O.J.’s innocence, guilt shouldn’t stand as black-and-white issue

There have been few events in the last 30 years of our
country’s history that have polarized a nation as much as the
Simpson murders and subsequent trial. Supporters of Orenthal James
Simpson continue to believe that he was framed and that the hostile
reaction to the “not guilty” verdict in the criminal
trial was in large part due to race. Opponents counter that a gross
miscarriage of justice was done, and that he should be treated as a
pariah by all decent, law-abiding human beings.

Even now, radio hosts still provoke strong feelings by
discussing the issue; a popular sports talk show host has an
immensely popular Web site dedicated to “Orenthal.”
Years after the terrible incident and the two trials which
followed, emotions still run high, punctuated by the racial
component that many are afraid to mention, but which everyone is
painfully aware of. In short, a large proportion of Simpson
supporters are African American, while an overwhelming percentage
of those in the anti-Simpson camp are white. And neither side is
any closer to understanding each others dynamics.

The murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson were
brutal, to say the least. Everyone can agree that the murderer of
these people should be ““ at the very least ““ locked up
for a long time. Whether Nicole had affairs or she was simply the
object of intense and jealous desires, no one deserves to be
murdered ““ especially not in the way both Ron and Nicole met
their demise.

Those who rail against O.J. Simpson implore us to look at the
facts. Nicole was married to someone who was intensely jealous and
who subjected her to physical and verbal abuse. O.J.’s blood
was found in the Ford Bronco along with the blood of Nicole and Ron
““ confirmed by DNA testing. O.J. fled capture in the infamous
slow-moving chase. Even now, he seems more intent on improving his
golf game than improving his chances of finding the
“real” killer. All this makes sense if O.J. Simpson
actually committed the murders; conversely, it makes no sense if he
was truly innocent.

Many people believe that police are the proverbial final line
between themselves and utter lawlessness. The highest degree of
confrontation between these citizens and the police is usually a
traffic ticket. In fact, quite a few believe the police are not
doing enough. Therefore, if the police should present evidence
““ proven with modern technology ““ that implicates
someone in a crime, that suspect probably did the crime and should
be subjected to the punishment required by law. Thus, most people
believe in the general integrity of law enforcement, that any
corruption, by and large, is an aberration.

Conversely, many people also believe that defense attorneys are
a step below pond scum on the evolutionary scale. Whether or not
such lawyers believe in the innocence of their client, the
prevailing thought is that they will do anything to get their
clients free. The question, “How can you defend someone who
obviously did this heinous act?” comes up frequently. When a
client such as O. J. Simpson has ample resources at his or her
disposal to hire such luminaries as Johnnie Cochran, F. Lee Bailey,
Robert Shapiro and Barry Scheck, those in the majority may feel
that it becomes less of a struggle between black and white as much
as one between the rich and the poor. As a result, they feel
shocked and disillusioned when minorities (usually, African
Americans) do not consider the class aspect.

The view of the pro-Simpson camp does not concentrate as much on
simple facts as it does on circumstances and perceptions. This may
seem to be rather flimsy until one looks at the whole picture. For
instance, many believed that police officers planted evidence on
the crime scene. Those who have good relations with law enforcement
will naturally pooh-pooh this assertion as ridiculous. Those who
have experienced such injustice, however, will have a much more
critical view of police activity. The current LAPD Rampart scandal
(with hints of alleged illegal activity in other precincts as well)
only confirms in the minds of many African Americans, Latinos and
other disadvantaged minorities what they have always felt.

In addition, while it is true that much evidence points toward
Simpson as the murderer, it is also true that both the police and
the district attorney’s office did an abysmal job in
presenting the case. The mess that was the prosecution’s case
cast enough doubt on the veracity of the evidence to raise concerns
in the minds of the jurors. Missed opportunities, conflicting
stories from witnesses, the inability of the police to follow
proper procedure in gathering evidence and the failure of the
prosecution to respond to changing defensive strategy led to a most
obvious conclusion. Do we blame Simpson just because he had access
to resources that could point out inconsistencies and flaws that
can affect a person’s judgment as to his innocence or
guilt?

Many believe that the jurors (and many Simpson supporters) were
trying to make a statement with the not-guilty verdict. The
feeling, so it goes, is that people actually believe O.J. Simpson
is guilty, but would rather have him go free in order to point out
the unequal representation of defendants before the law. This
unequal representation, as the view goes, usually hurts blacks and
other minorities. The problem with this view is that it assumes
that many minorities would rather circumvent the law to propound
their own views, and even smacks somewhat of people
“protecting their own.”

While this may indeed be the view of some, most minorities would
not use the legal system as a bully pulpit.

A large number of whites do not understand the depth of
resentment and fear minorities have toward law enforcement or their
tendency to believe in conspiracies and corruption among those
entrusted to interpret and mete out justice. Conversely, quite a
few minorities cannot conceive of the amount of respect given to
law enforcement by many whites who have fears (well-founded or not)
that crime can spiral out of control at any time.

There are many other angles that both pro- and anti-Simpson
adherents attempt to use, including comparisons to the Rodney King
trial, the fidelity (or lack of it) of Nicole, the apparent
preference of Simpson for white women instead of black women, the
composition of the jury and the innocent vs. “he’s not
innocent ““ just not guilty” line. These issues should
be explored, but not at the expense of polarization, which prevents
all from reaching the truth.

And what is the truth? That O.J. Simpson may have killed Nicole
and Ron, but because of sloppy work by prosecutors and law
enforcement, we’ll never know for sure. Because of this, he
was acquitted, which in the eyes of the law classifies him as
innocent ““ no matter what we might think. The civil trial did
not brand him a murderer, but did proclaim him “liable”
for the murders, so he’s being hit financially. Therefore,
the law has spoken, and for the sake of unity, it should be
considered settled.

Let’s move on, please!