I did not want to discuss this case. But when I listened to the glee from Sheppard Smith (news anchor for Fox News) as he spoke on the news I made up my mind to say something.
The case I am referring to is the OJ Simpson trial. You may not have heard much on this, you might even be surprised to know that his trial in Las Vegas is already underway. And the reason there has not been much media on this is likely because of what the outcome will be.
At this point I feel incredibly confident that OJ Simpson will be sentenced to jail for his life. For all those cheering that sentence realize this – OJ is being jailed based on prejudice and the bias of America.
Whether or not OJ Simpson is guilty of the charges, all 12 of them, stemming from his arrest in Las Vegas is not important. It’s the fact that after more than a decade the legal system, and most White Americans, now have the chance to convict OJ for the murder of Nicole Simpson; which he was found innocent of. The major news media has never accepted that answer. Shepard Smith has always made it clear he despised that verdict. And double jeopardy be damned White America could not live with this.
Every misstep OJ has made since the murder trial ended has been publicized. The media has maintained an onslaught of coverage aimed at 1 goal, tarnishing his image and guaranteeing every American would believe he was guilty of murder and deserved to be in jail. And this trial will be the fruition of all that work.
On the 10th of September the Las Vegas judge, Jackie Glass, decided that 2 members of the prospective jury being contacted by a reported member of the press was not a problem.
On September 12th the jury was selected. 9 women, 3 men. Not a single person on the jury is Black.
On September 16th, after being told not to take into account any of the news or rulings dealing with OJ’s murder trial, the prosecution has introduced it as part of their case.
So let’s look at this. Reportedly 4 men and OJ entered a hotel room to recover stolen goods that belonged to OJ. Questionably the meeting was set up by one of those men, who has given evidence against OJ for reduced charges. 2 men in the room that day are reported to have had guns, neither of which was OJ. Both of those suspected men have turned states evidence to get off their charges in return for being a witness against OJ.
9 women were reminded that this man is believed by the prosecutor, media and many Whites, to have brutally murdered a woman. They were reminded that for over a decade the media has hammered the thought that this man is guilty though proven innocent beyond a shadow of doubt.
Fear of racial bias for OJ prevented any person in the jury from being African American. Racial bias to convict OJ was never considered in the jury selection. And the potential jurors being contacted by the media, thus hinting at future media stardom – or at least their 15 minutes of fame and a nice check for a book or appearance – was not important.
And someone wants to tell me this is a fair trial. After the initial arrest superseded all other news for 1 week. After a decade of persecution. After acts of retribution by the police on Rodney King (that’s just a guess about the L.A. police). Yeah, a real fair trial.
OJ is going to be convicted of at least 10 of the charges against him. He will be sent to jail for at least 25 years. It was a foregone conclusion the day he was arrested in Las Vegas. That’s why there the huge media circus that week. Validation for all their efforts of over a decade. And it’s why right now there is so little coverage. It has to be fair if they aren’t covering ever second of this stacked deck.
I’m not saying OJ is innocent of the charges in Las Vegas. I’m not saying there weren’t guns present, or that OJ didn’t know they were there. But I have doubt, especially the way this was handled and organized, and prosecuted.
I am saying that OJ is innocent of the murder of his wife, a court said so. I am saying that White America lost their mind on this case, and the media has fed that hate and anger. I recall mobsters being acquitted of multiple murders and getting less coverage or dismay.
The glee of newscasters reporting on the OJ trial just makes me certain. It may be nearly impossible for a Black man to get a fair trial in much of the nation [Jena 6, Rodney King, Sean Bell, Wesley Snipes, and on]; but it’s impossible for OJ.
Some call that justice, I call it the legal system in action. And people wonder why people of color distrust the legal system.
10 comments:
The following comment can be found at Black and White Blog, where I am co-author.
Angela Says:
September 16th, 2008 at 9:47 pm e
So are you trying to say that OJ did not get off, in his first run in with murder due to a pretty much all black jury? I think it is ironic that you point the fingers at white people and say that we are racist and if he is convicted it will be because of his race.
