2. okay, he changed clothes. at the crime scene? where?

3. even if he changed clothes at the crime scene - he would've still been covered in blood at least from his neck down to his knees. likely SOAKED in it (Nicole was 'nearly decapitated', remember. and Goldman was also sliced up - the theory is that he killed each of them at very close range w/a knife). so there'd be blood on his hands and arms too.

3a. if he wiped his hands - where are the bloody towels?

4. w/so much blood on his hands and arms there'd be more blood inside the Bronco. everything he touched in that Bronco as he drove from the murder scene to his house would have blood on it. so - the outside door handle, the inside door handle, the ignition, the gear shift, the inside console, the arm rests. if he used the radio - that's got blood on it. if he used the A/C (it was June and he was mad enough to kill - so he's probably HOT) that's got blood on it. maybe the rearview mirror too if he touched that.

5. there'd also be more blood at his house - on the security door keypad outside the house, on the outside doorknob, on doorknobs inside the house too. i think they found some blood in his bathroom - but not enough to explain how it got there considering how much blood would've been on his body and the lack of blood between the murder scene, the bronco and his bathroom.

6. per the state's timeline - OJ had a tight window in which to remove and dispose of all of this blood evidence. how did he have time to do all of that so meticulously (while still so enraged he could kill) and still catch that flight to Chicago?

6a. if he had help - who helped him?

7. keep in mind, the police had access to OJ's house for hours before he returned home from Chicago. and he left his house in a hurry. i don't recall hearing/reading that his house was a mess as if he'd been in and out cleaning/hiding/disposing of __ and then running out to catch a flight. also, if he'd left any of this stuff at his house the cops would've found it.

8. why was he behind Kato's little hut to drop the glove?

...the State had the burden to prove the case. they have to answer these questions and more. their theory must account for this stuff. if you're saying he's guilty then you must have some theory that accounts for all of this and more. it can't just be 'he beat her and he stalked her so he's guilty'. if he's guilty - prove it. <-- the State of California couldn't. can you?