Contributor Post Created with Sketch. O.J. and Us

 

The cover image on iTunes for the Academy Award winning documentary series “O.J. Simpson: Made in America” is a dripping glove in the design of the stars and stripes. It perfectly captures the message of the series — the “trial of the century” was really a reflection of America’s sins.

So, yes, the history of the Rodney King beating, the Watts riots of 1965, Mark Fuhrman’s disgusting racist language, and every curse, slap, and traffic stop ever suffered by a black American at the hands of the police is part of the gloomy backdrop of the Simpson case.

But that is far from the whole story. The film would have been less interesting if that were all there was to it. Certainly the filmmaker Ezra Edelman (the bi-racial son of Children’s Defense Fund founder Marion Wright Edelman and law professor Peter Edelman) places the O.J. case within the context of black/white tensions in Los Angeles and in America generally. The jury’s indifference to the evidence is juxtaposed with the grainy video of Rodney King’s tormentors, undated black-and-white images of police roughing up black suspects, and even stills of lynchings. One of the jurors looks straight into the camera and declares that in acquitting Simpson “we took care of our own.”

The extent of black joy at the Simpson acquittal remains shocking even 22 years later. Huge crowds had formed outside the courtroom to hear the verdict. The LAPD had prepared the scene with barricades and mounted police. At the words “not guilty,” such a spontaneous roar of triumph erupted that a couple of the horses reared back in fright.

But while it’s clear that Edelman was interested in more than Simpson’s guilt or innocence – “that’s been done” he told the New York Times – the participants in the drama cannot get past that, because they’re human, and their deep need for justice keeps asserting itself. Thus, Ron Shipp, a black cop who had a long and warm friendship with O.J., chose to testify against him after seeing the pictures of the butchered bodies of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. The defense destroyed him in cross.

Random black lawbreakers might sometimes get rough treatment from the LAPD, but as the film makes abundantly clear, celebrities live by different rules. Nicole Brown Simpson made at least nine anguished 911 calls after beatings at O.J.’s hands. In one, terror tightening her throat, she pleaded “He’s going to kill me.” But the most this serial abuser got was 120 hours of community service. Even when he was wanted for a grisly double homicide, fleeing down the freeway in his white Bronco, the police held back.

The O.J. story is as much about celebrity as about race and justice. I had forgotten, for example, that as the Bronco careened down the highway, people thronged the overpasses with homemade signs. “Run, O.J., Run!” or “We love you O.J.” They knew, of course, what he was accused of (and what his flight implied about his guilt) but a party atmosphere prevailed. The documentarian’s camera captured the face of District Attorney Gil Garcetti as he was seeing this in real time. During an interview with one of the networks, he shakes his head in disbelief as the anchor mentions the crowds “cheering Simpson on.” “Cheering him on?” he repeats, dismayed. Maybe the trial came to a dead end right there?

Celebrity worship, in all its tawdriness, is a like a star character in the drama. How did O.J. pay his pricey “dream team” of lawyers? While in jail, he signed autographs, which fetched a tidy sum. Even after the verdict, the public thirst for O.J. Simpson was not slaked. “I’ve had more women now than before” he marveled at one point. He received $50,000 to $100,000 for public appearances. A major publisher offered him a $700,000 book advance. On camera, a black radio hostess flirted with the killer, clearly knowing, and yet charmed.

He was charming. The videos of O.J. Simpson’s early life, his dazzling football career, his Hollywood roles, but most of all, his talk show appearances struck me particularly. He was a brilliant con man, able to convey warmth and sweetness. You trusted and liked him immediately, and he took it to the bank and beyond.

That explained his brilliant career. But his continuing celebrity status after the murder and civil trials revealed, perhaps for the first but hardly the last time, that some numbers of Americans make no distinctions between fame and infamy. Moral midgets blushed and shrieked to shake his hand, even knowing what those hands had done. Simpson is far from alone in his depravity.

