OJ Anniversary

Jun 15, 2004 5:00 PM
Tags:

Damn, it's been a full decade since O.J. Simpson "the real killers" stabbed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. And I still can't believe what happened.

Where was I? I found out when I walked into a writing class at college. I hadn't watched TV that morning, because I found it inconceivable that he'd be acquitted. My classmates' shocked expressions told me otherwise.

To this day I've never spoken with a single white person who thinks O.J. didn't do it. Even my most liberal white friends think he was a guilty in the colloquial sense, but should have been acquitted due to LAPD corruption tainting the investigation.

But I saw lots of black people celebrating and even a friend of mine — a mild-mannered, thoughtful, religious son of Caribbean immigrants who was attending an Ivy League school — insisted that O.J. was innocent, period.

He was certainly smart enough to grasp DNA evidence. He did not use racism to excuse his own shortcomings. And he certainly did not resent white people (he's married to one now).

More or less, his belief was that the racist LAPD framed a rich black man that they resented. Convincing him that the DNA evidence superceded that was impossible; like using dinosaur bones to show a creationist the error of his ways.

So, ten years later, I'm still frustrated about the O.J. Simpson trial; not so much about how such an obviously guilty man can use his wealth to escape justice (that's upsetting, but not surprising), but how so many people could deny something so obvious — that O.J. Simpson was a murderer.


Comments: OJ Anniversary

There are a lot of people who believe if they clap hard enough, reality will conform to their expectations. That said, I'm not ready to put as much faith in DNA evidence as you are -- in theory, DNA evidence *is* a great identifier, but it's also very fragile, and the analysis of it is fairly arcane and open to interpretation. If you have a forensic investigator of the "clap hard enough" variety, it's easy to see how the wrong person could be convincted.

Posted by: John on June 15, 2004 6:03 PM | permalink

Well it wasn't *just* the DNA evidence.

He had a motive. He had a history of violence toward Nicole. He had no good alibi. There were no other real suspects. etc.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on June 15, 2004 6:07 PM | permalink

DNA evidence isn't good enough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone is guilty. It is best used to rule out a person and prove their innocence.

Posted by: David Kearns on June 15, 2004 8:31 PM | permalink

Like he said, it wasn't just the DNA evidence...

So, 10 years later it is no longer taboo to come out and say that OJ is a murderer?

Oh, your bit about showing the creationist the dinosaur bone reminded me of Jack Chick. While reading his hilarious comics, oops, I mean "tracts," I noticed that he acknowledged dinosaurs in one. He is a creationist, so dinosaur bones mean nothing to him.

Posted by: O'dell on June 15, 2004 8:48 PM | permalink

Since when was it taboo to say OJ killed them? The fact that he got away with murder has been a national joke for 10 years. Maybe the *media* can't say so, but they are subject to libel if they do so.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on June 15, 2004 10:40 PM | permalink

No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.