Simpson Case Opinion's

 

 

Mildred Pierce mildredpierce@my-deja.com   January 18, 2000

I do think that if cases such as this arises, then it would at least send a message to lawmakers and enforcers that they need to quit treating the minority in question unfairly. I think when a Community is put in this position they are choosing the lesser of two evils,

Is it going to be: We allow some criminals to walk the street and strip the government of its ability to oppress us, or do we continue to allow the oppression and not use a valuable tool to let them know that we do not appreciate the oppression,

This might be a reflection of the neighborhood and not necessarily the individual jurors themselves. I suspect the Simpson Jurors were genuinely scared of retribution within their community, if they did not reflect the wishes of that community.

I think this is what happened in the Simpson Case. They had a chance to send a message that we are tired of the way you are treating us. I don't think the message was a good one, and I think it was motivated by an immoral defense team. Certainly the message was contrived, and thankfully OJ is still being punished by the fact that his one source of ego has been taken away from him: his ego.

I would say that you can not create a Jury System that prevents this without creating a Jury System that takes away a Juries Liberty to Judge the Justification of the Law.

 


Jane Shelton studes@worldnet.att.net September 9, 1999

Walt
I agree with you 100% that there is justice for the rich, and justice for the rest of us. However, in the Simpson criminal case, his money was not the deciding factor. Marcia Clark disregarded and summarily dismissed her jury consultant, who advised her way before trial, that no matter what the evidence, black females would not convict O.J. Simpson.

Ms. Clark thought differently, believing black females would sympathize with Nicole Brown. She miscalculated. There were 9 black females on that jury, 1 black male, 1 Hispanic male and 1 white female. After trial, one of the female jurors commented that Nicole Brown got what she deserved.

Simpson did pay for many expert witnesses; whores of the court I've heard them referred to. Even DA Adam Shiff on L&O said, "pay 'em enough money, and they'll testify to anything."

Simpson stood acquitted when the jury was selected.

 

 

Daniel Petrocelli

I thought it was tragic. Race had nothing to do with the reality of this case. Nothing. But it might have everything to do with
the result.

I lay this wedge in the racial divide squarely at the feet of Simpson and his lawyers. In one of the most disgraceful, cynical,
and socially irresponsible defenses ever used to set a guilty man free, they created the race issue and exploited it. (White
people are out to get this black man.) Using false arguments and a gospel cadence, Johnnie Cochran blinded a largely African-American jury with such intense and fervent feelings of racial pride and passion that they let a killer back into the community.

Racial pride is important. Blacks have every right to be angry at their treatment in American history and proud of their accomplishments in spite of it. What is so disturbing is that, in defending OJ Simpson, black America has embraced a liar, a cheat, a womanizer, and a butcher.

You cannot kill two people and get away with it, no matter how much money you have, no matter how many lies you tell.

 

Bob August

You state that Simpson did not get a fair trial in the civil case. I respectfully and totally disagree with you. Simpson did get a fair and truthful trial in the civil case. The biggest difference was that he had to testify in the civil trial.

I understand your concern that our justice system, based on the Simpson case of being found not guilty in a criminal trial but later being found responsible in a civil trial, could possibly be used against an innocent person.

But that certainly was not the case here. It took a civil trial to uncover who was telling the truth and who was lying. Either Simpson was lying or everyone else was lying.

In the civil trial Simpson's guilt was not proved merely by clear and convincing evidence, which is yet another burden of proof. Simpson's guilt was not proved merely by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard of proof that applies in criminal cases. In the civil trial Simpson's guilt was proved to a certainty!*

 

 

Return to Homepage     The Story

The Bundy Murders.
*Evidence*
Conclusion
Crime Scene Photographs
    Overview
    Murder Timeline
        Marcia Clark's Plaintive Wail Theory
        Nicole's Neighbors
    Mysteries
        *The Smoking Gun*
     Petrocelli's Accomplice Theory
        *Arnelle Simpson's Lies*

    *OJ's Bronco*
    Answers
    Other Theories
    OJ Gossip
    Opinion's
    Alright OJ!
    For the Gullible
    Updated Simpson News
 

Osama bin Laden
Israel
Operation Iraqi Freedom
 

The Best Card Trick You Will Ever See
A Really Quick Intelligence Test
Psych Test
The Third Sniper
 
Great Downloads
Awards     Links     Write to me

 

Bob August bobaugust@cox.net