If one had doubts about the malaise affecting the character of 
American society, the O.J. Simpson Affair should lay them to rest.  
Simpson's lawyer had asked the basically minority jury to ignore the 
"tainted" evidence, and to send the racist judicial system a message.  
That they did.  The intended message was to clean up the bad elements in the 
corrupt and racially prejudiced system.  The trial certainly demonstrated 
that lying and manufacturing of evidence was within the scope of at least 
some officers in the L.A.P.D.

     Yet, in this case the "message" apparently received by most in the 
predominantly white society was not quite the intended message sent.  As 
perceived in the "white community" the verdict seemed to read: "It's cool 
to slaughter two innocent white humans if it helps to demonstrate our 
resentment towards white dominated society."

     After all, if O.J. was really innocent, would his lawyer, Johney 
Cochran ask the jury to "send a message"?  If the evidence in the case 
really indicated that there was reasonable doubt, then Simpson should be 
set free.  What would be the message?  In a sense, Cochran himself, had to 
have recognized Simpson's guilt.  In fact, it might not be too surprising 
if O.J. himself turned out to be the only one firmly convinced that he 
didn't do it.  O.J.'s longtime friend, Ron Ship, testified at the trial that 
Simpson had confided to him after the murders that he had dreams that he 
killed Nicole.  Is it possible that rather than face the ugly truth, in his 
own mind, he was convinced that it was only a dream!

     The evidence presented in court, appeared to leave no doubt that
Simpson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  If we set aside the blood 
evidence, which the defence so vociferously challenged, and the DNA which 
was probably too complex for the jury to comprehend, there still remained 
a "mountain" of evidence left sufficient to establish guilt which the 
defence failed to either discredit nor deny.

     Undeniably, trial evidence confirmed that a good measure of ineptitude 
exists within our criminal justice system.  The actions of the officers in 
the field, the officials in charge, the personnel in the labs, the judge,
and even the members of the prosecution were held to question.  Some 
officers, were shown to have lied on the stand, and one,of course, Furman, 
stood out as having prejudicial attitudes towards blacks in the past, as 
well as having inclinations to "plant" evidence.  What else is new!

     While the defense seemed able to cast suspicion everywhere on evidence 
collection and laboratory procedures, the overall conspiracy theory 
presented implying that so many of the various individuals involved in the 
case suddenly came together and decided to risk their careers to "hang" a 
man, ostensibly because he's black, must have come from some comic book.  
The thought that an officer, or a team of officers, would go around 
planting evidence before they knew of the suspects whereabouts, or possible 
alibi is ludicrous.  By any such action they could immediately and 
unnecessarily place themselves under suspicion of serious misconduct.

     Tapes proved Detective Fuhrman to be a hideous embarrassment to the 
LAPD, and witnesses portrayed Detective Vannatter as having lied on the 
stand about initially viewing Simpson as a suspect, and having lied, or at 
least, misrepresented the truth in order to obtain a search warrant.  In no
way, however, after many months of exhaustive search by the "Dream Team", 
was any evidence uncovered that would link any member of the so-called 
"conspiracy" to the planting of evidence.  Nor, was any proof presented 
that anyone purposely lied about the actual evidence presented by the 
prosecution.  It would appear that the "conspiracy theory", critical to the 
dismissal of the blood evidence, was based solely on the character 
weaknesses of two of the many participants in the justice system involved 
in the case.

     Aside from appeals to race, to political activism, and frequent 
intonations of religion, the defense case seemed to rely on a myriad of 
"could haves", and "might have beens" rather transparently contrived to 
establish "reasonable doubt".  An honest examination of the evidence seems 
to confirm that there was actually no doubt, at least reasonable doubt, 
that O.J.Simpson did, indeed, commit the crime for which he was accused.

     We may set aside the overwhelming body of blood evidence which the 
defense seemed to spend an inordinate share of time attempting to discredit. 
The defense strategy apparently, and successfully calculated that if this 
evidence could  be tainted in the eyes of the jury, that then somehow, 
perhaps through guilt by association, the rest of the evidence would also 
be viewed as suspect, or even irrelevant.  After all, when a witness in the 
trial is shown to have lied about one thing, wasn't the jury instructed to 
question or ever disregard further testimony by that witness regarding 
anything else?  The same logic does not apply, of course, in both cases.  
Aside from the "race card", we may discern here the "Dream Team's" real 
"ace in the hole"; the selection of a jury which included but one member 
with a college degree.

