Friday, November 24, 2006

When The Boot Fits-When The Gloves Don't


The First Amendment was recently dealt yet another devastating blow by the family, friends and supporters of the Goldmans and the Browns-in other words, by the collective pawns of the Trail Lawyers Association.

I won’t insult people by going into the details of the Brown-Goldman murders, as this should be unnecessary, plus, the way things are going, my blog will likely end up being censored.

As such, I will just cut right to the chase. O J Simpson is Not Guilty of the crimes of the brutal murders of his ex-wife, Nichole Brown Simpson, and of her “friend”, Ron Goldman.

I repeat-O J Simpson is Not Guilty.

Of course, he still might have killed them. But technically, he was found Not Guilty in a court of law. Therefore, Mr. Simpson has a constitutional right to speak openly and publicly about the murder, and to give his perspective about it. He has a right to say anything he wants to say about it.

And he should have the right to profit from any such statements, or utterrances, appearrances, or publications.

However, a travesty of justice has been perpetrated against the American justice system. A kind of perverse gang bang, if you will, perpetrated by both prosecutors and trial attorneys, that stands to benefit the both of them, and leave all the rest of us with a collective case of judicial syphyllis.

It’s a win-win situation for the trial attorneys. If one of their numbers is successful in getting a client off on charges of a crime or complicity thereof, somebody else can come along and screw him or her in civil court.

Prosecutors get the consolation prize, in the event that they fail to win a conviction, of knowing the accussed might well get the shaft in that same civil court.

This used to be called “Double Jeopardy”. But the system has been tweaked-i.e., fucked-as mainly a political calculation meant to soothe the anquish and rage of crime victims families.

Well, personally, I am interested in hearing what OJ Simpson has to say. Had I been given the opportunity, I think I could have gauged the level of his sincerity. If he had been deceptive, I think I could have seen through him. Here is one thing about O J Simpson that no one will dispute, including more than likely him and his most ardent supporters-he is a terrible fucking actor.

This makes me wonder if perhaps this is the thing that the Brown and Goldman families worry about the most, that Simpson might actualy convince enough people to call into question the propriety of the civil judgement they won against him.

It makes sense. As OJ himself pointed out in one of the few snippets to be shown on television of the interview that was pulled from Fox, how could a person kill two people in such a fashion without being covered in blood? Seen in this perspective, where did all that blood go, aside from a relatively minor amount that seemed to lead to his car and to his home. And could this even have been planted?

What about the gloves said to be worn by the killer, or by one of them? Why didn’t they fit OJ’s hands?

What is this about blood spatters presented as evidence turning out to have been previously tested in a crime lab? The potential explanation being that it may have been planted in the hopes of implicating Simpson. Though this has been denied, it has never been explained to my satisfaction.

What is all this about Nichole Simpsons’ alleged involvement with cocaine, with the concurrent possibility that she was killed by individuals involved in the Columbian drug cartels? Is it true that their signature method of execution is precisely the way these two were murdered?

Is it possile that the prosecutions shabby and unprofessional conduct in the Simpson trial was the result of a hurried aand ramshackle attempt to cover up and protect the cartel by making Simpson the scapegoat?

How was it that Goldman just happenned to coincidentally be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Did anybody seriously believe the official version, that he actually only knew Mrs. Simpson casually, yet went out of his way to return an item that she had left at the club they both frequented?

If this was true, and if Simpson really did set out to murder his estranged wife, why did he not wait until Goldman was gone? If he thought they were engaging in an affair, and he desired to murder the both of them in a jealous rage, why then did he not wait until they were both inside the home? Why take the chance of committing such a ghastly, gruesome, bloody crime outside, where it would be much more likely to have been seen and heard?

All he had to do was cut the telephone wires at a certain time, then brake in through a window. If he waitied until a certain time, he could have found a window they would have been unlikely to have heard breaking, then went on up and caught them in the act. They would have been in bed, naked, probably asleep or half way there-and totally at his mercy.

Of course, the answer to this will probably be that this brutal, enraged madman, bent on bloody double murder, to the point that he would have had to be criminally insane, didn’t want to take the chance of his kids seeing him do it.

