Showing posts with label O.J. Simpson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label O.J. Simpson. Show all posts
Monday, July 18, 2011
Post No. 170: First We Get Rid of All the Jurors
© 2011, the Institute for Applied Common Sense
Last week, a staff member made a pound cake, and brought it into the office. Although the cake looked fine to us, she said that she became distracted while baking it, and that we might find the bottom a “little crunchy” because she baked it 20 minutes too long.
While we were transforming into Pillsbury Doughboys, Betty Crocker’s Father stopped by. He was serving as a juror on a jury trial at the courthouse down the street, and wanted a piece of his daughter’s cake. She also warned him of the potential crunchiness and the reason for it.
He appeared to enjoy the cake, but insisted that she baked it with the oven rack at the wrong level in her stove. Thinking that he did not hear her say that she baked the cake too long, she mentioned it again.
“I heard you the first time; that doesn’t matter.” he snapped, “What I’m saying is that you need to change the rack level.”
For the overly analytical ones of us here at the Institute, our thoughts instantly went to, “And this guy is serving as a juror?” We all hoped that he was serving on a civil jury, where only money was involved, and not someone’s liberty.
But there were 2 other experiences we had last week which made us further question the ability of criminal defendants to get a fair trial, apart from the efforts of the Nancy Graces of the world to convict them immediately after arrest and before booking is completed.
We previously mentioned our connections to the O.J. trial when the Institute was headquartered in Los Angeles. A friend of the Institute who knew of those connections called us shortly after “Tot Mom” Casey Anthony was acquitted in the death of her daughter, and said that it reminded her of the O.J. trial. The acquittal made her once again question our entire legal system.
She was apparently a fly in the jury room during the deliberations. Shortly thereafter, another tenant in our building asked whether we had heard of Anthony’s acquittal, and then immediately launched into how Anthony’s delay in reporting her daughter missing led her to believe that she was guilty. We suspect that there were enough stale donuts left in the jury room to support multiple flies.
These days, we aren’t quite sure how anyone receives a fair trial, with electronic media spewing sound bites at the speed of light. We seriously doubt that many take the time to digest even 1/100th of the evidence or facts involved, and yet they arrive at a conclusion.
To which they are entitled, no doubt.
We recall a friend once suggesting that because she saw photos of the mayhem inflicted on Nicole Brown Simpson’s body, she knew that O.J. was guilty. And of course, the former head of the International Monetary Fund was guilty, because the rich prey on the poor and consider themselves above the law.
We’re not quite sure whether this is what the Founding Fathers envisioned early on.
But as they often say, “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”
For most students of the law, the line between civil and criminal offenses is fairly clear, and there is even a different burden of proof built into our system of jurisprudence. And white collar folks, whether rightly or wrongly, don’t expect to find themselves locked up in a jail cell with “common criminals.”
(We can almost guarantee you that hundreds of our readers across the globe, upon reading the preceding paragraph thought out loud, “But they should!”)
Horse manure is about to hit the fan soon, and the whole notion of innocence until proven guilty is about to be severely tested. Just continue to follow this phone hacking scandal involving News of the World. What prompted us to write this piece was an e-mail alert from the New York Times just a couple of hours ago, entitled, “An Arrest and Scotland Yard Resignation Roil Britain.” Upon reading the e-mail further, it noted that Britain’s most highly ranked police official resigned, and Rebekah Brooks, the former Chief Executive of News International, was arrested.
Over the years, there have been calls in some circles for expert or professional jurors to address some of the imperfections associated with lay jurors. But one of the principles built into the system is that one is entitled to be judged by a jury of his or her peers.
For the sake of the system, and all involved, we sure hope that neither our pound cake crunching retiree, our disillusioned friend in California, our fellow tenant in our building, nor Nancy Grace are on Ms. Brooks’ jury.
She wouldn’t have a chance in hell.
Well, but then again, it could be worse. We could only allow politicians to serve as jurors….
Hmm..., but then they would never reach a verdict.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Post No. 51: Finally, Let Me Get this O.J. Stuff out of My System
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Having been fortunate enough to have visited a number of countries in this world, some third world in status, I have often thought that very few of us in this country fully appreciate the luxury of “disposable opinion.”
Once certain basic priorities have been addressed, humans then have the luxury, or time, to think about other, less pressing issues. While explaining why the Taliban was welcome in Afghanistan despite the Western world’s objections, a peasant told a reporter in a recent documentary, “Who cares about women’s rights when you have moved from chaos to order in your daily lives.”
In Post No. 50, entitled, “O.J.’s Opportunity – Lost” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-50-ojs-opportunity-lost.html), I noted that it was sad that Simpson’s life could not have continued on a positive path, uninterrupted by the murder charges. I further noted that an opportunity had been lost to provide inspiration to millions of kids.
