Friday, June 17, 2011
If the glove doesn't fit;you can’t convict
I probably still have some old VCR tapes that are titled"OJ Simpson Trial" packed away somewhere. I shamefully admit that I was a “Trial of the Century" junkie from day one. I would often tape the trial on the days I couldn't watch. It was on this date 17 years ago, June 17, 1994 that O.J. Simpson was charged with the murders of his ex wife Nicole Simpson and her friend, Ronald Goldman. Has it really been that long?
I still remember all those lively discussions I had with my work mates, relatives, strangers, and friends over the evidence, the characters, the "Dream Team “of the O.J. Simpson trial. I couldn't really get away from it because who can forget Judge Lance Ito and his love of the limelight, so he allowed TV cameras to televise the everyday proceedings.The media took full advantage, CNN and Fox had nightly panels discussing the events of the day.
It all started for me when I was watching a Houston Rocket playoff game that was split screened to show what looked like the entire Los Angeles police department chasing O.J Simpson's Bronco as he cruised up the freeway. At the time I was annoyed because it had to be the slowest chase in history, and I wanted to watch my game in full screen. Little did I know that I would become addicted to the everyday twists, turns and new revelations .It seems like every Friday, the trial ended in suspense. It was as if I was watching an episode of "Dallas "or as my wife describes it "It's like my daytime soap operas."
I have met people who thought that O.J. Simpson was innocent, but they weren't that passive about it. I did have a coworker that to this day, believes O.J. Simpson was innocent. He was such a believer that every day he would come up with some contradicting evidence. He stuck to the story that the evidence was planted, even though we pointed to the bloody sock evidence which couldn't be manufactured, because in order for blood to get to the other side of the sock it would have had to go through his leg. It was in the early days of DNA evidence, so none of us could argue with a science we really didn't fully understand. When we started to get the upper hand on the argument, the coworker would always end it by saying “what was the verdict?" The conversation went south after that. He never had an answer when we said “his DNA was at the scene in of the murder."
I didn't really follow the civil trial that much nor the events that eventually led to O.J. going to prison because the latter could never match the sensationalism of: People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson.
Come on admit it,I was not the only O.J. Simpson trial junkie. What was the compelling evidence that convinced you O.J was guilty?
It's beginning to sound like an old record "He's Back!"yes, Roy Mark has slipped by the highly secured VA forum under the name of " truthaboveall..He even wrote a blog and what a choice of names as he continues to decieve the Advocate...lol
Happy Fathers’ Day -to those to whom it applies.
Posted by Mike at 10:52 AM