He does not have more experience in trying personal injury cases than I do. He doesn't try cases at all. He is an accomplished doctor and he's an experienced expert witness. He knows far more about medicine and has far more experience in testifying as an expert witness than I do. So I'll certainly give weight to the things he says about those things, But while he has testified a number of times in cases, he likely has not seen much of the rest that goes into litigation. Litigation is far more than just what he sees in his time on the witness stand. That's what you are overlooking here. Nevertheless, all he told you was that he thought the system was screwed up. He apparently didn't explain to you why he felt that way. There could be many reasons. I mentioned just one of them. Without knowing why he thinks it's screwed up I cannot comment on whether I think he's right. You're certainly smart enough to understand that.
I agree with that, for the most part anyway.
I disagree with you on the OJ trial. I watched that trial and my view is that the prosecutors screwed it up and the defense attorneys, on the whole, did a good job exploiting the weaknesses of the prosecution's case. The prosecution had to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They fell short of that. Consider, for example, the problem with one of the key police witnesses for the prosecution, Mark Furman, whose credibility in the case was undermined when the defense played tapes that contradicted testimony he gave in the case regarding his use of racial slurs in the past. This also opened the door for Johnnie Cochran to argue to the jury that Furman was a "a lying, perjuring, genocidal racist". For his part, Furman claims that the police investigators (other than himself) and the prosecutors screwed up the case. And that's just one sample of the problems that the prosecution had in that case. The lawyers in the civil case learned from those mistakes and, along with the lower burden of proof, was able to get a large civil judgment against him.