I guess 'everyone knew he was guilty' except the jury. So again, you're comparing a guy who was acquitted of his charges to a guy who was convicted. The analogy is as worthless now as the first time you said it because you're trying to draw a conclusion about how one guy got punished by society for his crimes vs. a guy who society decided committed no crime. I'm also certain OJ committed murder, but it doesn't make the analogy any more relevant, because you're not comparing two like things.
The "society" still believes that he committed those crimes. Only the corrupt judge thought otherwise. And why shouldn't I make the comparison? The fact that OJ bribed his way out of punishment is no excuse to declare him as innocent. I just compared two people who perpetrated criminal acts. Whether they were punished for their crimes or not is insignificant here.
What society believes is irrelevant. When you're making a comparison about two punishments to conclude that one is unfair, you need to have two instances where there were convictions, otherwise you're not comparing punishments. It doesn't matter what society thinks of his guilt, because that doesn't let you compare punishments handed down by a court, because in the eyes of the law there was no crime in the first instance, so there would be no punishment to follow. For all intents and purposes, you compared someone who committed a crime to someone who did not and concluded that the criminal's punishment was not fair because the non-criminal was not punished. The analogy is still invalid, and your attempts to justify it are getting more and more ridiculous. (Bribery, corrupt judge, ignorance of the fact that it was a jury trial...) Just save some dignity and stop already.