There are 29 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. David Carroll Thatcher
    David CarrollJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    I have always thought him guilty until I heard the following which I did not previously realize. These were stabbings which are notoriously bloody. It seems impossible that the murder would not have plenty of blood on him or her and would transfer some of that blood to the vehicle in which he or she drove or rode. It is my understanding that no trace of the decedents’ blood was found on O.J. Simpson’s person, his vehicle or his house. If he were guilty, that seems terribly unlikely.

    That said, the public reactions to the trial and acquittal are certainly telling. They had little to do with the evidence and more to do with identity politics. The same phenomenon can bee seen in the Trayvon Martin case and the Michael Brown situation. People develop firm unshakable opinions of guilt or innocence based upon identity rather than evidence.

    • #1
    • March 7, 2017, at 2:38 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  2. James Gawron Thatcher
    James GawronJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Mona Charen: Nicole Brown Simpson made at least nine anguished 911 calls after beatings at O.J.’s hands. In one, terror tightening her throat, she pleaded “He’s going to kill me.” But the most this serial abuser got was 120 hours of community service. Even when he was wanted for a grisly double homicide, fleeing down the freeway in his white Bronco, the police held back.

    Mona,

    This is the moment that we really went off the deep end. An incredibly good man Clarence Thomas was subjected to a “High Tech Lynching”. Then an incredibly shallow unimportant sports personality who was obviously brutal and incapable of handling the success thrown at him, was given a free pass on a double murder.

    Anyone paying attention should have seen the truth in both situations. It proved that most people weren’t paying attention and lived in a media induced dream world. They had lost the ability to make an ordinary moral judgement.

    Mona, I know you will not be happy with what I am going to say but I must say it. Hillary Clinton & husband were guilty of multiple felonies and gross malfeasance in office. Donald Trump isn’t Hitler and he isn’t incompetent, and he has committed to enough conservative policies that he is a de facto conservative. Barack Obama wanted to strangle Israel slowly. He sympathized with Marxists and Jihadists. When he suddenly realized that he couldn’t do it slowly with Hillary losing he rushed to stab Israel in the back.

    Sometimes it is difficult to sort out the good guys from the bad guys. If we don’t start doing that we will lose this democracy and lose this country.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #2
    • March 7, 2017, at 2:45 PM PST
    • 8 likes
  3. Kozak Member
    KozakJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    I have always thought him guilty until I heard the following which I did not previously realize. These were stabbings which are notoriously bloody. It seems impossible that the murder would not have plenty of blood on him or her and would transfer some of that blood to the vehicle in which he or she drove or rode. It is my understanding that no trace of the decedents’ blood was found on O.J. Simpson’s person, his vehicle or his house. If he were guilty, that seems terribly unlikely.

    That said, the public reactions to the trial and acquittal are certainly telling. They had little to do with the evidence and more to do with identity politics. The same phenomenon can bee seen in the Trayvon Martin case and the Michael Brown situation. People develop firm unshakable opinions of guilt or innocence based upon identity rather than evidence.

    Uh, did you miss this…

    I love the fact he got a way with double murder and he’s sitting in prison for trying to steal back his own sports memorabilia.

    Justice was done.

    • #3
    • March 7, 2017, at 2:46 PM PST
    • 6 likes
  4. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. StephensJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    It was indeed a nutty situation. I don’t like the crazy cult of the famous we have. Maybe with more and more spinning out of media, the mass famous people will fade and we will have much more niche. I’d far rather do dinner with commentators and pundits in the conservative sphere than with, say, an Elton John.

    • #4
    • March 7, 2017, at 2:58 PM PST
    • Like
  5. Stina Member

    Mona Charen: their deep need for justice keeps asserting itself.

    There is no justice for innocent men wrongly accused in letting the guilty go free or innocent men pay the price for lost life.

    The people who triumph TM on Hoodie days or sport “Hands up, don’t shoot” shirts do not care about our justice system, only that it serves their tribe.

    • #5
    • March 7, 2017, at 3:08 PM PST
    • 1 like
  6. Hypatia Inactive

    In one of his books Dershowitz says the police were so sure they had the right defendant–they knew they did–that they felt they were justified in planting evidence( the bloody sock).

