[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
First, it might look strange to most of you, but I know very very little about the specifics of OJ trial,…

[/ QUOTE ]

No, doesn’t look strange, but from the next quote, can I assume you are not from the U.S (or maybe too young to remember - you seem old enough) ?


[ QUOTE ]
Now why the need to introduce that new variable R, which here is "white", into the question/argument? Couldn't you ask it without the R? Does it serve to confuse the readers, by giving them a piece of "irrlevant information", that is, an information that is not relevant to the core point you're trying to make here, or does it have anything to do with the question?

[/ QUOTE ]

The word “white” is relevant. Most white people think OJ should have been found guilty (he was found not guilty). We tend to think that the evidence points in that direction. Most (at least many and a far higher % than white folk) black people think he was not guilty (There might be bias on their part or perhaps don't care that he "got off" and were happy he was found not guilty. One cannot assume that they didn't follow the logical train if we included black doctor...).

Therefore the white doctors who think he is innocent is akin to saying they just don’t follow logical trains of thought - the evidence logically points to guilty (is the assumption here).