I never can understand this idea that the "Court of Public Opinion" (i.e. the Peanut Gallery) has some magical ability to discern actual truth from facts that is lacking in the members of a jury. Especially since, unlike most juries, the Peanut Gallery is a part-time audience constantly barraged by allegations, accusations, commentary, opinions, speculations, and emotional B/S from whichever media outlet it prefers to watch...in between favorite programs and other leisure activities.
A jury deals only with actual evidence with the duty to detemine facts leading to their truly "informed" final decision. You many not agree with the final decision, but you are certainly not more "knowledgeable" about the case than they are. It should be equally offensive when whoever disagreed with the OJ case thinks they know more than the jury who made the final decision. Civil suit notwithstanding due to the low level of proof required in one.