THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, October 11, 1995 TAG: 9510110011
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A8 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 90 lines
Is L.A. burning? Figuratively speaking, it should be. It seems that ``the few were sacrificed to save the many.'' Nicole and Ron were sacrificed for the welfare of the county of Los Angeles.
Clearly this trial was not an issue of race but a saga of the ongoing cycle of abuse, neglect and violence against women by those who allegedly ``love.'' Women are killed hourly, daily, weekly and yearly by the men who ``love'' them.
``Not guilty'' does not equal innocent. And it was perfectly evident by the gesture of the jury not to look at the defendant or the prosecution. The jury clearly believed O.J. guilty and were disappointed that the prosecution did not prove its case.
This trial was a media circus, and had Mr. Simpson been a poor, spouse-abusing murder suspect he'd have been forgotten as quickly as the clink of the closing of his cell door.
But he is rich, famous, a jock and a movie star. Why shouldn't he walk? There is something terribly wrong with the value system in this country.
All I needed was to look at his face. Never once did he shed a tear, look bereaved, even seem touched by the slightest emotionality that the woman he loved was gone. All I observed was haughtiness that the system in America could even be wasting his precious time.
Johnnie Cochran got lucky. Marcia Clark got screwed. Nicole and Ron are dead. O.J. will become richer. And Kato the Klown will probably continue to keep us all laughing.
Life goes on. It's the American way.
DIANA HALL
Virginia Beach, Oct. 4, 1995
Now that O.J. Simpson is a free man, he can do what he promised the world: Help find the killer or killers of Nicole and Ron Goldman. My suggestion is that he turn himself in - so he can save himself time and money.
SPYROS MARKATOS
Norfolk, Oct. 5, 1995
Like many Americans, I was extremely depressed when the criminal-justice system failed to convict O.J. Simpson for murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.
Americans should bring Mr. Simpson to his knees by not supporting any endeavor that he engages in for the express purpose of capitalizing on his acquittal.
NICK MONTALTO
Virginia Beach, Oct. 5, 1995
It is obvious that either the jury was unaware of or that the court failed to instruct on the difference between ``reasonable doubt'' and ``unreasonable doubt.''
WILLIAM H. WHITMORE
Norfolk, Oct. 4, 1995
Truth and justice were served in the O.J. verdict.
An orderly process of jury selection took place.
The rules of law were already set (i.e., Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court of the United States, the American Bar Association, etc.). Each side was fully aware of the other's intentions - the state to prosecute and O.J. to defend against the charges.
I paid close attention throughout the trial. For once in my lifetime (I'm 47 years old), it seemed that a black man accused by the state of a serious crime would get a fair trial.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL MATIN
Norfolk, Oct. 6, 1995
I can't understand why the majority of people seem to disregard the opinion of the 12 people who lived and breathed the O.J. Simpson trial day and night for more than nine months.
I have believed since I was small that the jury determines the guilt or non-guilt of those accused of crimes.
From what I read and see on television, the verdict reached by the jury has changed no one's opinion. Reasonable doubt existed regarding every bit of physical evidence presented by the prosecution in the trial. The domestic violence was disgusting but didn't resolve anything, not even motive because it was so remote in time.
I believe the wealth and notoriety of the accused shaped more opinion than the facts and evidence in the case. People formed opinions of guilt or innocence before the trial began. The judgment of 12 Simpson peers did not change these people's opinions. What a shame!
THOMAS E. VIOLET
Chesapeake, Oct. 6, 1995 by CNB