    Other possible reasons for the verdict, which looked quite unlikely from the outside: the mind-numbing boredom of a looooong trial. I’m sure the jurors were repulsed the first time they heard about the abuse. The fiftieth time, they were yawning.

    All trials are “show trials” to some extent. I remember being relieved that he was acquitted. If he had been found guilty, think how many more people would have died. On balance, it was the best result.

    • #6
    • March 7, 2017, at 3:08 PM PST
    • Like
  7. Kozak Member
    KozakJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    If he had been found guilty, think how many more people would have died. On balance, it was the best result.

    So we let the mobs reaction determine our justice? That’s one of the reasons so many are dying in Chicago. cops not allowed to do their job because it might enrage the “community”.

    • #7
    • March 7, 2017, at 3:40 PM PST
    • 1 like
  8. GrannyDude Member

    Mona Charen: juxtaposed with the grainy video of Rodney King’s tormentors

    Just so you know: Rodney King’s “tormenters” were led by Sergeant Stacey Koons, a white police officer known for his dedication to the racial integration of the LAPD, and cited for bravery after performing CPR on a black transvestite prostitute known to be infected with HIV-AIDS (at a time when there was little understanding of how the virus was transmitted, and no treatment).

    Three other black men who were with Rodney King in the car when it was stopped were taken into custody without incident or injury. The original video showed that King repeatedly “shook off” attempts by the assembled officers to swarm and overpower him, and that he lunged at the police officer who panicked and swung his baton at King’s head. The version of a taser then in use had no effect on King, underlining the officers’ conviction that he was “dusted,” or high on Angel Dust. If so, he would be impervious to pain, hallucinating, and hyper-adrenalized.

    The only deadly-force blow struck that night was that baton-strike to the head, delivered by the officer who would later save his own skin by testifying against Stacey Koons in his second, “civil rights” violation trial.

    When Sergeant Koons cleared the scene that night, he was happy and relieved because King had survived. Given his behavior, and the fear it engendered in the officers, Koons had been concerned that King would be shot.

    The original trial, held in Simi Valley because the famous videotape was expected to prejudice a more local jury, permitted the jury to see the video tape frame-by-frame, including the part at the beginning that showed King lunging at the officers, the part that TV stations tended to omit because it was of poor quality. The jury acquitted…and the riots erupted, and dozens of people were killed.

    Jury members called for the second trial admitted later that they had been reluctant to acquit Koons because they feared another riot and more bloodshed. Koons was convicted of violating Rodney King’s civil rights, and spent two years in prison.

    • #8
    • March 7, 2017, at 3:45 PM PST
    • 9 likes
  9. GrannyDude Member

    If you want to read the complete story, Lou Cannon’s Official Negligence is a great read.

    • #9
    • March 7, 2017, at 3:48 PM PST
    • Like
  10. Kozak Member
    KozakJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):
    When Sergeant Koons cleared the scene that night, he was happy and relieved because King had survived. Given his behavior, and the fear it engendered in the officers, Koons had been concerned that King would be shot.

    Not to mention he had led them on a long chase at speeds up to 100mph endangering countless other individuals.

    • #10
    • March 7, 2017, at 3:59 PM PST
    • 1 like
  11. Hypatia Inactive

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    If he had been found guilty, think how many more people would have died. On balance, it was the best result.

    So we let the mobs reaction determine our justice? That’s one of the reasons so many are dying in Chicago. cops not allowed to do their job because it might enrage the “community”.

    I knew I’d get this comment.

    No, not exactly. But not every trial is “The Trial of the Century!” as Oj’s was billed. I gave probable reasons why defense counsel won. And I’m not talking about how cops should do their jobs. I’m talking about weighing the balance of carnage in a well-publicized trial like this.

    • #11
    • March 7, 2017, at 4:02 PM PST
    • Like
  12. Kozak Member
    KozakJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Hypatia (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    If he had been found guilty, think how many more people would have died. On balance, it was the best result.

    So we let the mobs reaction determine our justice? That’s one of the reasons so many are dying in Chicago. cops not allowed to do their job because it might enrage the “community”.

