Notes



"Not Guilty"

The Verdict of the Century?



By Frank Sikernitsky


Editor-In-Chief


One thing I have realized over the course of the OJ trial is that what I believe doesn't really matter. I was not a witness, nor did I hear every minute of testimony. I did see the coverage and analysis ad nauseam. What the media has jumped on is that mistaken assumption that the jury voted OJ innocent. They did not. They felt there were too many holes in the testimony to convict. "Not Guilty" is not "innocent". But our system is set up as such; if the jury says "OK" then it's over. My thinking is that in any case, we will never know what the story was; we never could. There was no handy video camera standing by this time.

So who are the winners and losers now that it's over?

The Winners

The Losers

"The Verdict is not In Yet"

The OJ case is not a judicial question; it delves deeply into culture. We are not truly involved. Yet we each want so much to make the issues our own when they aren't. We see race and we see wife-beating and we see frame-ups and the 'n' word. As soon as we saw the case for these things, it stopped being a question of justice. As soon as we used the case as a vehicle for bigger issues, we divorced ourselves from the jury and the courtroom. Two cases were formed and tried, and the billion-person jury trying the second one may take twenty years to reach its verdict.

Lastly, I say this is not a negative thing. It is probably far better for us to take the issues away and not the verdict. The verdict doesn't directly affect us -- the issues do. The true case for the Judicial system was two innocent people, a football star, a missing knife, and a pair of expensive gloves. Our case is racism, violence and question about our judicial system as it stands. Forget about O.J. and keep the issues at hand; one verdict cannot change them.



©Trincoll Journal, 1995.