OJ is on trial again, it is hard to remember when he was not on trial. Will he escape again?
The evidence in the first trial was conclusive, OJ was guilty. I make this statement ignoring Mark Fuhrman's testimony. I make this statement ignoring the DNA evidence, the bloody gloves, and in fact all of the evidence presented by the prosecution. I consider the job the prosecution did so bad that I feel the citizens of California should file suit against them for legal malpractice and recoup the money spent on the trial. The only person associated with the prosecution that should be exempted from this is Chris Darden. He actually looked like he knew what was happening.
So if the prosecution didn't show OJ's guilt to me, who did?
I would say some of the most destructive evidence was seen by the jury but much of it was hidden from them. I watched the antics of the defense attorneys and was totally convinced that they knew OJ was guilty. An innocent man can stake his life on evidence, a guilty one needs to discredit evidence to get free.
Look at some of the scenes. 1) Several hours of questioning of a jail guard who heard OJ say something to Rosie Greer. Now that guard didn't plant a microphone or listen at a crack in the door, he stood at his post about 12 to 15 feet away and heard OJ say something to Rosie. That something could be heard by Rosie who had walked away from the booth. And Judge Ito ruled the statement could not be admitted because it was privileged, communication between OJ and his spiritual advisor or pastor.
How far will the legal system allow this to go? First there is some question about the relationship between OJ and Rosie. I question how the pastoral relationship can be considered valid unless the person actually goes to the pastor for guidence. And even more, OJ made no attempt to keep the statement private, it was his act that made it public, I believe Judge Ito erred on this ruling.
2) Mark Fuhrman's statements about Judge Ito's wife were brought into the trial. There can only be one reason for this, to taint the trial. The judge's wife had nothing to do with the trial. But this was done to taint the jury.
The defense presented nothing to lead the trial to truth, they only sought to confuse the jury. And they were successful. They presented the case as an issue of race, not one of a man killing his wife out of jealousy and rage. They presented a case against Mark Fuhrman rather than one defending OJ.
And since the trial OJ has again become a hero. He is sought out by many who would use his name. He is presented as a hero. He has been honored in churches! Did everyone miss the trial? He was not found guilty of murder, but he was certainly proven to be guilty of brutality and spousal abuse. Or is that not wrong? Should he be considered a hero? What message does this send to young men who look up to him? Why has he not put up a reword for finding evidence leading to the arrest of his wife's killer? NOT GOOD!
But OJ is not off free...
There are three more courts that will rule on his fate.
First is the civil trial that is now in progress. No matter what the outcome, OJ will loose here. He will loose prestige. Some who now are honoring him will have to back away and desert him. He will become a leper -- one that must be avoided, because whether he wins or looses, this trial will paint him as guilty. The rules of evidence are a little different and more important, it is easier to convince a jury to award money than send a man to jail for life. OJ will not come out of this trial a winner.
Second is the trial in the minds of his children. Here he will loose too. It may not happen now but when his children get to about 16 years old they will begin to wonder what happened to their mother. Unless a killer is found and prosecuted, the more open trial in the minds of these children will convict him. He will loose the hearts of his children. Because of his posessiveness and jealousy this could cause him to lash out and kill again. The victim could be a member of the Goldman or Brown families or it could even be one of the children. With his history of instability under pressure, (the Bronco ride for an example) it would be unwise for him to have custody of the children.
Third is the trial at the throne of God. Here, unless there is repentance, justice will be meted out. He may escape the justice (?) of this world, but there is a righteous and all knowing judge he will face then. That court date is sure, there will be no slick lawyer to muddy the water. NO matter how it is handled, the evidence will not be thrown out, he will be judged fairly.
Return to the Common Sense in York PA - Home Page
I'll be very surprised if
(c) Ralph Brandt, 1996 Write me at [email protected]
Return to Geocities Home Page
Revised 1/1/1998 DRAAW is not a misspelling, it is an acronymn for Dee,Ralph, Angela, Annette and William..
Copyright 1995 Ralph E. Brandt, York PA people write to me.
Get your own
Free Home Page