The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, October 25, 1995 - 5
Reasonable
doubt was plain
in Simpson case
To the Daily:
I have tried to put the O.J. case
behind me and move on, but with some
of the ignorant letters I have been read-
ing it makes that task nearly impos-
sible.
So, it is time for my two cents. One
of the largest problems I have is the
glove. Please explain how someone
could leave one glove at the murder
scene and the other at their place of
residence, but at the same time hide a
murder weapon and bloody clothes in a
place that no one has ever discovered.
Did he dump the knife and clothes be-
fore he entered his Bronco? If not, then
there should have been a lot more ofthe
victims' blood inside the vehicle. Why
wouldn't he put the gloves wherever
the weapon and clothes were? Did he
drive home with this glove? If so why
wasn't there more blood in the Bronco?
Why wasn't any blood around the glove?
Blood is very sticky, so why weren't
there any leaves sticking to the glove?
Why was it still moist? Why didn't they
fit?
For Mr. Cusick ("Juries should trust
DNA," 10/18/95), it is not that the jury
did not understand DNA technology. It
is that they did not understand why
there was a blood preservative in some
of the collected samples, and why an
expert witness'testimony revealed that
the splatter marks on the socks seem to
be planted.
I do believe that money did have an
effect on the outcome. That is the way
our justice system operates. Just think
about it. If you could afford Mr.
Simpson's lawyers would you rather
Simpson verdict
the right choice
To the Daily:
The response to the Simpson ver-
dct has been disturbing and scary. It is
disturbing that so many people are will-
ing to totally ignore the case presented
by the defense team. It is scary that
based on this ignorance so many would
be willing to send a man to prison for
the rest of his life. Judge Lance Ito's
mandate tothejury was: "Ifyou find the
prosecution to have presented a reason-
able case and the defense to have pre-
sented a reasonable case then you must
rulein favorofthedefendant."Ofcourse
when one ignores the defense challenge
to the so-called mountain of evidence it
is easy to blame thejury, blame Johnnie
Cochran and find fault with the system.
O.J. did not buy justice in any ab-
stract or "slick" sense. He was able to
afford representation that was able and
willing to investigate the evidence, lo-
cate expert testimony and challenge
each and every prosecution witness. In
cross-examination Barry Scheck
jumped all over the DNA evidence and
lab procedures. Scientific testimony
contrary to the prosecution's challenged
the certainty that the blood evidence
belonged to Mr. Simpson. Not that it
was ever proved that the blood was not
O.J.'s, but the claim was successfully
challenged. Dr. Henry Lee called into
serious question the interpretation of
the crime scene.
It was obvious members ofthejury
had problems with the timeline. Based
on the claim by Mr. Allan Park that O.J.
was seen at 10:52 it is reasonable to
question whetheronepersoncouldhave
committed the crime in question, clean
up and be seen at his front door in the
time allotted by prosecution theory.
Once the timeline was successfully chal-
lenged then everything else becomes
questionable. Logically speaking if the
defendant did not have time, then there
must other reasons for the evidence.
Therefore the defense theory becomes
reasonable.
The arguments on the significance
of abuse illustrate twisted logic of the
most elementary type. "Most women
who are victims of homicide are mur-
dered by husbands or boyfriends."
Nicole was murdered so her husband
must have done it. "Most women who
are murdered by husbands/boyfriends
were victims of previous abuse." O.J.
abused Nicole so he must have mur-
dered her. This reasoning would fail the
first week of Logic 101. The prosecu-
tion completely failed to make a link.
The defense completely sacked the
claim of a brooding, raging defendant
bent on murderous intent.
Cochran's argument was never that
the jury should acquit a guilty man. The
argument was that the jury should go
against historical trend and refuse to
convict someone who may be innocent.
The message to be sent was that no
longer will we convict in spite of the
incompetence of the crime-scene in-
vestigators, the coroner's office and the
prosecution team. We will not convict
in spite of evidence that is questionable
and may have been planted and/or tam-
have them represent you or a public
defender? Two of the defense's expert
witnesses cost $400,000. If you could
afford that, would you hesitate for fear
that the public will think you bought
your freedom?