He will be convicted because what he did was a crime. Whether you like it or not. If it was not a crime, then guess what there would be no reason to take him to court.
How about he just has to be accountable for his actions, why does it have to be black and white issues? He commited a crime and for that he should and will be punished. If he does go to jail for life then maybe it is Gods way of seeking justice for his wife.
Angela,
What I am saying is that OJ was found innocent in a trial of his peers, using the best lawyers he could afford. And White America lost it's mind. The entire Brokerage I worked with lost their mind that day. I still have several friends that can't talk about that case or OJ without rage.
I'm saying that since that day there has barely been a month where some reporter didn't mention how guilty OJ was, which they don't do with White defendants, or when was the last time you heard the nation going crazy over the Robert Blake murder trial?
And I am not pointing fingers at all white people. Perhaps most as has been my experience on this issue, but not all. But I am definitely highlighting the injustice in the legal system, and the media.
And yes, this case is all about the fact that a Black man walked on a murder of a White woman that the nation was enraged about. That is what the Vegas case is really about.
The question in this case, throught the whole week of initial coverage was not about what happened but about the fact that OJ would be tried again and found guilty. I mean newscasters were gleeful as they reported this. And the prosecutor wasted no time discussing the prior trial which has nothing to do with Vegas. Yes, this is a classic railroad attempt.
I don't care if OJ goes to jail for what he did in Vegas, but the media and the legal system seem to not be trying this case but the one over a decade ago. Convicting him on something other than what he did is wrong. Whether you like that or not.
In the end OJ has to be accountable to God alone. If we as humans could try him for what he has done in this case alone, I wouldn't say a word. But that isn't the case and you know it. Your last sentence proves it.
Vengence is not part of law, nor justice. Vengence is a perversion of both. And until White defendants are treated in the same manner, or this never happens again, I will speak up. Otherwise what's to stop it from happening to another Black guy who doesn't have OJ's money?
This can be found at Black and White Blog, where I am co-author.
Steve Says:
September 26th, 2008 at 9:40 pm e
You need to get your facts straight dude. OJ did NOT go into that Hotel room in Vegas with 4 other men. You state above “reportedly”. What “report” did you read that stated only 4 men went in with him? The fact is there were 5 WITH him and 6 if you count Ricci! 4 have taken plea deals and 2 are on trial (Stewart and Simpson). All public record.
I have heard nothing mentioned to the jury (by the prosecution) about the California case. In fact the Judge has gone out of her way not allowing anything in, regarding either judgement. You think the wind was taken out of the prosecution case this week, when the Judge wouldn’t let in, that the fact is, all the stolen stuff should be in the hands of the Goldman’s? Ummmm you sure don’t say a peep about that case, and he was found guilty.
I’m not even going to go into the black and white issue as that seems to be your focus. Instead I’ll stick with facts. That are available to you and everyone else. Did OJ get overcharged? IMO, yes I think he did. Was a crime committed? YES, or why else would 4 of the participants have already plead to felonies? Did OJ lie and say “no guns were involved”? You bet he did! Today they played on tape he knew! Plus there is testimony from the 2 guys who brought guns that OJ asked them to bring “heat”!
Steve,
First and foremost this blog is about Black and White issues. That is the name of the blog and the purpose.
When I said he went in with 4 other men, I am referring to those men that have plead out and are now testifying against him. My not making that clear was my error.
I state reportedly because I have fault with the evidence as has been reported, and the manner in which it was reported, by the media. In fact as of today it was proven by the defense and a witness of the prosecution that documents provided by the prosecution contained false information and omitted factual information. Thus the reported evidence is inaccurate.
As for the L.A. case, you obviously did not go to the link I provided, nor bothered to look up the information for yourself. The link detailed the information I summarized about the prosecutions actions in introducing the prior charge against OJ. And that was allowed by the judge you claim went out of her way.
And I am not commenting on if the Goldman's should or should not have the items in question. That is a separate matter not pertaining to this case.