In that article, I also mentioned two factors that suggested to me that perhaps Simpson did not commit the murders, at least not personally. In response thereto, I received some pretty intense comments, most of which came to me directly via e-mail. I found it interesting that so many folks continue to have such strong opinions about the first Simpson criminal verdict. (I strongly suspect that the jurors’ personal feelings about the first trial were a significant factor in the most recent verdict, whether rightly or wrongly.)
The intensity of opinions held by supporters and detractors of the two current presidential candidates has often reminded me of the intensity of opinions held by observers of the Simpson verdict.
The Simpson trials and our current presidential election exposed the American public’s feelings about a host of issues. What has astounded me is how rigidly held the beliefs and positions are, on both sides of the fence.
All of this has incredible complexity, and our personal reactions are obviously complicated by our personal experiences.
I honestly do not know whether Simpson did it. It is, of course, possible. I just think that there is a 51% probability that he did not do it. Not 50%, but 51%. There was a lot of tough evidence against him. Since I wasn’t there, and there were no other first party witnesses to the event, I just don’t know with any degree of certainty. However, there are many people in our society who feel strongly about this verdict and “know” one way or the other. I find that fascinating.
Anytime a case is based on circumstantial evidence, and there is a lack of “direct evidence,” the analysis becomes problematic. Here, in the case of the Simpson / Goldman murders, there were no direct witnesses. The only potentially direct evidence was the blood evidence, and a question was raised, either rightly or wrongly, about that evidence.
A circumstantial case is like a suit of clothes and make-up. It can be applied to lots of individuals. Remember the movie Trading Places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_Places)? There has been some research in connection with widely differing jury verdicts stemming from applying the same set of facts to different people. That’s why trial lawyers work so hard to promote certain images to jurors. The same applies to political handlers and media outlets.
One could take Warren Buffet, transform him into a homeless person in appearance, put him on trial for a crime, and I suspect that he’ll get convicted more than 50% of the time. You could replace him with various other substitute homeless people, Bill Gates, Tyra Banks, Heather Locklear, and get varying results, all with the same evidence.
A prosecutorial filing deputy has to be very careful in deciding to file the initial charges when there is only circumstantial evidence to support the charge. It’s not clear to me that the Simpson criminal charges would have been filed against John Doe husband, without the public history of prior assaults. But I’m not into second guessing people’s motives. The media should also be careful in how it paints and characterizes candidates.
That being said, I fully believe in the system. It’s about procedure and guidelines, and I’m a procedure and process kind of guy.
Can it be made better? Of course. But once you insert the raw human element, it becomes far more complicated and problematic, and therefore the out product becomes inconsistent. That doesn’t mean that the system is faulty.
I think that the biggest problem Simpson had to overcome in his first trial was his prior altercations with his wife. Some believe that if you beat your wife 3 or 4 times previously, you are more pre-disposed to, or will finally, murder her.
It is my understanding that 25% of all violence against women is committed by a “loved one,” or someone with whom the victim is intimately familiar. (Some have even argued that the most effective way to reduce violence against women would be to outlaw the development of interpersonal, heterosexual relationships.) While growing up, I knew many a couple where the husband physically assaulted the wife, on multiple occasions, and they stayed married, kept it undercover, and they live together to this day. Murder never took place.
Quite frankly, it has always been my view that the first time that a woman is hit, she should summon the authorities and immediately leave the relationship so that there is no second event. There is absolutely no excuse for a man to hit a woman; however, I have known many a man to do so, or be very close to doing so, and I’ve had to pull them away, quickly. And yet, I never sensed murderous intent.
When I was in the D.A.’s Office, there was a period when I had to try cases which I disliked. Typical scenario: Drunk man on Friday night beats wife. Kids yell and scream. Someone calls the police. The police arrive, and the husband is belligerent. The assaulted wife and the kids identify the husband as the perpetrator.
The issue then became whether there was a felony or a misdemeanor committed. Generally speaking, the police can arrest if there is sufficient corroborating evidence (other witnesses, or sufficient injury) to support felony assault, or if the assault is made in their presence. The police can not arrest for misdemeanor conduct outside of their presence, unless the wife makes a citizen’s arrest, thus authorizing the police to arrest the husband.
In the typical situation, the husband was arrested and charged with assault on the wife, resisting arrest, and assault on a peace officer. Criminal charges were filed and a trial date was set. However, by the time of the trial, the husband and wife had filed a civil lawsuit, seeking millions, and alleging police brutality and excessive force. Since the criminal trial was held before the civil trial, and could potentially affect the civil trial because of the higher burden of proof at the criminal level, I had to win the criminal trial.
There was intense pressure from the police department. In virtually every instance, by the time that the criminal trial rolled around, the wife had changed her testimony and was prepared to testify on behalf of the husband that he did not do anything to justify summoning the police, and they overreacted. That is why the D.A. changed its policy and decided that the offense was “against the state or society,” and not against the wife. In the late 1970s, the D.A. decided to pursue prosecution of cases, even if the wife dropped the charges leading to the citizen’s arrest.