    I knew I’d get this comment.

    No, not exactly. But not every trial is “The Trial of the Century!” as Oj’s was billed. I gave probable reasons why defense counsel won. And I’m not talking about how cops should do their jobs. I’m talking about weighing the balance of carnage in a well-publicized trial like this.

    I didn’t think it was the trial of the century. It was a simple double homicide.

    So make sure if you commit murder you have a large and excitable mob behind you.

    • #12
    • March 7, 2017, at 4:14 PM PST
    • 1 like
  13. Profile Photo Member

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):

    Mona Charen: juxtaposed with the grainy video of Rodney King’s tormentors

    Three other black men who were with Rodney King in the car when it was stopped were taken into custody without incident or injury. The original video showed that King repeatedly “shook off” attempts by the assembled officers to swarm and overpower him, and that he lunged at the police officer who panicked and swung his baton at King’s head. The version of a taser then in use had no effect on King, underlining the officers’ conviction that he was “dusted,” or high on Angel Dust. If so, he would be impervious to pain, hallucinating, and hyper-adrenalized.

    The only deadly-force blow struck that night was that baton-strike to the head, delivered by the officer who would later save his own skin by testifying against Stacey Koons in his second, “civil rights” violation trial.

    So I take it you would agree with Mark Fuhrman’s statement in the OJ: Made in America documentary that if the LAPD were able to use their version of the “chokehold,” that Rodney King would’ve been subdued in 10 seconds? I can appreciate your standing up for police officers, but even you would have to admit that a lot of LAPD sausage-making got exposed in the Rodney King trial.

    • #13
    • March 7, 2017, at 4:19 PM PST
    • Like
  14. GrannyDude Member

    Brad2971 (View Comment):

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):

    Mona Charen: juxtaposed with the grainy video of Rodney King’s tormentors

    Three other black men who were with Rodney King in the car when it was stopped were taken into custody without incident or injury. The original video showed that King repeatedly “shook off” attempts by the assembled officers to swarm and overpower him, and that he lunged at the police officer who panicked and swung his baton at King’s head. The version of a taser then in use had no effect on King, underlining the officers’ conviction that he was “dusted,” or high on Angel Dust. If so, he would be impervious to pain, hallucinating, and hyper-adrenalized.

    The only deadly-force blow struck that night was that baton-strike to the head, delivered by the officer who would later save his own skin by testifying against Stacey Koons in his second, “civil rights” violation trial.

    So I take it you would agree with Mark Fuhrman’s statement in the OJ: Made in America documentary that if the LAPD were able to use their version of the “chokehold,” that Rodney King would’ve been subdued in 10 seconds? I can appreciate your standing up for police officers, but even you would have to admit that a lot of LAPD sausage-making got exposed in the Rodney King trial.

    There were a number of problems in the LAPD, and weapons and tactics were definitely among them. I am disinclined to think that one good man—Sgt. Koons—somehow deserved to spend two years in prison for “LAPD Sausage Making.” He did not use deadly force on Rodney King. Indeed, he was trying hard to keep King alive.

    And let’s just point out that he succeeded. Rodney King survived. Indeed, he was healthy enough to go on to commit other crimes. That wasn’t a given at the beginning of the incident—hence Sgt. Koons’ relief.

    • #14
    • March 7, 2017, at 4:46 PM PST
    • 3 likes
  15. GrannyDude Member

    By the way—as has become depressingly usual in these cases, however the LAPD made its sausages, there was no evidence that Stacey Koons himself was a racist. Which was the point of the second trial. Rodney King was not struck because he was black. He was struck because he was behaving in a threatening manner and refusing to comply with lawful orders. What would you have the police do? Say “oh, I’m sorry Mr. King! Clearly, you don’t feel like being arrested tonight…so of course, you’re free to go!”

    • #15
    • March 7, 2017, at 4:50 PM PST
    • 4 likes
  16. Hypatia Inactive

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    If he had been found guilty, think how many more people would have died. On balance, it was the best result.