And I don't refer to the Goldman civil trial because it was an obvious attempt to persecute OJ for having been found innocent of the charges of murder. If I were to discuss that I would have to say that if he was not guilty of murder, and he was found innocent, then there should be no way he could be found liable for the civil case. If he did not commit the crime why in the world should he pay for it? Since he is paying for it, it is an undue punishment simply to fulfill a desire to enact vengeance.
As for the facts, nothing I have noted - other than my incorrect comment on the number of men with OJ in the room - is incorrect.
As for the question of a crime, we agree that OJ was overcharged. And I never questioned if a crime was or was not committed. My question is whether he is being tried, fairly, for this case or in a retroactive manner for the L.A. case. In my opinion it is the prior case that this all revolves around.
And the men that have pleaded out are doing so because they have the opportunity to receive probation instead of jail time. That would motivate anyone to say whatever it takes to convict OJ. Though I again am not saying it is necessarily untrue, but doubt does linger. Especially since evidence out on the 29th proved the prosecution was incorrect.
As for whether OJ lied about guns, neither you nor I can be sure. But the man who claims to have a gun and provided the other stated that he "forgot" to mention the gun when arrested and confessing. And while he says he had a gun drawn, he did not state that OJ, or anyone saw the gun directly, or that it was in direct sight of OJ. So again doubt exists.
You rely on testimony of people that have a vested interest in seeing OJ convicted as harshly as possible. That is a problem. And as far as I am aware the tape does not state that OJ knew that guns were present at the time of the event. Just that one of the men possessed a license to carry a gun. It's not the same thing.
But the big point that you seem to miss that my thoughts that justice is not being carried out here is incendiary to many Whites. That they are looking for blood, not in this case but a case prior.
You mention the civil case, which has nothing to do with this; because you want to reinforce the idea OJ is guilty of a prior crime he was found innocent of. Why is that so important when he is being tried for something completely unrelated?
Camille Mills Says:
October 5th, 2008 at 3:26 am e
Hello
O J did not get a fair trial. The Judge was not even fair and she was against O J herself. When Tom Riccio testified she told him to answer yes or no and not add commentary to his ansers. eRiccio was not hard on O J. When Michael Mcclinton testified they never told him to just answer yes or no. Also the prosecutor did not want a black woman who was a minister to sit on the jury because he felt she might forgive O J. he knew that most white people would be hateful and wanting to get retribution because he was found not guilty 13 years ago. So if you believe he was guilty when the court found him not guilty, do you believe he is not guilty whrn the racist jury found him guilty?
Ronli Says:
October 22nd, 2008 at 7:42 am e
Keep up the good work.
Visit Injustice USA to see just how corrupt the courts are.
OJ Simpson is innocent. I finished reading a book titled Justice Defeated by Steven H. Adler where Mr. Adler discussed the reasonable doubts & the fact that this double murder could’ve been committed by multiple killers. OJ Simpson voluntarily came to the cops & gave his blood & hair samples.
When he was in Chicago, he could’ve easily fled to France or Switzerland or any other nation that doesn’t have an extradition policy with the U.S. & wired money there which is what a guilty man would do. Yet he voluntarily turned himself in to be interviewed by the cops w/o a lawyer present. The cops did a poor job maintaining the crime scene & it’s very easy for contamination to have happened. What is also true is that the cops didn’t investigate any1 else who would have a motive. Contamination did happen & Dr. Henry Lee had testified that there was something wrong with the circumstantial proof.
Steven H. Adler also didn’t believe the prosecutor’s theory as to why it happened. His book is informative in critiquing Daniel Petrocelli & discusses while he didn’t say that he is innocent, he discusses why there are reasonable doubts. He was criticized on another forum by people who didn’t like his conclusions. My observation has been that people who keep saying that OJ Simpson did it say it because they want it to be him. There’s much more that can be said, but perhaps you could interview Steven H. Adler http://www.justicedefeated.com or even read his book. The book does have things that you’ll be uncomfortable with, but I found it informative.
Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran said that while the double murder could’ve happened in a matter of minutes & that 1 weapon could’ve been used, he also said that he couldn’t rule out multiple weapons nor could he rule out multiple killers.