I do not believe the defense played a
race card. The prosecution dealt that
hand, and the defense just happen to
have received thejoker. It should not be
sohard foryouto understand why black
people think he is not guilty. How can
we trust any evidence from a cop who
lied on stand, and thinks that "the only
good nigger is a dead nigger." When he
was on the stand again and asked if any
evidence was planted, he pleaded the
Fifth Amendment. If you did not plant
any evidence why wouldn't you say
"no I did not plant any evidence." The
Fifth Amendment lets you remain si-
lent so that you will not incriminate
yourself.
Finally, because of all the points I
justpresented, it puts a reasonable doubt
in my mind. And remember that the
jury did not have to decide if he was
completely innocent. They were in-
structed to acquit if there was a reason-
able doubt.
Besides, it is not as though they had
a videotape of O.J. committing the
murders and then found him not guilty.
What kind of ignorant people would do
something like that?
Jason B. Marshall
LSA senior
'Strange Days'
an important
work of art
To the Daily:
I am writing in response to letters
written by Karin Tamerius and Marga-
ret Ann Murphy regarding the recent
screening of"Strange Days." ("Strange
Days showing at 'U' offends viewers,"
10/11/95). These letters recall Sen. Bob
Dole's recent accusations of film
industry's attempt to "mainstream de-
viancy" as the same film Ms. Tamerius
so easily dismisses as "socially irre-
sponsible," I found to be an interesting
meditation on racism, moral break-
downs and the abuse of technology in
the near future.
What Ms. Tamerius and Ms. Murphy
don't realize is that the best works of art
do cause outrage just as they provoke
thought and question one's beliefs. If
all Ms. Tamerius could get out the film
was something that "titilates and ex-
cites some men ... and makes movie
executives richer," she might want to
look a little bit deeper or perhaps even
stay until the end of the film before
judging it.
What is so powerful about the film
is the way in which director Kathryn
Bigelow (a female director in case any-
one thought it mattered) is able to create
such horrifying scenes of rape and tor-
ture without sensationalizing them. To
soften these scenes would be an insult
to any people who have found them-
selves in such situations while ignoring
these issues would be to say it doesn't
exist which, until recently, was the very
problem regarding violence against
women.
It is evident that Ms. Murphy's in-
tentions are good as she states "Exer-
cising good taste, judgment and com-
passion are not the same as censor-
ship." The problem is to whose sense of
good taste, judgment and compassion
is she referring. What she calls "ex-
tremely pornographic and violent," I
call effective. As Ms. Murphy claims,
"Murder, rape and torturing should not
be promoted by showing support for
this film," she forgets that rape predates
pornography by thousands of years.
Furthermore, she appears to be un-
der the impression that John Lennon
would still be alive and John Hinckley
would be living a regular, healthy life
had J.D. Salinger not written "The
Catcher In the Rye" yet I don't see her
writing letters to the University librar-
ies, trying to get the book removed from
shelves.
Rules and regulations will not solve
every human ill norwill it end the battle
ofthe sexes which has gone on since the
beginning of time. Ms. Tamerius
"strongly encourages" us to make our
opinions heard provided we agree with
her on any of the three points she raised.
-Well, I don't agree with any of them
and I still want my opinion to be heard
becuase, unlike Ms. Tamerius and Ms.
Murphy, I do believe in free speech. It
the two persons in question are soeasily
offended, I suggest that the next time
they see a free movie screening adver-
tised, they stay home and rent "Fried
Green Tomatoes."
Andrew Rodgers
LSA junior
U I'
f
i
vndAl-w-th - .
k
/2.1s /1 4f
a hole in
You are t OL L a kkk1 -k.k But when
your pocket renders you cl angeless,
you r e l u C t a n t l y call the folks COlleCt.
ai 1 800 CALL ATT.
You dio
t.
YOur
pangs
of guilt
are
minimaL.
Know the Code. 1800 CALL ATT That's Your Tue Choice.