     Let's now examine the "other evidence"; the evidence left essentially 
unchallanged by the defense.  No one other than O.J. could be found with a 
motive to commit the murders.  The 911 tapes aptly displayed O.J.'s rage, 
and Nicole's fear.  Nine separate instances of calls for help by Nicole 
Simpson due to domestic abuse were reported.  On one occasion, O.J. himself
pleaded "no contest" to abuse charges in court.  Pictures of a badly 
bruised Nicole following one of the abuse instances, were displayed before 
the jury.  It should not be left unnoted that O.J. stood to benefit 
financially from Nicole's death.  It brought an end to support payments, as 
well as an opportunity to gain custody of the children.

     The judge had ruled that the jury should give consideration to 
domestic abuse as a potential motive in the case.  Yet, contrary to the 
Judge's instructions, the defense implied to the jury that domestic abuse
should not be viewed as relating to a motive for murder.  The first jurist 
to speak publicly following the verdict, a Mrs. Moran, said that she 
believed the defense, apparently not the Judge, in refusing to consider 
spousal abuse as having anything to do with motive or the crime.  A strange 
logic it is, indeed, to choose to believe the lawyer charged with defending 
his client, rather than to trust the judgement of the judge charged with 
the job of interpreting the law impartially.  Actually under California 
law, it is not a requirement to establish motive in order to establish 
guilt.  However it does help to do so, and it certainly should have been an 
important factor in this case. 

     The gloves discovered at the Bundy and the Rockingham sites may 
actually be the most vital indicator of O.J.'s guilt.  No smokescreen 
involving laboratory mistakes or police planting of evidence can eradicate 
the undisputed fact that Nicole Simpson had purchased two pairs of the 
identical make and size of those found at the scene of the crime.  Sales 
receipts established that the gloves were purchased at Bloomingdales Dept. 
Store in New York.  The manufacturer of the gloves testified that only 250 
gloves of that particular unique style and size were made.  It really 
matters not then that Det.Furman may have transported one glove from Bundy 
to Rockingham, or even that there was any blood at all on the gloves, or 
that "the gloves didn't fit"!  Photographs presented in court showed Simpson 
wearing gloves of that identical style at football games.  We have only to 
consider the odds that if someone other than O.J. committed the crime he
must have been one of the only 250 owners of those gloves!  A fair estimate 
would be at least 100,000 to 1, considering there are over 250 million 
people in the United States, and since the defense implied it could have 
been someone from a foreign country, we might even add 6 billion to the 
equation.  So much for reasonable doubt!

     If the glove were not enough, we have the size 12 Bruno Magle Shoe 
footprints found at the scene of the crime.  Simpson's shoe size is 12, and 
testimony indicated that he favored Bruno Magle Shoes.

     A ski cap left at the scene at Bundy was discovered to have hairs on 
it matching Simpson's.

     Next, we have a number of witnesses poking holes in O.J.'s alibi as 
to where he was at the projected time of the murders.  Alan Parks, the 
chauffeur hired by Simpson to transport him to the airport, testified that 
he did not see O.J.'s Bronco parked at the curb as he drove up to the 
Rockingham residence.  He was looking for the address on the curb where 
O.J.'s Bronco was supposed to have been parked.  Parks arrived at 10:35, 
found the house dark, and nobody answering when he rang the bell.  The 
defence, while reluctant to put O.J. on the stand, but anxious to establish 
O.J.'s alibi, appeared somewhat confused, but nevertheless maintained that 
he was home at the time the chauffeur arrived, either chipping golfballs on 
the lawn, resting, or cleaning up and getting ready for his trip.  Parks 
testified that after waiting for about 15 minutes he observed a dark figure
about Simpson's size crossing the driveway and entering the front door at 
10:50 P.M. at which time he noticed the lights go on inside the house.  
Minutes later O.J. answered the buzzer, and appeared at the door.  House 
guest, Kato Kalen testified that he heard loud thumps against his wall at 
about 10:45 P.M.  The prosecution speculated that the noise was due to O.J. 
hopping the fence and bumping against the overhanging airconditioner in the 
narrow passageway between Kato's room and the wall, in order to avoid being 
seen by the chauffeur waiting at the front gate.  No explanation was 
offered by the defense to explain the noises which caused Kato to think 
that there might have been an earthquake.  An earthquake? No!  But perhaps 
the prelude to a good deal of shaking to come in our social and judicial 
systems.