But who do I believe the double murder was committed by? I believe that the double murder was committed by the mob & I now believe that Ron Goldman & not Nicole Brown Simpson was the intended target. Yes, we’ve been consistently told that Nicole was the target but it’s now my belief that the killer(s) was after Ron Lyle Goldman & Nicole Brown Simpson was killed trying to stop the killer(s). Some people incl. homicide detectives & forensic experts have said that this can’t be ruled out.
As written earlier, some of Ron Goldman’s friends were drug dealers & the Mezzaluna where Ron Goldman waited @ was run by drug money. Was Ron Goldman a drug dealer? Ron Goldman had financial problems & he got involved with the mob to continue living the rich California life. The police haven’t properly looked @ others who would have a motive to kill him, because they had already concluded who did it. Steven H. Adler wrote that Colombian mob members may have wanted him killed & knives are the most common killing weapons of drug dealers.
My comments about Ron Goldman’s involvement with the Mob, along with speculation of him being a drug dealer who was killed by members of the Underworld is offensive to some people. But these are conclusions I came to on my own & I’ve found others who have the same conclusions. I know that you believe your sister was the intended target, but I no longer believe this. It’s possible that Fred Goldman may deep down inside know that his son was the intended target & that his son was involved with the
Underworld . Some have said that Fred Goldman published the book If I did it for these reasons in addition to the fact that his son just wasn’t the Golden Boy as he & Kim Goldman have depicted him. Ron Goldman must have thought that because he was 25 years old & a martial arts expert, he could handle the mob, but didn’t realize that in the Underworld, there’s almost always a better fighter.
No wounds were found on OJ Simpson’s body which are consistent with a fight & Ron Goldman fought his attacker(s). Yes, the coroner testified that Ron Goldman’s hand wounds were caused by him hitting the tree branches, but what happened is that Ron Goldman 1st hit his attacker(s) @ the beginning of the fight & @ the end when he was dying his hands hit the tree branches, thus leaving the hand cuts & wounds. There were 58 stab wounds on Ron Goldman’s body. There’s much more which can be said about the trial but too much to write here.
OJ Simpson has been criticized by Geraldo Rivera for speaking @ Black churches after he was acquitted, on the grounds that he didn’t do much for the Black community & Geraldo Rivera accused him of trying to make himself a civil rights leader. Geraldo Rivera is unfair & dishonest. OJ Simpson did the right thing by speaking @ Black churches. The Black churches believed that OJ Simpson’s innocent & stood by him while others have treated him like a pariah. OJ Simpson was gracious to speak @ the Black churches because he wanted to thank them for believing in his innocence & standing by him.
My final thoughts on domestic violence is that what I’ve been tuned out by is the ideology which has surrounded this crime. What I mean is that when domestic violence is committed by women against men (OK 80-85% are committed by men against women), there are people who make excuses for it, which they wouldn’t make for a man. I don’t see men hitting women as much different from men hitting men other than the size differences.
The punishment for assault&battery, along with murder must be based on the facts & circumstances of each case. The problem I have with the discussion of domestic violence is that people such as Oprah Winfrey & lawyer Gloria Allred downplay violence when women commit it against men, which is why the comments on this topic have sometimes tuned me out. On her magazine, Oprah Winfrey @least downplayed the seriousness if not condone statutory rape when women commit it against teenage boys, which she wouldn’t do if a man did it with a teenage girl.
Gloria Allred by my observation is not interested in the truth but in winning cases. Gloria Allred didn’t care if the Duke Lacrosse players (it was proven that the woman lied), OJ Simpson, actor Robert Blake (acquitted) & others are innocent, which prove that winning cases & not the truth is what interests Gloria Allred. As written, I believe that the punishment for violent crimes must be based on the facts & circumstances of the case & not the sex of the perpetrator nor the victim. Yet the topic of violence gets discussed in simple terms of men hitting women.
