ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, March 3, 1996 TAG: 9603010018
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
COLUMN: THE BACK PEW|
SOURCE: CODY LOWE
Maybe the most widely held opinion about O.J. Simpson could be labeled "don't ever mention that name to me again."
Yet, many of us still can get fired up defending or vilifying Simpson in the aftermath of his murder trial.
That was evident for the couple of dozen of you who responded to a Feb. 18 column asking what you thought about Simpson's treatment by the media as he tries to market a video detailing his alibi for the night of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
The column also asked what you thought of the prosecutors' profiting from the trial with book and speaking deals.
Shireen Parsons of Riner expressed what, doubtlessly, is the opinion of many who are simply weary of the whole story. "I believe there are many people (like me) who have made the decision to boycott this entire commercial feeding frenzy as a matter of principle."
Joyce C. Wright of Bedford said she almost skipped the column just because Simpson's initials were in the headline. As a regular reader of "The Back Pew," however, she decided to give it a look anyway.
"How could you have been shocked by his taking advantage of his time in the spotlight to make money? People do it whenever they get the chance. The only crass part is the willingness of the public to buy the stuff. Personally, I regret the loss of decent reticence."
Others were more sympathetic to Simpson's position.
Lanvan Reid of Roanoke challenged the whole premise of the column by asserting that "O.J. is not profiting from their deaths. If he had killed them, he would be. But the message I got was he was NOT guilty. He spent millions of dollars defending himself. Why shouldn't he recoup his loss?"
Reid, nevertheless had "reservations about prosecutors writing books. If during the trial they are looking forward to book rights, I think it could influence their conduct of the trial."
Evelyn Angle of Roanoke said the media have "treated O.J. awful.... If Marcia Clark and the other whole bunch can make money from the trial, certainly O.J. should be able to. His lawyers would not let him testify and the jury said `not guilty.'"
Brenda Renee Conner of Christiansburg said, as a trained victims' advocate, she was sickened by the "national obsession" with the trial and its aftermath and "equally sickened by the trial's marketing, whether it is by dismissed jurors, prosecutors, defendants or national networks."
"Perhaps what disturbs me more about the marketing is not the sellers' greed and callousness but the buyers' voyeurism. Our society has proven, by this debacle, that it will provide a market for the merchandisers of exploitation, violence and disrespect - thereby ensuring its production."
"There is no legal way to prevent him from profiting from the criminal trial, since he was found innocent," said Wendell Hensley of Blacksburg. "Facing a financial crisis, O.J. has no logical alternative, since he has not the strength of character simply to go quietly and humbly away. Marcia Clark also has a right to capitalize on her involvement."
For everyone who defended Simpson and chastised the media for their treatment of him, two others blasted the celebrity and supported the media's reluctance to get involved in marketing his video.
Simpson "turned down the opportunity to tell his side of the story during the trial," wrote Arla Jeanne Hilgert of Roanoke. "We the American public watched the trial, and independent of the jury, we made up our minds on the case. A great number of us found him guilty. It is our right under the free market system to refuse to buy his tape.... The media have the same right."
Roberta Waynick of Roanoke agreed. "There are a lot of things I don't use my money to support, and O.J. is one of them."
People who buy Simpson's tape "probably get their just desserts," writes Phillip Bruce. "It is circumstances just like this that convince me that God does not really get involved in man's day-to-day affairs unless he is specifically called upon."
Jack Adams was another of those who "refuse to contribute in even a small way to his return to his original lifestyle.... I will not help him laugh at the American public any more. ... I, personally, will not purchase anything related to the case, as I am thoroughly disgusted with the entire affair, but I do not begrudge those other than O.J. their efforts to make some money off of their fifteen minutes (closer to fifteen months) of fame."
Fred J. Keene of Union Hall doesn't want the court officials profiting either. "I am offended that those who participated in the trial stand to profit by it. I believe that such activity should be prohibited by some legal code of ethics, and at the least, they should be disbarred from the profession."
Lucille Humphries of Salem defended the media's widespread shunning of the video. "Be it alibi or confession, after the accused murderer has been found `not guilty' it lacks substance and `market value,' if you please. I would not buy it."
"Marcia Clark and Chris Darden may profit from their roles in the trial, but I believe the lives of Nicole and Ron can be memorialized by what they write and tell.... Clark and Darden may speak over the graves of Nicole and Ron, but from their graves they may hear a silent voice of consent to speak for justice."
Finally, several people raised the continuing issue of racism in the whole conduct of the trial and its coverage in the media.
Steven B. Stanley of Roanoke wondered about the very different treatment of "a certain rich DuPont" now being held on a charge of murdering a young athlete. "I sense a feeling of pity from the media, along with a sympathetic presentation. Now, I wonder, why is that? Both alleged offenders of the law are relatively well off, both were somewhat in the public eye at one point. The crimes are just about the same. However, one is black and the other white. People died in both cases for no apparently good reason. So why are they treated differently?"
Thanks to all of you who responded.
LENGTH: Long : 105 linesby CNB