I don’t believe a damn thing I’ve heard from either side concerning this case. Unfortunately, it’s beginning to seem as though the only version to be allowed any currency is the one officially sanctioned by the Goldmans and the Browns.

Oh well-the old Soviet Union had their show trials, and woe be unto any that had the temerity to question the official versions set forth by the Soviet state. The OJ Simpson trial fiasco has become historically the American version of that. It had all the elecments you would come to expect from such a staged event-

Celebrity, infidelity, lust, anger, violence, abuse, multiple murder, revenge, and money, all played out in a Los Angeles courtroom, packed with media cameras and reporters, and displayed on television screens across the nation.

Some people think OJ Simpson is destined for a special place in hell. I don’t know about all that, but he certainly does already have a special place in the American social gulag.

8 comments:

Unknown said...

I agree that Simpson could not have committed the crime. Also he should be able to publish and receive payment for the book even if the title was unfortunate.
There are still many loose ends in the OJ Simpson case. We still do not know the identity of the woman Fuhrman heard at the hedge at Rockingham ( on the otherside of the glove location ) She fled after being picked up by a car. The car was tracked and stopped by police but the occupant identities never devulged by police.
Yedowicz
Oj Simpson

SecondComingOfBast said...

That's interesting, I didn't even know about that. Thanks for commenting.

TexSport Publications said...

Anything that people think haa a monetary value ends up on the secondary market. Did anyone think a copy wouldn't leak out?

I have posted a comment on this and other topics on my blog. Please feel free to stop by and post your thoughts and views, no matter what they are.

Free exchange of thoughts is what makes us better.

Texas Truth
http://texastruth.blogspot.com

SecondComingOfBast said...

Texas-thanks, I'll do that.You are right, of course. There had to have been so many printings of the book, the idea that one or two at the very least wouldn't somehow find it's way out in the open is ludicrous at best. The only reason there is a problem with that is because there are people who have a vested interest in stiffling anything that disputes their prefferred version of the "facts". Thanks for stopping by here.

Webmaster Melody said...

I have to respectfully disagree. I do not think his First Amendment rights (or any rights) are being infringed upon at all. Just as he is free to profit from his murder trial fame, networks and publishers are free to not carry his work. He is still free to publish the book himself (he has the money!), make press releases, go on a speaking tour, peddle his wares on street corners, whatever. No governmental body has told him he is not allowed to speak or write about it.

And as much as I loath Rupert Murdoch, refusing to glorify violence in this way is the first thing he's done that makes me think he might have a spine. Death is not an enemy, but violence certainly is, and our society's worship of it repulses me. My husband disagrees, though, he believes Fox pulled the program out of bad test audience responses. He's probably right.

SecondComingOfBast said...

Cheddarina-like I said, I almost know I could tell if he was lying or not. That's what's really unfortunate about the decision to pull the Fox special, the book I could care less about.

You can't judge a persons sincerity by words on the printed page, but actually seeing and hearing them is different. Especially Simpson, who is noted as a horrible actor.

I always used to believe he was guilty too, but now I'm starting to think maybe I was wrong, all because of this. What are they so afraid of? After all, the families of the victims don't have to watch it. Obiously, they are afraid people might believe him. Well, now I almost do.

Frank Partisan said...

Pagan: I think you have a point. He has the right to tell his story.

autogato said...

Oh yes, OJ certainly does have a constitutional right to speak about this stuff. And let him exercise it through whatever avenue he chooses. However, we are also a capitalistic society. Which means that people's decisions are frequently ruled by $$$$. So in this case, we're not violating his right. The stupid fucker still can go and tell his bullshit tacky ass story to whomever he pleases. The rest of us spoke, though, and said we would not support it and would not support those who support that level of scumbag activity. Given the choice of $$$$ or OJ, most business people are going to be wise and take the $$$ from the public. Supporting OJ's crap isn't worth alienating your public, you know? B/c when you do that, you alienate the $$$$. Not good for capitalism.

It's not that people are trying to hide versions other than one officially sanctioned one. It's just that the rest of us don't want to hear about a man's imaginary story of how he supposed that he would have killed people. Just b/c you have the right to say stuff doesn't mean it's a good idea. And the rest of us can exercise are rights to not listen and revoke monetary support from people who do.