I think that a significant segment of the population felt that O.J. was guilty because he previously assaulted his wife. In my view, as reprehensible as that prior conduct may have been, the leap from wife assault to murder should not have been made lightly.
We have lots of scientific evidence about brain function to at least partially understand rage. What we don’t generally see is the ability of a first time murderer to simply walk away calmly without a distinct, obvious, physiological reaction.
We have known for years that a certain part of the brain kicks in when a person feels threatened to the point that survival becomes an issue, which explains cannibalism by shipwrecked or downed airplane crews, and parents fighting off attacking bears or sharks. They are, at least temporarily, traumatized knowing that they resorted to that behavior.
A story appeared on the front page of the Los Angeles Times some years ago, about the post traumatic stress suffered by both female and male former members of the Israeli Army. Upon discharge, they found themselves heading to distant lands where they could readily acquire illicit, dangerous drugs to blur their memories of the pain of death.
The body’s natural functional response to death is fairly automatic and obvious. You have to stand over a whacked body to fully appreciate the hard-wired nervous system response, which is built into us all. It’s designed to kick in with respect to attacks on members of our tribe/species. It does not kick it as much in connection with those animals outside of our tribe/species. If the animal coming toward you is charging, then a different part of the brain, dealing with survival, kicks in. Even after that survival experience, you will still see physiological changes. There are auditory, visual, tactile, taste, and olfactory stimuli which can immediately produce violent and fairly long lasting automatic responses in the human body. You usually regurgitate first, the heart races uncontrollably, and you sweat profusely.
Ordering someone to do something is VERY different. There is a buffer. But no one alleged that Simpson hired someone else to commit the murders.
Our brain scan technology and research has improved dramatically over the past 13 years, and we can now map brain activity using computer monitors. Still, very little research is done on violent criminals. We often hear about the cold blooded attitude of teenagers, and how they dismiss their conduct so easily and have truly become sociopaths. However, they were not born that way, and generally they have had years of anti-social support and activity to reach that point.
Thus it is my feeling that it is difficult to find people who can kill a human being for the first time, and then calmly walk away without exhibiting physiological changes. If someone had produced evidence that O.J. had previously killed some folks in years prior, to develop a cold-blooded attitude, I might have felt differently.
This purpose of this article is not to justify Simpson’s conduct, but rather outline the type of analysis which we hope would be employed if we were on trial for such an offense.
All of this brings me to the current political climate. In the jury trial context, I always felt that jurors should dismiss their personal experiences and prejudices, and analyze cases from as pure and non-biased a perspective as possible.
As a general rule, a trial attorney tries to hammer home 3 or 4 major points in advocating on behalf of his client. In a similar vein, there should be 3 or 4 overriding considerations that we take into account in deciding our next leader, not 37 different, dissected, personal characteristics or relationships.
In fact, all jury instructions read by judges to the jurors before they deliberate indicate that they should block out their personal biases, and base their decision entirely on the evidence. It’s a goal, but unfortunately, not a reality.
I never understood why folks inject their personal views in analyzing a situation to reach a decision about something that does not personally affect them. Aren’t we interested in doing what is in the best interests of society at large? That so many people had fixed opinions about the O.J. verdict along gender, racial, age, social status, economic, and other lines has always been troubling to me. How about pure analysis just based on the facts?
Perhaps Johnnie Cochran was correct in imploring the jury not to “rush to judgment.”
We are seeing virtually the same type of personal analysis and dissection, with very little attention to facts and objectivity, occurring in connection with this political campaign, by both sides. Isn’t there a more objective means by which we can analyze and judge the candidates without invoking our personal biases?
A black siding with Simpson in response to the evidence, or a female siding with the deceased, or Republicans siding with Palin in connection with her comments, and Republicans attacking Jeremiah Wright, while Democrats attack John Hagee, all represent the worst in our culture.
And gains us little.
Governor Palin apparently thinks that hammering home that Obama had a relationship with former “domestic terrorist” Bill Ayers will be the equivalent to Simpson’s prior assaults on Nicole Brown.
As silly as this might sound, fans rooting for their home team do not get to determine the winner just by arguing their position and attacking the other team. Some objectivity is built into sporting events so that there is little question as to which team or side has prevailed.
How about a little more intellectual honesty as we walk into the voting booth next month? Remember that reasonable people can differ. Remember that we all want to come out of this stagnancy, and that there is more strength in unity.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Having been fortunate enough to have visited a number of countries in this world, some third world in status, I have often thought that very few of us in this country fully appreciate the luxury of “disposable opinion.”
Once certain basic priorities have been addressed, humans then have the luxury, or time, to think about other, less pressing issues. While explaining why the Taliban was welcome in Afghanistan despite the Western world’s objections, a peasant told a reporter in a recent documentary, “Who cares about women’s rights when you have moved from chaos to order in your daily lives.”