    So we let the mobs reaction determine our justice? That’s one of the reasons so many are dying in Chicago. cops not allowed to do their job because it might enrage the “community”.

    I knew I’d get this comment.

    No, not exactly. But not every trial is “The Trial of the Century!” as Oj’s was billed. I gave probable reasons why defense counsel won. And I’m not talking about how cops should do their jobs. I’m talking about weighing the balance of carnage in a well-publicized trial like this.

    I didn’t think it was the trial of the century. It was a simple double homicide.

    So make sure if you commit murder you have a large and excitable mob behind you.

    Interesting that you put it like this.

    Of course I do see your point: justice should be blind, and deaf to the roar of the rabble. I’m not really arguing with you over that; I just think fewer people ended up dying. (Were you around when the verdict was announced? Absolutely everybody in the country watched. Really, it was like Election Day. It was not just a run o’ the mill double homicide trial.)

    Did you ever read a book called “the Peculiar Institution” which isn’t about slavery, but about the death penalty? Im remembering its descriptions of lynchings of black men suspected of (often sexual) crimes, at the hands of white mobs. The author’s point is that the death penalty as we practice it today is meant to be the polar opposite of a lynching: anything but spontaneous (takes years!) , no visible physical violence, etc.

    Were those white mobs enforcing justice, just hastening it? It’s possible the accused black men were guilty, after all. But the prevalent narrative is that they were all innocent, killed because of their race.

    In OJ’s case, as you say, we had a black mob, at a black defendant’s back. That may not be the reason the defense won, as I said.

    But on the other hand–maybe they saved him. Maybe that felt, just, really good to them. They felt joy instead of anger. And,( did I mention?) many innocent people who woukd have been killed or hurt in rioting were spared.

    If not traditional criminal justice, maybe it was poetic justice? Just this once!

    Also, I think OJ was guilty but it was a one-off. You will of course be indignant at that too). But it depends if you think the purpose of criminal justice is punishment, or preventing future harm. No, I’m not saying murderers should walk if we think they won’t do it again. I’m just saying in this particular instance, on balance, “not guilty” was the best outcome.

    • #16
    • March 7, 2017, at 4:59 PM PST
    • Like
  17. drlorentz Member
    drlorentzJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Mona Charen: the “trial of the century”

    And I thought this was going to be about orange juice. Does anyone still really care about this decades-old media carnival? As for trial of the century, there are much better candidates. Personal favorite: Leopold and Loeb. Way more interesting.

    • #17
    • March 7, 2017, at 5:13 PM PST
    • Like
  18. Eugene Kriegsmann Member

    I was never convinced of OJ’s guilt in the murders. If the two victims had been beaten to death, a behavior much more akin to OJ’s previous abuse, it would have been more believable to me. However, for a man to use a knife in the manner in which the two victims were slaughtered seemed out of character, an incongruent modus operandi. I am not now, nor was I ever an OJ fan. I just found there to be too many unanswered questions, too much police and forensic incompetence or malfeasance. On the other hand, I am not overly sympathetic to a man who serially beat and abused his wife. Of those charges there is very little doubt. That the mob determined the the verdict in the first trial is really hard to say. There were a lot of complicating factors, not the least of which was OJ’s celebrity and Mark Furman’s patent dishonesty. I had occasion to deal with a Seattle detective who reminded me a lot of Furman. He was investigating charges made against the boyfriend of my classroom aide, a black man. The detective attempted to get me to say things which both of us knew weren’t true because he had decided that the suspect was guilty and needed confirmation. When you actually deal with that kind of police approach it is harder to believe that Furman acted professionally or morally.

    • #18
    • March 7, 2017, at 5:24 PM PST
    • 1 like
  19. Hypatia Inactive

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Mona Charen: the “trial of the century”

    And I thought this was going to be about orange juice. Does anyone still really care about this decades-old media carnival? As for trial of the century, there are much better candidates. Personal favorite: Leopold and Loeb. Way more interesting.

    I agree! Also Leo Frank. They’re all in Dershowitz’ book.

