The jury handed down guilty verdicts on all counts in the trial of O J Simpson. Did OJ get a fair trial? Was justice served? Does anyone care? Hey, lets just chalk this one up to karma, no harm no foul, the guy should have went away for killing his wife, so it's all good. Not, so, fast. I'm no fan of the Juice, let's face it, he was as guilty as could be in the slaying of his wife and Ron Goldman, and while these two trials had very different outcomes, they were similar in more ways than one. At the end of the day, justice was not served in either trial. Pay back yes, what goes around comes around, you bet, he got what he deserved, granted, but the jury convicted in the Las Vegas case for much the same reason OJ beat the rap in L A. Expect an appeal, and the case will be overturned.
In his murder trial O J beat the rap because the jury was comprised of mostly African Americans who had witnessed and possibly suffered under the heavy handed tactics of the LAPD. They didn't trust the police, they loathed the police. This was their chance to fight back, to let the Black man win one, even if he was guilty. The 2 whites in the jury box were afraid L A would turn in to another post Rodney King verdict, riots, bedlam, violence, so they caved in , they ignored justice. To be fair the case was tainted as well, but the physical evidence was there to convict. Every single person in the first trial knew in their heart of hearts that OJ was guilty.
The trial in Vegas, an all white jury, one of the most despised of celebrities, the one that got away for killing two, count em, two white people. We had the police on tape, literally creaming in their polyester cop pants, saying we will get him where L A couldn't. You have the star witness for the prosecution , on tape, saying his testimony could favor Simpson if the money was right. You have the other witnesses admitting selling stories to various media outlets almost immediately after the incident occurred. And need I say it again, an all white jury and two black defendants. There is no way the jury should have rendered a guilty verdict. The jury exacted revenge, it was payback, it was a perverted form of justice going a round about way of making things right.
Sounds like I'm defending OJ doesn't it? I'm not, but I will say that the conviction in Vegas has done more harm than good. For starters it only strengthens the belief that a person of color cant get a fair trial. If there had been an equal number of blacks in the jury, hell if there had been a single person of color in the jury, that would have killed the race card, at least to some degree. If all of the witnesses for the prosecution weren't as crooked as a barrel of snakes, then maybe we could say it was a good conviction. If the star witness for the prosecution had not offered his testimony to be bought, lots of ifs. Don't be surprised if he wins this case on appeal.
In the end O J got what he deserved, he ended the lives of two people, that is an inescable truth. But let's not confuse that with justice. Let's not fool ourselves in to thinking that the outcome of this case isn't polarized by a long history of injustice toward people of color in the court system. Let's call this what it is, it's payback, it ain't justice, no matter how you slice it. I can live with that, I can recognize it for what it is, and not confuse it for what it is not.
No way this case gets overturned. He is appealing on the weakest type of appeal and they are overturned some 1 to 3% of the time. OJ was found guilty because he planned to go in to that room and rob those guys. He organized the thugs and told them to bring guns and act menacing. If he knew where his property was he could have called police. He chose to break the law, thats why he is guilty, not because the jury was white.
ReplyDeleteI didn't pay much attention to the trial, but what little I paid attention the tape recording of OJ saying "don't let anyone leave this room" should be good enough for kidnapping. Don't know about the rest, and wouldn't be surprised if the jury went overboard, but still. If he was more sympathetic, I could see him not being charged as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. But in reality it was the kind of stupid shit you'd expect a guy who's used to getting away with it to pull. System operating as designed? Probably not. Justice? eh....
ReplyDeleteOver 15 years ago I served on a jury where the charge was kidnapping because a thief locked a woman in the closet in her house while he robbed the place. One of the charges was kidnapping which carried a minimum sentence of 15 years in Kansas. The potential jurors were told about the law before the jury was even picked and we were told that even if we disagreed with the law, we could not let it affect our decision of guilty or not. There may be an appeal in the OJ case on several grounds, but dismissal of the charge of kidnapping won't be one of them. It's been tested and tried in thousands of cases all over the country for years.
ReplyDeleteSpot on in many ways, MM though I happen to believe the first jury was correct. I was able to watch much of the first trial, and I think the prosecution failed miserably in proving its case to the jury. Do I think O.J. did it? You betcha!
ReplyDeleteAs to the kidnapping charge, it's just another tool in a prosecutor's bag of tricks. It appears that only "special" people get charged with kidnapping. I was involved in 2 bank robberies and a hotel stick-up, and never realized until now that I'd been kidnapped: forced to move at gunpoint.
In a nutshell, the problem I had with this latest trial was the whole case hung on the testimony of people who took part in the crime, offered their testimony to the highest bidder. It's tainted, the state couldnt prove the tapes hadnt been altered, in fact an expert said it was very possible. I would have liked to see them get a cleaner conviction, one that would stick, this one is too likely to be overturned down the road. At least for now OJ is locked up so thats something.
ReplyDelete