In Post No. 50, entitled, “O.J.’s Opportunity – Lost” (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-50-ojs-opportunity-lost.html), I noted that it was sad that Simpson’s life could not have continued on a positive path, uninterrupted by the murder charges. I further noted that an opportunity had been lost to provide inspiration to millions of kids.
In that article, I also mentioned two factors that suggested to me that perhaps Simpson did not commit the murders, at least not personally. In response thereto, I received some pretty intense comments, most of which came to me directly via e-mail. I found it interesting that so many folks continue to have such strong opinions about the first Simpson criminal verdict. (I strongly suspect that the jurors’ personal feelings about the first trial were a significant factor in the most recent verdict, whether rightly or wrongly.)
The intensity of opinions held by supporters and detractors of the two current presidential candidates has often reminded me of the intensity of opinions held by observers of the Simpson verdict.
The Simpson trials and our current presidential election exposed the American public’s feelings about a host of issues. What has astounded me is how rigidly held the beliefs and positions are, on both sides of the fence.
All of this has incredible complexity, and our personal reactions are obviously complicated by our personal experiences.
I honestly do not know whether Simpson did it. It is, of course, possible. I just think that there is a 51% probability that he did not do it. Not 50%, but 51%. There was a lot of tough evidence against him. Since I wasn’t there, and there were no other first party witnesses to the event, I just don’t know with any degree of certainty. However, there are many people in our society who feel strongly about this verdict and “know” one way or the other. I find that fascinating.
Anytime a case is based on circumstantial evidence, and there is a lack of “direct evidence,” the analysis becomes problematic. Here, in the case of the Simpson / Goldman murders, there were no direct witnesses. The only potentially direct evidence was the blood evidence, and a question was raised, either rightly or wrongly, about that evidence.
A circumstantial case is like a suit of clothes and make-up. It can be applied to lots of individuals. Remember the movie Trading Places (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_Places)? There has been some research in connection with widely differing jury verdicts stemming from applying the same set of facts to different people. That’s why trial lawyers work so hard to promote certain images to jurors. The same applies to political handlers and media outlets.
One could take Warren Buffet, transform him into a homeless person in appearance, put him on trial for a crime, and I suspect that he’ll get convicted more than 50% of the time. You could replace him with various other substitute homeless people, Bill Gates, Tyra Banks, Heather Locklear, and get varying results, all with the same evidence.
A prosecutorial filing deputy has to be very careful in deciding to file the initial charges when there is only circumstantial evidence to support the charge. It’s not clear to me that the Simpson criminal charges would have been filed against John Doe husband, without the public history of prior assaults. But I’m not into second guessing people’s motives. The media should also be careful in how it paints and characterizes candidates.
That being said, I fully believe in the system. It’s about procedure and guidelines, and I’m a procedure and process kind of guy.
Can it be made better? Of course. But once you insert the raw human element, it becomes far more complicated and problematic, and therefore the out product becomes inconsistent. That doesn’t mean that the system is faulty.
I think that the biggest problem Simpson had to overcome in his first trial was his prior altercations with his wife. Some believe that if you beat your wife 3 or 4 times previously, you are more pre-disposed to, or will finally, murder her.
It is my understanding that 25% of all violence against women is committed by a “loved one,” or someone with whom the victim is intimately familiar. (Some have even argued that the most effective way to reduce violence against women would be to outlaw the development of interpersonal, heterosexual relationships.) While growing up, I knew many a couple where the husband physically assaulted the wife, on multiple occasions, and they stayed married, kept it undercover, and they live together to this day. Murder never took place.
Quite frankly, it has always been my view that the first time that a woman is hit, she should summon the authorities and immediately leave the relationship so that there is no second event. There is absolutely no excuse for a man to hit a woman; however, I have known many a man to do so, or be very close to doing so, and I’ve had to pull them away, quickly. And yet, I never sensed murderous intent.
When I was in the D.A.’s Office, there was a period when I had to try cases which I disliked. Typical scenario: Drunk man on Friday night beats wife. Kids yell and scream. Someone calls the police. The police arrive, and the husband is belligerent. The assaulted wife and the kids identify the husband as the perpetrator.
The issue then became whether there was a felony or a misdemeanor committed. Generally speaking, the police can arrest if there is sufficient corroborating evidence (other witnesses, or sufficient injury) to support felony assault, or if the assault is made in their presence. The police can not arrest for misdemeanor conduct outside of their presence, unless the wife makes a citizen’s arrest, thus authorizing the police to arrest the husband.
In the typical situation, the husband was arrested and charged with assault on the wife, resisting arrest, and assault on a peace officer. Criminal charges were filed and a trial date was set. However, by the time of the trial, the husband and wife had filed a civil lawsuit, seeking millions, and alleging police brutality and excessive force. Since the criminal trial was held before the civil trial, and could potentially affect the civil trial because of the higher burden of proof at the criminal level, I had to win the criminal trial.