     Ron Ship, another witness, and a long time friend of O.J. testified 
almost tearfully that O.J. had confided to him that he feared taking a lie 
detector test because he had dreams, following the murders, that he killed 
Nicole.

     Another witness, called by the defense, who had happened to be in the 
vicinity at around the speculated time of the murders, testified that he 
saw a white vehicle resembling O.J.'s Bronco driving away from the crime 
scene.

     Judging from the actual evidence, it would appear that there is little 
doubt that O.J. Simpson was indeed the killer, and that the trial 
culminated in a heinous miscarriage of justice.  While the verdict 
apparently had much of the Black Community cheering, the bulk of the White 
population was left shaken, gasping, and wondering: why? How?  What most of 
us thought would be the end, now appears to be more like the beginning!  
From one viewpoint, Americans may now have to face up the "R" word.

     The defense team and the jurists who freed O.J. vehemently deny that 
race had anything to do with the verdict.  Cochran, the head lawyer on the 
defense team, steadfastly maintained that it was simply a matter of police 
incompetence and corruption.  Nevertheless, one member of the "Dream Team", 
Robert Shapiro, accused Cochran of "playing the race card from the bottom 
of the deck."

     Public remarks of some of the jurists following the verdict seemed to 
indicate that the defense's tactics of discrediting some of the evidence 
somehow allowed them to automatically dismiss the rest.  Another factor 
which seemed pivotal according to the post verdict remarks of the jurists 
was the "gloves didn't fit" thing.  In regard to that, few seemed to note 
that, fit or not, they were of the size (extra large) which O.J. would 
normally use.  O.J. was wearing latex gloves on his hands already as he 
tried to fit the evidence glove over them.  And, of course, anyone who has 
ever attempted to put even slightly snug-fitting gloves on, should 
immediately realize that it would be no problem to make it appear that they 
wouldn't fit; particularly if one's life depended on it!

     Now that we've just about beaten this thing into the ground, it's time 
to get to the important question, which is not was O.J. innocent or guilty?  
The real question is: Who, or What is to blame for all this? After all this 
is America, and we are Americans!  Without someone, or something to blame, 
it's just no damn fun.  

     The Media?  Please let's not fall for this cop-out.  Of course, the 
Media played it's part, but that's their job.  We don't want to fall into 
the trap of blaming the knife for the killing rather than the one who 
wields it.

     Police corruption and inefficiency?  More baloney!  Of course, we need 
reform, and lots of it.  Regardless of how much better we can become, 
there'll always be flaws to be exposed and exploited by shrewd or 
unscrupulous lawyers.

     Inept prosecution team?  Nobody's perfect.  Notwithstanding the
mistakes, they did a good job overall.  The evidence was all laid out for 
anyone to see.

     Stupid jurors?  Stupid, maybe, but not blind!  Pissed, and apathetic, 
they hardly bothered even to deliberate.  But were we to blame them, we'd 
still have to ask: why is it so?  We all know that a jury in Santa Monica 
would undoubtedly have rendered a different verdict.  But that would still 
be begging the question.  We need to deal with: why a jury in Los Angeles?  
The devastating fact remains. A jury primarily consisting of minority 
members of society, chose to ignore the obvious; to excuse a hideous crime 
inflicted upon two "white" citizens.  They apparently chose to believe what 
they wanted to believe.  It hardly requires a peek beneath the surface to 
realize that for a group of individuals charged with such responsibility to 
behave in such a manner; to dismiss to obvious, to shun serious
deliberation, to display such negligence towards an issue involving the 
taking of human lives, that they must certainly have been driven by a 
deep-seated resentment or hate.

     From whence stems this resentment?  Who's to blame?  Perhaps a parable 
applies here.  Try to picture the self-aborbed, neglectful father, whose 
son is caught stealing a baseball glove so that he could participate in a 
game with his playmates.  Is the father, or the child most to blame for the 
crime?  Sure, the kid took the glove.  Yet, if we really want change we'd 
best look towards the father!

     It's no secret that one out of every three black men in their 20's is 
a ward of the penal system.  Should we bother to place blame, or should we 
look to our system with it's ghetto schools, it's overwhelming inequity in 
the present distribution of wealth.  Do we wish to pour more resources into 
our burgeoning prison system, or into better equipped schools and families 
with children.  It's hoped here that someday soon American voters will 
extract their heads from the sand and opt for seeking a solution instead of 
the blame.  While there's still a shred of democracy left, let's get wise, 
get out and vote for taxes!