the most unusual of circumstances, the mere fact that AH is a celebrity with good lawyers does not mean that reasonable doubt can be manufactured from thin air.
Hernandez is known to be with the victim that night. He (and his co-defendants) can be placed at the scene of the crime with absolute certainty as the murder was taking place. And Hernandez is on tape brandishing a gun minutes after the murder. Combine this with his brazen attempts to destroy evidence immediately following the murder and the fact that one of his co-defendants is apparently prepared to roll on him and he is left without any real defense.
He is going down.
} not feel any pain. 
