The DNA evidence (one in a billion chance) can not differentiate between a father and son - they have the closest DNA possible. So all that DNA "one in a billion" odds has to be thrown out the window regarding OJs son. All the other evidence presented in the case applies equally to the son and OJ (son lived in that house on his father's property and had access to the car, his father's shoes, father's gloves, etc.). I believe that the odds that the son did it are very high - much higher than the odds that OJ did. Of course - OJ couldn't make this case in court: he was likely covering for his son.