There was intense pressure from the police department. In virtually every instance, by the time that the criminal trial rolled around, the wife had changed her testimony and was prepared to testify on behalf of the husband that he did not do anything to justify summoning the police, and they overreacted. That is why the D.A. changed its policy and decided that the offense was “against the state or society,” and not against the wife. In the late 1970s, the D.A. decided to pursue prosecution of cases, even if the wife dropped the charges leading to the citizen’s arrest.
I think that a significant segment of the population felt that O.J. was guilty because he previously assaulted his wife. In my view, as reprehensible as that prior conduct may have been, the leap from wife assault to murder should not have been made lightly.
We have lots of scientific evidence about brain function to at least partially understand rage. What we don’t generally see is the ability of a first time murderer to simply walk away calmly without a distinct, obvious, physiological reaction.
We have known for years that a certain part of the brain kicks in when a person feels threatened to the point that survival becomes an issue, which explains cannibalism by shipwrecked or downed airplane crews, and parents fighting off attacking bears or sharks. They are, at least temporarily, traumatized knowing that they resorted to that behavior.
A story appeared on the front page of the Los Angeles Times some years ago, about the post traumatic stress suffered by both female and male former members of the Israeli Army. Upon discharge, they found themselves heading to distant lands where they could readily acquire illicit, dangerous drugs to blur their memories of the pain of death.
The body’s natural functional response to death is fairly automatic and obvious. You have to stand over a whacked body to fully appreciate the hard-wired nervous system response, which is built into us all. It’s designed to kick in with respect to attacks on members of our tribe/species. It does not kick it as much in connection with those animals outside of our tribe/species. If the animal coming toward you is charging, then a different part of the brain, dealing with survival, kicks in. Even after that survival experience, you will still see physiological changes. There are auditory, visual, tactile, taste, and olfactory stimuli which can immediately produce violent and fairly long lasting automatic responses in the human body. You usually regurgitate first, the heart races uncontrollably, and you sweat profusely.
Ordering someone to do something is VERY different. There is a buffer. But no one alleged that Simpson hired someone else to commit the murders.
Our brain scan technology and research has improved dramatically over the past 13 years, and we can now map brain activity using computer monitors. Still, very little research is done on violent criminals. We often hear about the cold blooded attitude of teenagers, and how they dismiss their conduct so easily and have truly become sociopaths. However, they were not born that way, and generally they have had years of anti-social support and activity to reach that point.
Thus it is my feeling that it is difficult to find people who can kill a human being for the first time, and then calmly walk away without exhibiting physiological changes. If someone had produced evidence that O.J. had previously killed some folks in years prior, to develop a cold-blooded attitude, I might have felt differently.
This purpose of this article is not to justify Simpson’s conduct, but rather outline the type of analysis which we hope would be employed if we were on trial for such an offense.
All of this brings me to the current political climate. In the jury trial context, I always felt that jurors should dismiss their personal experiences and prejudices, and analyze cases from as pure and non-biased a perspective as possible.
As a general rule, a trial attorney tries to hammer home 3 or 4 major points in advocating on behalf of his client. In a similar vein, there should be 3 or 4 overriding considerations that we take into account in deciding our next leader, not 37 different, dissected, personal characteristics or relationships.
In fact, all jury instructions read by judges to the jurors before they deliberate indicate that they should block out their personal biases, and base their decision entirely on the evidence. It’s a goal, but unfortunately, not a reality.
I never understood why folks inject their personal views in analyzing a situation to reach a decision about something that does not personally affect them. Aren’t we interested in doing what is in the best interests of society at large? That so many people had fixed opinions about the O.J. verdict along gender, racial, age, social status, economic, and other lines has always been troubling to me. How about pure analysis just based on the facts?
Perhaps Johnnie Cochran was correct in imploring the jury not to “rush to judgment.”
We are seeing virtually the same type of personal analysis and dissection, with very little attention to facts and objectivity, occurring in connection with this political campaign, by both sides. Isn’t there a more objective means by which we can analyze and judge the candidates without invoking our personal biases?
A black siding with Simpson in response to the evidence, or a female siding with the deceased, or Republicans siding with Palin in connection with her comments, and Republicans attacking Jeremiah Wright, while Democrats attack John Hagee, all represent the worst in our culture.
And gains us little.
Governor Palin apparently thinks that hammering home that Obama had a relationship with former “domestic terrorist” Bill Ayers will be the equivalent to Simpson’s prior assaults on Nicole Brown.
As silly as this might sound, fans rooting for their home team do not get to determine the winner just by arguing their position and attacking the other team. Some objectivity is built into sporting events so that there is little question as to which team or side has prevailed.
How about a little more intellectual honesty as we walk into the voting booth next month? Remember that reasonable people can differ. Remember that we all want to come out of this stagnancy, and that there is more strength in unity.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Post No. 50: O.J.'s Opportunity - Lost
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
It has been said that there is more to a man than the worst thing that he has ever done. Unfortunately, the worst thing that a man has done, or perhaps is suspected to have done, always outweighs the other factors, no matter the nature or quality. It is out of self preservation that we are hard-wired to reach such a conclusion.
