Let's say hypothetically there's an issue of planting evidence and the reason someone may have planted an item is racism. You must first prove that an item was planted before their rationale for doing such an act becomes relevant in trial. The defense never established that any evidence was planted. Therefore, the underlying testimony about racism, in my opinion, was inadmissible. OJ seemed to indicate he would debate him on the Internet.
Court TV is prepared to simulcast such a debate if that is acceptable.
There is evidence such as footprints and blood spots that may be interpreted. And there is testimony which is usually someone's personal opinions, expert opinions or observations about an event. It seemed to me when Simpson referred to facts, he was referring to his version of events or his interpretation of events. The mixture of race and celebrity in this case along with the horrific details of the murder and all the ancillary stories made for the ultimate high-profile trial. And will be looking for the new issue to find out as well.