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.