    I don’t think, either, that the OJ thing is as big a deal still as this columnist makes it out to be. But it was a huge deal at the time, and people then thought race relations would never recover. And I’m afraid some people do still care.

    • #19
    • March 7, 2017, at 5:24 PM PST
    • Like
  20. Kozak Member
    KozakJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    . (Were you around when the verdict was announced? Absolutely everybody in the country watched. Really, it was like Election Day. It was not just a run o’ the mill double homicide trial.)

    I was watching live at work in Sacramento. Every white person gasped. Every black cheered.

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    In OJ’s case, as you say, we had a black mob, at a black defendant’s back. That may not be the reason the defense won, as I said.

    The black members of the jury were going to acquit him, evidence be damned. The mob made sure the others on the jury went along. No one wanted to be responsible for the riot.

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    If not traditional criminal justice, maybe it was poetic justice? Just this once!

    The poetic justice is OJ sitting in jail for trying to steal back his own sports memorabilia .

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    But it depends if you think the purpose of criminal justice is punishment, or preventing future harm.

    Right letting murderers walk because we fear the mob will prevent future harm. You should study up on Bronx Juries, and what that means for our justice system.

    • #20
    • March 7, 2017, at 6:01 PM PST
    • 1 like
  21. MarciN Member

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    It seems impossible that the murder would not have plenty of blood on him or her and would transfer some of that blood to the vehicle in which he or she drove or rode. It is my understanding that no trace of the decedents’ blood was found on O.J. Simpson’s person, his vehicle or his house. If he were guilty, that seems terribly unlikely.

    I have always thought that there was a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. I sided with the jury at that time. I would have gone the same way. I was always disturbed by the fact that they didn’t pursue other possible suspects.

    But I have never heard the point you’ve made here. That’s a very strong point.

    • #21
    • March 7, 2017, at 7:22 PM PST
    • Like
  22. GrannyDude Member

    @Hypatia, I’m not sure I can say that it was “the best possible outcome.”

    Nicole Simpson Brown and her lover did not deserve to die, and her children did not deserve to lose their mother. Still, OJ got what our system of justice provides; a trial by jury, with the outcome being whatever the outcome will be. As it happens, he was a rich man, so he had good lawyers who were able to capitalize on all the flaws and mistakes of the prosecution. I’ve often wondered whether the celebration among black Americans was that, at long last, rich = rich, with all the perks, regardless of skin color?

    Given that the Rodney King riots resulted in many deaths and injuries, if the unintended consequence of the acquittal meant someone, somewhere was spared the experience of suddenly and violently losing someone they loved, we can be glad for that, I guess. Still, why aren’t we more inclined to consider why some communities seem quite so prone to erupting in riots?

    • #22
    • March 7, 2017, at 7:45 PM PST
    • Like
  23. David Carroll Thatcher
    David CarrollJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    drlorentz (View Comment):

    Mona Charen: the “trial of the century”

    And I thought this was going to be about orange juice. Does anyone still really care about this decades-old media carnival? As for trial of the century, there are much better candidates. Personal favorite: Leopold and Loeb. Way more interesting.

    The Scopes Monkey trial also featuring Clarence Darrow). The Sam Shepard Murder Trial. The 20th Century was 100 years. What other famous trials could be the trial of the century?

    • #23
    • March 7, 2017, at 8:01 PM PST
    • Like
  24. Shawn Buell, Jeopardy Champ! Contributor

    I blame Lance Ito for the Circus atmosphere that ultimately consumed this trial. The presence of television cameras in the courtroom enabled Johnny Cochrane to grandstand to such an absurd degree that he was able to turn what was an open-and-shut murder case into a travesty where the police were on trial for past wrongs. The allowance of cameras utterly defeated the sense that this was a normal justicial procedure.

    Let’s not forget this is a situation where the killer (who had a well-documented history of beating and threatening the victim) had the victims’ blood and fibers in his vehicle and on his clothing which left a trail all the way from Bundy to Rockingham – a proverbial trail of breadcrumbs – and the prosecution ended up having to defend idiotic statements made by detectives from years gone by.