There is only so much “benefit of the doubt” that we, the observing public, are willing to extend to those who have been fortunate enough to have talent of some sort which results in their being placed on a pedestal.
I only personally met him briefly, for perhaps 20 or 30 seconds in a nightclub in Miami in the 1990s. However, I was connected to him, in a second hand sort of way, through many others.
His Mother was a hospital administrator, and his Father, a chef and bank custodian. As a child, he developed rickets, and wore braces on both of his legs until he was 5. His parents separated around the same time.
He grew up, and later attended City College of San Francisco, with someone who would become one of my most trusted business partners.
During his pro football career, I always marveled at his ability to give his absolute best, day in and day out, even when his team was at its absolute worst. An ordinary player would have performed at a level consistent with that of the other members of his team. Not O.J. He set records, and records, and records.
We all witnessed his transformation from an unsophisticated youth with rough edges, to a charismatic, professional, media personality, even though his characters might have, on occasion, been best described as cartoonish.
When I first arrived in Los Angeles, I, along with another friend who would later achieve pro sports recognition, attempted to get into The Daisy, the private club in Beverly Hills, where Nicole Brown Simpson worked. A good buddy who was a pro football star, instructed us to use his name in order to gain entry. Unfortunately, the maitre d’ did not recall our buddy’s name until almost closing time. However, we were able to have some champagne before our departure.
And thus I appreciated all of the favors and treats that are extended to pro stars - the hotels full of adoring fans, mostly female, and the merchants and service institutions bending over backwards to give the stars more favors and treats… and the restaurateurs, desperately seeking autographed photos to affix to their walls.
Over the years, I witnessed Nicole and her girlfriends as they participated in the “club scene.” They were of a different grade, only accessible by those who traveled in rarefied circles. I also had buddies who socialized with O.J. and Nicole together, and thus I gained some sense of that dynamic. Both were stars of a sort, in their own right, and developed a concomitant set of privileges and expectations, whether justified or not.
And thus it was a complicated culture and environment in which they operated, which few outside of that world could ever fully appreciate.
Most folks do not realize that The Juice started his own film production company, which generated mostly made-for-TV shows, such as the family oriented Goldie and the Boxer films. Most folks do not realize that he was a major participant in an annual charity event that raised millions for sick children.
So there I was, with all of this background, and sitting in my office in Brentwood, looking west toward Barrington, at the mauve-orange sunset, when I noticed several news copters level with my window on the 16th floor. I immediately wondered why there were so many of them, and why they were so close to the ground.
Five minutes later, I walked around the corner on Barrington to be told by the local convenience store clerk that they had found the bodies of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, and I knew that things were about to get complicated - real complicated.
And then there appeared Lance Ito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Ito), with whom I had shared an office when I first started in the D.A.’s Office, and with whom my partner had attended law school. And then there appeared an older Robert Shapiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro), who had appeared in my courtroom in a younger version, when I was a D.A.
And then there appeared Johnnie Cochran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran), who was the Assistant D.A. in 1978, and who extended the offer to me to join the Office. And then there was Geraldo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldo_rivera) contacting my partner to seek an interview, which he graciously declined.
And then there were the women, who I knew in Brentwood, who were also friends of Ron Goldman, and who spoke about their relationships with him.
And thus I had way too much information to objectively form an opinion as to guilt or innocence, and yet I knew that it would become a sad event, no matter what the verdict. Little did I appreciate how prescient the dissection would be, and its similarities to the nature of the dissection in the current presidential campaign?
On the day of the criminal jury verdict, my partner and I were with a group of clients in the Detroit area, when the verdict was read. We saw the same expressions of exhilaration and disbelief expressed throughout the world. Later that afternoon, we traveled to Chicago, to visit with a client who had been a J.A.G. lawyer handling criminal matters in the service, who was fascinated by our collective connections to O.J.
When I returned to Chicago one month later to make a presentation before a gathering of engineers, businesspeople, and attorneys connected with that client, at the dinner later that evening, I was asked at the last minute to explain, as a trial lawyer, how different people could have such widely differing perspectives on the evidence presented. I was amazed at how quiet the room was as I shared my thoughts. I was not arrogant enough to suspect that they were captivated by what I had to say, but rather they were amazed that any group of people could have thought of him as not guilty.
I would later tell inquiring minds that, from a legal perspective, I suspected that the ”system” had yielded the “correct” results in both the criminal and civil trials, based on the differing legal standards of proof.
