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.
Clyde4 in the Washinton PostI love this movie was made because its how I saw things at the time . I told someone after the trial that Jason did it and they thought I was crazy . Im making them watch this when it comes out . EVERYONE should see this!!!""The sad thing is nothing will ever be done because too many people will never let it happen . If they start looking at Jason than it would mean they were wrong about OJ and there was a conspiracy to convict him. I really believe Mr. Fung wanted to tell the truth but didnt want to lose his job.
Connie Reekes on Facebook