    Then add Christopher Darden’s moronic use of the glove and you have a ready-made catastrophe.

    • #24
    • March 8, 2017, at 6:07 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  25. Old Bathos Moderator

    I realized that OJ’s lawyers thought he was guilty when their forensic expert testified that he did not run a EDTA titre on the blood spatter–the concentration level is what determines whether the EDTA was incidentally in the blood or whether the blood came from a preserved specimen. He was clearly under a “no bad news” instruction. At least two jurors said that was dispositive for them. However, despite days of testimony they were still unable to recall all four letters in EDTA: “the ETA evidence”proved the police planted it. Morons.

    It was a very bad moment when black America celebrated the verdict. From that moment on, symbolism and victimhood theater has trumped fact, statistics and law. A thousand young thugs can die at the hands of other young thugs but only the thug shot by a cop is visible to the Narrative.

    Maybe Obama and Eric Holder can now devote full time and effort to help OJ find the real killer(s). It would be a more productive use of their time than partisan meddling and a fitting end to their contribution to American race relations.

    • #25
    • March 8, 2017, at 6:10 AM PST
    • 2 likes
  26. Herbert defender of the Realm,… Inactive

    Well played Mona….

    • #26
    • March 8, 2017, at 7:24 AM PST
    • Like
  27. Hypatia Inactive

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):
    @Hypatia, I’m not sure I can say that it was “the best possible outcome.”

    Nicole Simpson Brown and her lover did not deserve to die, and her children did not deserve to lose their mother. Still, OJ got what our system of justice provides; a trial by jury, with the outcome being whatever the outcome will be. As it happens, he was a rich man, so he had good lawyers who were able to capitalize on all the flaws and mistakes of the prosecution. I’ve often wondered whether the celebration among black Americans was that, at long last, rich = rich, with all the perks, regardless of skin color?

    Given that the Rodney King riots resulted in many deaths and injuries, if the unintended consequence of the acquittal meant someone, somewhere was spared the experience of suddenly and violently losing someone they loved, we can be glad for that, I guess. Still, why aren’t we more inclined to consider why some communities seem quite so prone to erupting in riots?

    Why? Are you kidding me? Look what just happened to Charles Murray. We aren’t allowed to talk about “some communities”. At all.

    For the rest of it: Nicole and Goldman were already dead. Their families were already in mourning. Finis. All I’m saying is,if fewer other people died as a result of the verdict, it didn’t hurt the victims themselves, and it saved the pain of other families.

    • #27
    • March 8, 2017, at 10:46 AM PST
    • Like
  28. Hypatia Inactive

    MarciN (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    It seems impossible that the murder would not have plenty of blood on him or her and would transfer some of that blood to the vehicle in which he or she drove or rode. It is my understanding that no trace of the decedents’ blood was found on O.J. Simpson’s person, his vehicle or his house. If he were guilty, that seems terribly unlikely.

    I have always thought that there was a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. I sided with the jury at that time. I would have gone the same way. I was always disturbed by the fact that they didn’t pursue other possible suspects.

    But I have never heard the point you’ve made here. That’s a very strong point.

    As I recall, Simpson, thoroughly instructed by Johnnie Cochran et al in the protection afforded him by double jeopardy principles, practically admitted his own guilt in a book (or article) called “If I did It”.

    • #28
    • March 8, 2017, at 10:49 AM PST
    • Like
  29. James Gawron Thatcher
    James GawronJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Hypatia (View Comment):
    Why? Are you kidding me? Look what just happened to Charles Murray. We aren’t allowed to talk about “some communities”. At all.

    For the rest of it: Nicole and Goldman were already dead. Their families were already in mourning. Finis. All I’m saying is,if fewer other people died as a result of the verdict, it didn’t hurt the victims themselves, and it saved the pain of other families.

    Hypatia,

    I’m sorry but this is moral bankruptcy talking. You do not let a murderer off because you imagine a riot being ginned up by propagandists. “A democracy if you can keep it.” This kind of amoral equation will lose us that democracy.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #29
    • March 8, 2017, at 12:10 PM PST
    • 1 like

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.