Comments on: OJ Changed My Life

By: Roger L. Simon » Vindication for the Goldman Family - OJ guilty on 12 counts

Sat, 04 Oct 2008 07:38:09 +0000

[...] have written elsewhere (and in my forthcoming book) of the curious influence of the O. J. Simpson trial on my life and [...]

By: Jinahh

Jinahh — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:52:59 +0000

Basically, the OJ trial fits a tried adn tested rule: any black accused of a crime is guilty! The reverse of this is that any time a black accuses a white of a crime, like Tawana or Duke U, it’s a lie. The worst cities and countries have one thing in common, a black majority. So racism is not bad, it’s realism.

By: Ed Fuji

Ed Fuji — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:33:29 +0000

As you have undoubtedly heard, the correct wording was, “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.” I believe that I saw a video (probably from the preliminary hearing) where Simpson can be seen mouthing to Cochran, “The gloves are too small.” as he viewed the dried, crumpled gloves from a distance. The problem is that he was too far away to be able to tell that without actually putting them on. I have never heard anyone else mention that scene.

By: Sour Juice

Sour Juice — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:42:49 +0000

Russ,

Excellent summation!

I served as jury foreman on a murder trail and was a first-hand witness to the mindset of the jurors through the deliberations. The eyes of twelve independent and diverse thinking individuals cast a broad perspective upon the facts and evidence under evaluation. Though examination and deliberation of this material, the collective wisdom of this empowered panel can, in most cases, reach unanimous agreement

Our society must divorce ourselves from a presumption of guilt or innocence and must let the facts and evidence decide the case. No system is perfect but with tricks and deception, not all juries are smart enough to filter out the emotions and biases and come to a legitimate verdict.

If I have a complaint about our judicial system, it is the means used to select jurors. “Cherry Picking” jurors to match the case’s profile seems unjust. Unfortunately, in OJ’s murder case, I do believe that happened.

By: Russ

Russ — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:09:03 +0000

PJ,
If what you’re saying about O.J. being found not guilty is true, and those in disagreement must, therefore, be rejecting the jury system, then conversely, you must believe that there has never been a jury mistake in all the “not guilty” verdicts returned by juries. The point of most of these posts is the opinion that a generally sound American jury system still gets it wrong from time to time. A “not guilty” jury verdict does not mean that it was proven that the defendant did not commit the crime. Rather, it only indicates that, in a court of law, the jury (whether mistakenly or accurately) decided that the case was not made “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That’s a far sight from that verdict proving some kind of objective innocence. By the way, what do you do with the civil trial verdict? There, he was found civilly liable.

By: Allyson

Allyson — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:42:22 +0000

Roger, the OJ story is so interesting, and I want to read more! Please, don’t keep me hanging! I am fascinated!

By: pj johnson

pj johnson — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:23:36 +0000

Sir, You are in very large company in your conviction that OJ is guilty but a jury of his peers found him not guilty, which must mean you reject a system of justice that uses the jury system. All can comment, and many do, re court decisions made by jury but in our system of law they give the final word, therefore despite your strongly argued conclusion, OJ is “not guilty”. You don’t speculate on the actions of the LA police and the possible evidence tampering (pretty widespread when, the claim is made, “to insure the conviction of a defendant” obviously guilty. Also the possible involvement of drug deal gone wrong added to the likelihood that OJ was there to spy on his former wifes activities, discovered the crime went to the bodies to confirm what he saw then returned hurriedly to his house to make his booked chicago, flight knowing he would be the prime and probably only likely suspect. Well my speculation is I suggest as good as any other. But I am glad that time has brought you a measure of maturity, politically speaking!

By: Jeremy1Esq

Jeremy1Esq — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:40:55 +0000

I think most of the readers who visit this site are pretty intelligent so its no shock that with the exception of a few posts, that the comments are accurate and indicative of how many people feel. I was even glad to see someone post the black version of why he was acquitted. I dont totally agree with that because I dont think most blacks are smart enough to analyze it other then lets avquit OJ because we are upset at all the years of injustice to the black community by whites. OJ never came back to the black community, he just faked being white to benefit. While the blacks let a guy like this go to support a cause that they feel ruins them still many years later, they insult young blacks who try to succeed in a white world.

The black community is a failure because it cant make up its mind what it wants to be. Do we work and stop being doormats and become more acceptable in society or do we keep playing victim and use it to get free stuff, perpetuate laziness, and take revenge where we can against whites, many of which are the same liberals who want to keep them down.

While its easy to be young and bitter and hateful of conservatives and their priciples because of what you see and read, I think the author of this piece is just the latest example of maturity, awareness, and experience, putting him on the right path of thinking and understanding of how the world works and what liberal whites do to stay in power and keep minorities so filled with hate.

The revelations of these people who go from liberal to conservative must far outweigh those who go from conservative to liberal.

Some of us are lucky and we get it from the start but Im glad to see that an event, even one such as OJ, can help you get it. Great article and thanks for sharing.

By: Sour Juice

Sour Juice — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:43:24 +0000

The “Trail of the Century” was not about OJ but of the frailties and greed of humanity. To some, it was a payback for social inequity; to others, a stage to strut one’s wares. Hopefully those passions are somewhat abated and OJ’s fate is now in the hands of true justice.

By: Eagleeye

Eagleeye — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:57:53 +0000

Roger,

As a screenwriter don’t you think that you also ought to reflect on Hollywood’s not inconsiderable contribution toward many of the baleful changes that have occurred in America over the last several decades.

As I see it, Hollywood was and is an essential participant in the “long march through the culture” that Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci preached prior to WWII. The success of that devastating march through our culture has resulted in the cultural wreckage we see all around us; black pathology, OJ and a host of other unsavory things being merely a few indicators of the depth and breadth of the victory of Gramsci’s strategy.