Both OJ Simpson & CJ Stewart were convicted of the Las Vegas robbery but I believe that they were unjustly treated. The memorabilia dealers didn’t want them prosecuted. Even the prosecutors admit that most of the things belonged to OJ Simpson. The reason that OJ Simpson & CJ Stewart were treated differently was because of the belief many have of OJ Simpson. The fact that most of the things belonged to OJ Simpson & were stolen from him are grounds for leniency for him & CJ Stewart. Most people would’ve been given lenient plea bargains or there wouldn’t have even been criminal prosecutions, but OJ Simpson was treated differently.
Finally, I don’t want to sound harsh, but there have been many people incl. children who have been murder victims. Both victims died in their adulthood though @ young ages, but both were given time to achieve their life’s goals. People have murdered children & murdering children is worse than killing an adult, because a 5 year old murder victim was denied the time to achieve his or her life’s ambitions. Nicole Brown Simpson was an adult & @least she had time to achieve her life’s ambitions, though you’ve said that she wasn’t given enough time. Yes, it’s horrible that Ron Goldman & Nicole Brown Simpson were killed, but why are these 2 adult victims more special than a 5 year old who has murdered? Your thoughts are welcome, if you wish to write anything & thank you for allowing my comments to be published on your site.
Mr. Vass:
Thank you for publishing my message. As you may know, I've written about the OJ Simpson murder trial on other forums & thus I copied & pasted what I wrote on other forums here.
Yes, the Las Vegas robbery case is a different matter but OJ Simpson & CJ Stewart were unjustly punished.
But what are your thoughts on my belief that Ron Goldman & not Nicole Brown Simpson being the intended target? I believe for reasons already state that the Underworld was after Ron Goldman & that Nicole lost her life trying to stop the killers.
I also believe that Fred Goldman has been quelling his own guilt all these years over his son's death. When Ron Goldman had money problems & asked his dad for help, his dad refused. Because Ron Goldman needed money, he got involved with the Underworld. Was Ron Goldman a drug dealer? It can't be ruled out but he knew mob members, though what his involvement was is unknown.
In the Underworld, mob members regularly kill eachother & this is what happened in this case. Furthermore, it's my belief that multiple killers (perhaps 2 to 4) committed this crime. But is Ron Goldman really a sympathetic victim? Sure it's always bad when some1 is killed but when you involve yourself with the Mob, well you assume the risks.
Perhaps somewhere in Fred Goldman & his daughter Kim's mind, they know what Ron Goldman involved himself with & what got him killed. If Fred Goldman had given his son money, then maybe he wouldn't have gotten involved with the Underworld & so on.
Fred & Kim Goldman do go to alot of trouble to say that their son was @ the wrong place @ the wrong time. If this is true, then why the need to keep saying this over & over again on different media programs? The actions of Fred Goldman are that of some1 who is quelling his own guilt over his son's death. Since you mention the Brown family, it must be noted that Denise Brown & to a lesser extent her sister Tonya have been the 1s who are on bad terms with OJ Simpson. OJ Simpson is on good terms with Louis & Juditha Brown-Nicole's parents & I believe Nicole Brown Simpson's parents believe that OJ Simpson is innocent because the parents continued to see him for years, though it mainly related to family matters.
What I don't understand is how can the prosecutors know what the killer(s) motives were? There are no known eyewitnesses to this double murder, thus only the
killer(s) know why they did it. Have any of you who post considered the possibility that the killer(s) were after Ron Goldman, not Nicole Brown Simpson & that Nicole Brown Simpson lost her life trying to stop the
killer(s). Mr. Vass, your thoughts are welcome. Thanks.
I am so happy and relieved to read these posts as this case of outright injustice against OJ Simpson just left a sickning taste in my mouth for years. From the first trial I always felt all along that white america and the jewish media are all trying to convict an innocent man knowing full well that the circumstantial evidence did not add up to OJ committing this sort of crime or even one person carrying out two murders without a scratch. This was just seemed ridiculous to believe. Yet the media and white (and some token black) americans would choose to ignore this and to insist that he is guilty. Just like MJ was a target
Post a Comment