In this case, I must be missing the part that says the trial of Mr. Simpson was unfair; I only see that linking the other defendant in the trial was unfair.  A fine hair to split, but that's not unusual in judicial reasoning, is it?

I would not say that Mark Fuhrman is a nice guy.  I don't think he is.  (Among other things, he's apparently a pretty rabid right-winger politically.)  But to suggest that Fuhrman ruined the case is simply ridiculous.  He was a superb and unimpeachable witness on evidence, until F. Lee Bailey's people did some in depth oppo research and completely destroyed him personally not on the facts of the case but by inference to support their assertion that the police could have framed O.J.

You really should read the book.  I assume it's out of print but that a used PB copy can be gotten for pennies through Amazon.  It's a fascinating read about how real-life detectives go about their work.  He has also, of course, some interesting things to say about the whole N-word thing, for which he does not hold himself blameless.

On September 5, 1995, Laura Hart McKinny testified. In her testimony she laid the foundation for two tape recorded excerpts which, in Defendant's own statements as recorded, impeached defendant's denial of any use of the racial epithet during the ten year period. She also testified that defendant had used the epithet in non-recorded conversations during the ten year time period.

Three other witnesses, Kathleen Bell, Natalie Singer and Roderick Hodge, each testified to instances of defendant's use of the racial epithet within the ten year period.

On September 6, 1995, defendant was recalled to the witness stand as a defense witness. Out of the presence of the trial jury, defendant asserted his constitutional right not to incriminate himself.

He's lucky he got probation.

Read the Frontline interviews of the participants (Dershowitz for one) including on whether there was planted evidence:

There is absolutely no doubt that the sock that was soaked in blood was planted. Why? First of all, the blood had EDTA on it, a chemical that's an anticoagulant that is not found in the human body; it's only found in tubes. So we were able to prove that the police had poured blood from the test tubes onto the sock.

Moreover, the splatter pattern on the sock was such that it was consistent only with blood having been poured on the sock, and not with blood having hit one side of the sock and then soaked through the leg in the middle and then hit the other side of the sock.

Third, there was a videotape of the house on the morning of the search which showed that the black socks were not on the white rug in the place where the police claimed they found them. So I think all the jurors concluded that the sock was planted. And once you conclude that the blood on the sock was planted, you begin to have doubts about all the rest of the evidence.