Topic : 07/02 The O.J. Book Battle

I posted a similar message to the fact about this having anything to do with it being Ron Goldman's fault due to a drug deal. That is a ludicrous idea! It's got to be one of the most absurd and insulting comments that I have ever heard! And Moeshe, I understand what you are talking about, not wanting to be victimized all over again. When I went through the attempted kidnapping the first question that everybody (EVERYBODY) asked me was, "what were you wearing?" Like that makes it OK for someone to rape and murder me! Or that I asked for it! It just so happens that I was wearing Levis, a plain high necked T-shirt and tennis shoes. Oh, what a sex bomb I must have been! I was so hurt and extremely insulted that anyone would ask me this. Talk about unfair and small minds! I get so angry even now when I think of this. I don't know what happened to you but I have an idea, it's your business so I won't ask. I understand, being a victim myself, just how personal this type of experience is. I do wish you the best though and hope that you have been bale to go on with your life. I still have problems myself, but I'm trying to work through them. Good luck to you.

Jewels

P.S. I had posted to you several times and they never showed up on the board. I don't want you to think that I never acknowledged all of your very kind words. It meant a lot to me!

I sympathize with what you must have gone through.  Before my own children were victims of a terrible crime, I was in "la la" land where I believed in justice.  Foolishly, I pressed charges...I obeyed the law, putting my children through hell, only to see the "accused" go free.  Sad part being, I am in the MAJORITY!

My opinion is that anyone who has had a walk through the flawed system, has a better understanding of how the Goldmans are feeling...like Ron was killed twice.

We would hope that criminal cases were actually about the CRIME that was committed.  Denise Brown had her problem with alcohol raised...message, you can get slashed to death if you have an alcoholic sister.  Unless there is solid concrete uncontaminated evidence, a group of witnesses, or a confession from the accused, the only people who are "tried" ARE the victims and their families.  Notice, the accused doesn't HAVE to take the stand.  Right off the bat, it's an uneven playing field...the defense attorneys do their jobs by raising reasonable doubt.  It's done by putting victims on trial, and the more money you have, the better defense you can hire.  Then, families, friends, therapists...all go on trial. In my opinion, someone had to have heard, or seen something that night, but was afraid to come foreward.  Wouldn't be the first time a witness just did not want to get "involved".  It isn't right, yet it IS understandable if you know what you're going to be in for...character assasination to raise "reasonable doubt". 

I'm ALL in favor of protecting rights, as there are people who have been wrongly accused.  It is how the rights are protected that gives me the problem. 

Personally, I give the Goldman family a lot of credit.  Most would have given up.  I did.  Never went after a Civil suit...one drama was too much, and my children felt then, and today, the same as you and I...it's just NOT worth it!

If your ordeal was what I'm thinking it was, times really haven't changed, unless something radical has occurred after the year 2000.  I thank God my children weren't murdered, happy to hear you're still with us as well...but get OVER it?  Bile still rises in my throat when I think about it...and cases like O.J.'s, Robert Blake's, and many others of no profile I have heard about just re-enforce my lack of faith in the justice system. 

I cannot believe how the BRUTAL MURDERS of two people can be glossed over by many posters.  Like Ron and Nicole were asking for this?   I think that O.J. is getting a perverse pleasure by writing such a book, which only serves to keep those murders fresh in our minds.  That man is proud of what he did,  otherwise he'd have been devastated and behaved more in keeping with the spirit of the Goldmans...maybe used his high profile to rage against the LAPD, write about the hell that he went through and never keep quiet until the case was re-opened. 

O.J. never filed a Civil suit against the police, the prosecuters, or even a defamation suit against the Goldmans...wonder why not?  Maybe because he's GUILTY!!!!

Jury tampering is not uncommon.  Many Mob related cases in New York have only gotten convictions when an oppositional "family" took control in the City.  It IS possible that the jurors were fearful.  Were that the case, can you blame them for protecting themselves and their families.  Many people fear testifying against a policeman for similar reasons...you want drugs planted in your kids' cars? 

What is REALLY a "jury of your peers"?  An all police jury for a crime where a policeman is involved?  An all gang, or mob jury when one of them is in the hot seat?  The NFL in the case of O.J.? 

We worry about bias, but seldom realize that jurors are vulnerable to retalliation, as are witnesses who stand against a powerful defendant. 

It is no wonder that a good percentage of citizens do anything to get out of jury duty.  I agree our country is in sad shape, because what you have posted is true.

   A jury of OJ's peers would have come from Brentwood, Beverly Hills, a very high end area. I have an old boyfriend who grew up in Brentwood. His father was the pediatrician to the all of the stars children. My ex knows all of these parents to this day, attends Hollywood bashes, fund-raisers, etc. They would have been his true peers. Not your everyday Joe, the regular blue collar working class kind of guy. I remember that this was a big deal at the time of the trial. Many people including the Prosecution felt the same way. This was a complete and utter travesty of justice! BTW, the only black people who would have been considered a peer would have to have been wealthy and lived in the same area. As I said before, if it had been a true jury of his peers, he would have been found guilty!

   I have another point that I would like to bring up. This has always bothered me, at least since I became a victim of violent crime myself. I was luckier than some of the other's on this board since the man who tried to kidnap me was indeed caught and went to prison. Here is where I am angry and do not agree with the law. He went to prison for 4 years because it was "attempted" kidnapping. If it had been "kidnapping", he would have been sentenced for a minimum of 20 years. If it had made it to an actual kidnapping then I would be dead. In my opinion the word "Attempted" attached to any crime only means that for some reason the perp was unable to carry out his original crime. Not that he changed his mind or felt remorse so he stopped, it was because something happened to where he was unable to fulfill what he intended to do. Yet the laws are much more lenient for an "attempted" charge. It's like they are rewarded for not being able to carry out their crime. I was the one who stopped him, I was the one who saved my own life! "Attempted" doesn't mean jack to me!

Yes. Double jeopardy is not legal...In some cases it should be..If there is new evidence, or the person later says "Yes I did it and got away with it" . After all, if someone is found guilty, they can appeal several times.

I do not believe that it is a by-product of resentment or bigoted hatred..After all, it was OJ who played the race card...Personaly I don't care what color the man is...HE DID IT..There was way to much DNA evidence

for it to have been anyone else....And remember all the lies he told about where he was and what he was doing that night...Sleeping, golfing, taking a shower....He couldn't keep his story straight.....OJ got away with murder.....

 Now, I don't want to offend anyone or question those who think they know all the answers but I am shocked that nobody is taking notice of the new evidence brought to light (and subsequently ignored by the authorities).

I understand why people believe OJ is guilty but surely the main motivation is to catch the real killers? If that is your interest (rather than a hatred of the notion that OJ got away with murder) then you need to read the info out there and watch the documentary.

There is far more to this story than meets the eye.  OJ was wrong - terribly wrong - for cashing in on the tragedy, but that doesnt mean he was guilty of the original crimes.  Don't take my word for it, read it yourself.  Do a search on 'OJ's son real murderer.'