Later, I would read an article regarding a private investigation conducted by a respected, retired, law enforcement officer out of Texas, who suspected that O.J.’s son, from a prior marriage, was actually the murderer. It appeared that he had acquired a job as a chef at a restaurant in Westwood Village, two blocks from my place, and that he was quite proud of his accomplishment. He was scheduled to cater a party for his niece, Sydney, whose birthday was that weekend. However, it appears that Nicole called it off at the last minute, and that O.J.’s son was absolutely livid. He reportedly left the restaurant that evening in a huff, with his chef’s knives, and fellow employees claimed that he had never done that before.
Only one close friend ever asked me my personal opinion as to O.J.’s guilt or innocence, and when I informed her, I lost that friend forever, never to be seen again.
I told her, as I tell you here – based on what I saw, O.J. knew who did it, but was not a participant. Why? Two main factors: (1) From all that I knew about O.J., he never would have left town and allowed his two minor children to be in a position to potentially find the bloodied body of their Mother sprawled on the sidewalk. (2) From all that I know about the first time that a human kills, or even witnesses the death of, another human being, one does not simply walk away cool, calm, and collected. We, as humans, are biologically hard-wired to have a violent reaction and to sweat. It takes time, and repeated killings, to become a cool killer, and get on a plane and have jocular conversation with fellow passengers.
And then there was Jackie Conner, with whom I had served in the Office, who sat as the Judge over the Ramparts Division LAPD scandal, involving Rafael Perez, who admitted to planting evidence in scores of case, and implicated numerous others, thus prejudicing scores of criminal prosecutions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_P%C3%A9rez_(police_officer).)
Admittedly, for the past decade or so, O.J. hadn’t done much to advance his cause. I always thought that it was a sad situation, in that although he was no Muhammad Ali, he did have the potential to inspire other young men to improve their station in life, despite humble beginnings.
And thus I knew that O.J. would be convicted on all counts. He was not going to be given another shot, no matter what the evidence in the Las Vegas trial. And he should have known it also.
But what I also knew, after watching the intense, vituperative nature of the discourse during the political campaigns conducted over the past 18 months, was that all of our pre-conceived, perhaps previously concealed inner-most feelings about people, would erupt to the surface, and be expressed in many ways. This country still has lots of internal conflict and repressed feelings about our fellow citizens. This is the climate in which we currently live. This is the climate in which O.J. should have “steered far wide of the danger zone.”
Sorry O.J. Unfortunately, you’re “done fur.” You thought that you could pull it out one time too many. And that’s sad for those of us who got to know you in some tangential manner, even just as fans, but more so for those young folks who could have been inspired by your journey. Opportunity – lost….
It has been said that there is more to a man than the worst thing that he has ever done. Unfortunately, the worst thing that a man has done, or perhaps is suspected to have done, always outweighs the other factors, no matter the nature or quality. It is out of self preservation that we are hard-wired to reach such a conclusion.
There is only so much “benefit of the doubt” that we, the observing public, are willing to extend to those who have been fortunate enough to have talent of some sort which results in their being placed on a pedestal.
I only personally met him briefly, for perhaps 20 or 30 seconds in a nightclub in Miami in the 1990s. However, I was connected to him, in a second hand sort of way, through many others.
His Mother was a hospital administrator, and his Father, a chef and bank custodian. As a child, he developed rickets, and wore braces on both of his legs until he was 5. His parents separated around the same time.
He grew up, and later attended City College of San Francisco, with someone who would become one of my most trusted business partners.
During his pro football career, I always marveled at his ability to give his absolute best, day in and day out, even when his team was at its absolute worst. An ordinary player would have performed at a level consistent with that of the other members of his team. Not O.J. He set records, and records, and records.
We all witnessed his transformation from an unsophisticated youth with rough edges, to a charismatic, professional, media personality, even though his characters might have, on occasion, been best described as cartoonish.
When I first arrived in Los Angeles, I, along with another friend who would later achieve pro sports recognition, attempted to get into The Daisy, the private club in Beverly Hills, where Nicole Brown Simpson worked. A good buddy who was a pro football star, instructed us to use his name in order to gain entry. Unfortunately, the maitre d’ did not recall our buddy’s name until almost closing time. However, we were able to have some champagne before our departure.
And thus I appreciated all of the favors and treats that are extended to pro stars - the hotels full of adoring fans, mostly female, and the merchants and service institutions bending over backwards to give the stars more favors and treats… and the restaurateurs, desperately seeking autographed photos to affix to their walls.
Over the years, I witnessed Nicole and her girlfriends as they participated in the “club scene.” They were of a different grade, only accessible by those who traveled in rarefied circles. I also had buddies who socialized with O.J. and Nicole together, and thus I gained some sense of that dynamic. Both were stars of a sort, in their own right, and developed a concomitant set of privileges and expectations, whether justified or not.
And thus it was a complicated culture and environment in which they operated, which few outside of that world could ever fully appreciate.
Most folks do not realize that The Juice started his own film production company, which generated mostly made-for-TV shows, such as the family oriented Goldie and the Boxer films. Most folks do not realize that he was a major participant in an annual charity event that raised millions for sick children.
