OJ: Two Weeks Later

The Case for Acquittal: Why the O.J. Simpson Jury Did the Right Thing

By Jennifer Hitchcock

Staff Writer

I have a confession to make. I actually returned home from work for lunch on Tuesday, Oct. 3 to see the O.J. Simpson verdict announced live on TV. I was never addicted to the trial like so many other people, but I was intensely perplexed by the quick decision which the jury made. After the media reported that a verdict had been reached, I became overwhelmed by the amount of speculation as to what the verdict might be. My immediate reaction was that the jury would acquit O.J. Simpson. However, after learning that the jury requested to have the testimony of the limo driver replayed for them, I began to change my mind. The jury did not wish to hear the defense's cross-examination and asked that the playback of the limo driver's testimony stop after he described an African-American male crossing the front lawn of O.J. Simpson's estate. The jury's request for this specific piece of testimony was enough to convince me that it would convict O.J. Simpson.

Throughout the trial, I believed that O.J. Simpson was almost certainly guilty of committing the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. This belief began with the infamous Bronco chase. If O.J. Simpson was innocent, why did the Bronco chase occur in the first place? Why did police recover a passport and a large amount of cash from the Bronco? The evidence which overwhelmingly places him at the murder scene is the DNA evidence from blood drops recovered from his Bronco and from one of his socks. How else could his blood have been at the crime scene along with the blood of Nicole and Ron? Most importantly, O.J. had the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the murders. He proved to have a violent side with the 911 tapes and the Polaroids of Nicole's battered face, which were never admitted into evidence. Furthermore, no one can account for O.J.'s whereabouts during the approximate time of the murders.

I say that I believed O.J. was "almost certainly" guilty because there are other aspects of the murder which simply defy explanation and raise doubt as to whether it was possible for O.J. to have committed the murders. In one conversation at work, one of my coworkers asked how one man could overcome two people, one of them tall and strong. It seems ridiculous to think that one of the victims sat and watched while the other was attacked. It is possible, however, that the murderer knocked one of them unconscious, which freed the murderer to pursue the other. Or, it is entirely possible that O.J. committed the murders with someone else. One of the problems of this case is that there are too many unknown factors. The only people who know what really happened are the victims and the murderer or murderers.

The prosecution believed that it had an airtight case, with evidence clearly identifying O.J. Simpson at the murder scene and a timeline in which he would have had plenty of time to commit the murders. However, the defense skillfully shortened the timeline and questioned the integrity of the evidence. Considering the numerous mistakes made in collecting the evidence, as well as the racist tendencies of Mark Furhman, it is possible that the LAPD could have framed O.J. for the murders.

Initially, I was disappointed when my expectation as to the outcome of the jury's deliberation was not fulfilled, and it chose to acquit O.J. Simpson. I thought about the 911 tapes, which Judge Ito did not allow the jury to hear. I thought of the limo driver waiting and waiting outside O.J. Simpson's estate, only to see an African-American male cross the lawn of the estate shortly before O.J. Simpson greeted the limo driver at the door and apologized for having overslept. I thought about the DNA evidence. Just like so many people, I wanted someone to pay for the vicious murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. I wanted to experience a sense of closure to the long trial, which a guilty verdict would have accomplished . Instead, the acquittal only raises more questions.

After reflecting a great deal on the verdict, I came to the conclusion that the acquittal of O.J. Simpson was the only verdict that the jury could have reached. Johnny Cochran, in a brilliantly constructed closing argument, reminded the jury that by law it must find the defendant innocent if there is a single shred of reasonable doubt that he committed the murders. Mr. Cochran made a point-by-point definition of what the law defines to be reasonable doubt. Clearly, there was enough reasonable doubt to acquit O.J. Simpson, even if there was strong evidence that he was guilty. The most concrete DNA evidence is worthless if a police detective, carrying a vial of O.J.'s blood in his pocket, planted some of it at the crime scene and on the Bronco and sock. In addition, just as O.J. Simpson's violent side could make him capable of committing murder, Mark Fuhrman's racism could make him capable of framing a Black man for murder. Despite the media coverage, which often made the legal system look like an over-hyped but poorly-played football game, the O.J. Simpson trial still remained a quest for justice. Whether justice was served will remain a hot debate for years to come.