So there I was, with all of this background, and sitting in my office in Brentwood, looking west toward Barrington, at the mauve-orange sunset, when I noticed several news copters level with my window on the 16th floor. I immediately wondered why there were so many of them, and why they were so close to the ground.
Five minutes later, I walked around the corner on Barrington to be told by the local convenience store clerk that they had found the bodies of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, and I knew that things were about to get complicated - real complicated.
And then there appeared Lance Ito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Ito), with whom I had shared an office when I first started in the D.A.’s Office, and with whom my partner had attended law school. And then there appeared an older Robert Shapiro (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Shapiro), who had appeared in my courtroom in a younger version, when I was a D.A.
And then there appeared Johnnie Cochran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Cochran), who was the Assistant D.A. in 1978, and who extended the offer to me to join the Office. And then there was Geraldo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geraldo_rivera) contacting my partner to seek an interview, which he graciously declined.
And then there were the women, who I knew in Brentwood, who were also friends of Ron Goldman, and who spoke about their relationships with him.
And thus I had way too much information to objectively form an opinion as to guilt or innocence, and yet I knew that it would become a sad event, no matter what the verdict. Little did I appreciate how prescient the dissection would be, and its similarities to the nature of the dissection in the current presidential campaign?
On the day of the criminal jury verdict, my partner and I were with a group of clients in the Detroit area, when the verdict was read. We saw the same expressions of exhilaration and disbelief expressed throughout the world. Later that afternoon, we traveled to Chicago, to visit with a client who had been a J.A.G. lawyer handling criminal matters in the service, who was fascinated by our collective connections to O.J.
When I returned to Chicago one month later to make a presentation before a gathering of engineers, businesspeople, and attorneys connected with that client, at the dinner later that evening, I was asked at the last minute to explain, as a trial lawyer, how different people could have such widely differing perspectives on the evidence presented. I was amazed at how quiet the room was as I shared my thoughts. I was not arrogant enough to suspect that they were captivated by what I had to say, but rather they were amazed that any group of people could have thought of him as not guilty.
I would later tell inquiring minds that, from a legal perspective, I suspected that the ”system” had yielded the “correct” results in both the criminal and civil trials, based on the differing legal standards of proof.
Later, I would read an article regarding a private investigation conducted by a respected, retired, law enforcement officer out of Texas, who suspected that O.J.’s son, from a prior marriage, was actually the murderer. It appeared that he had acquired a job as a chef at a restaurant in Westwood Village, two blocks from my place, and that he was quite proud of his accomplishment. He was scheduled to cater a party for his niece, Sydney, whose birthday was that weekend. However, it appears that Nicole called it off at the last minute, and that O.J.’s son was absolutely livid. He reportedly left the restaurant that evening in a huff, with his chef’s knives, and fellow employees claimed that he had never done that before.
Only one close friend ever asked me my personal opinion as to O.J.’s guilt or innocence, and when I informed her, I lost that friend forever, never to be seen again.
I told her, as I tell you here – based on what I saw, O.J. knew who did it, but was not a participant. Why? Two main factors: (1) From all that I knew about O.J., he never would have left town and allowed his two minor children to be in a position to potentially find the bloodied body of their Mother sprawled on the sidewalk. (2) From all that I know about the first time that a human kills, or even witnesses the death of, another human being, one does not simply walk away cool, calm, and collected. We, as humans, are biologically hard-wired to have a violent reaction and to sweat. It takes time, and repeated killings, to become a cool killer, and get on a plane and have jocular conversation with fellow passengers.
And then there was Jackie Conner, with whom I had served in the Office, who sat as the Judge over the Ramparts Division LAPD scandal, involving Rafael Perez, who admitted to planting evidence in scores of case, and implicated numerous others, thus prejudicing scores of criminal prosecutions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_P%C3%A9rez_(police_officer).)
Admittedly, for the past decade or so, O.J. hadn’t done much to advance his cause. I always thought that it was a sad situation, in that although he was no Muhammad Ali, he did have the potential to inspire other young men to improve their station in life, despite humble beginnings.
And thus I knew that O.J. would be convicted on all counts. He was not going to be given another shot, no matter what the evidence in the Las Vegas trial. And he should have known it also.
But what I also knew, after watching the intense, vituperative nature of the discourse during the political campaigns conducted over the past 18 months, was that all of our pre-conceived, perhaps previously concealed inner-most feelings about people, would erupt to the surface, and be expressed in many ways. This country still has lots of internal conflict and repressed feelings about our fellow citizens. This is the climate in which we currently live. This is the climate in which O.J. should have “steered far wide of the danger zone.”
Sorry O.J. Unfortunately, you’re “done fur.” You thought that you could pull it out one time too many. And that’s sad for those of us who got to know you in some tangential manner, even just as fans, but more so for those young folks who could have been inspired by your journey. Opportunity – lost….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)