Getting away with murder

Larry Cole lmcole at crl.com
Wed Oct 4 01:36:22 MDT 1995


Dear Robert Peter Burns,

Well, at least you got it half and hour ago.  That's better than not 
getting it at all.  How about the five minutes on Ms. Clark's "timeline" 
for returning home from the killings, hiding the bloodstained clothes, 
taking a shower and redressing.  
I objected to any discussion of the OJ trial whatsoever until yesterday 
when the jury did the thing its supposed to do and reached a decision 
"beyond a reasonable doubt".  What could have caused them to find that 
reasonable doubt without going through all the molecular biology?  I 
figured out what you figured out when I stopped and gave them a 
momement's respect. I realized that in my determination NOT to be had by the 
"cream team", I was being had by the reps of the People of the State of 
California. Me.  

If your analysis of the data presented didn't
fit the prosecution picture, then you were FOR spousal abuse. 
Gloria Allred is greaser than pig squeeler in Animal Farm.
It didn't take Johnnie Cochran's sleeze to come up with the RACE card.
Clark, Allred and Co. started off the case with the GENDER card.

It's still amazing to me after all these years how white folks see the 
world through entirely different lenses than people of color.
LAPD PLANT evidence?
Naa? By the way,
Free __________________(fill in the blank)

Think about the side you took and why you took it.
Then look at it as "simply" as Robert Peter suggests.
Which of our bells never stop ringing once their button is pushed?
A violent (football player), abusive (matter of record) rich (we distrust 
that more than most) MALE? Or......? A politically hungry DA willing to 
sell his and his troops' soul for a conviction...??
 
Poor Chris Darden.  What a burden he had to carry.
(protecting the personnel records of a known heavy duty racist, sexist, 
anti-Jew in hopes we'd never find out about this "bad apple".
Well, if you're still in the bad apple place, and you haven't had the turn 
of logic or emotion to figure out why so many black folks supported OJ to 
the end (and why The Fruit of Islam HAD to protect JC) then we're closer to 
"racial insurrection" than you may think... 
and you better change your views on gun control while your at it)

The OJ trial as Object Lesson.
Holy shit.
As my daddy said, "you just never know when truth will come and bite you 
on the ass".

Thanks RPB for your logic and the guts to put it forth here.

Larry

On Tue, 3 Oct 1995, Robert Peter Burns wrote:

> Until about half an hour ago, I was convinced that OJ was
> as guilty as sin, and that the jury was "sending a message",
> perhaps overdue but in this case inappropriate.  I was amazed
> at the verdict, not because it was an acquittal, but because
> I could not understand how an acquittal could be related to
> the testimony by the limo driver that the jury asked to be
> read back to them.  To me it just did not make sense.
> 
> Now it does.  The limo driver testified that he looked
> for the house number on the kerbside, and that he did
> not notice a white bronco car parked there.  He turned
> into the driveway with his stretched limo and then
> reversed back out into the street and turned around and
> waited.  And waited.  Near 11pm he saw a dark figure
> go into the house, and moments later Simpson answered
> on the intercom.
> 
> But here's the big, big point the jury was looking for.
> Although the Bronco was found at the kerbside the following
> morning at a spot that blocked a view of the kerbside house
> number, a number that is only a *few feet away* from the
> driveway to Simpson's estate, Park never testified that he
> noticed or heard any car, let alone a white Bronco, drive
> up and park at that spot.  Surely he would have noticed or
> heard it do so, if indeed it had.  The reason, then, that
> Park said he didn't notice or hear anything, is that either
> the Bronco was there all the time, and so could not have
> been used by Simpson to drive to Bundy and back, or else
> that the Bronco was *never* there all the time that Park
> was waiting at the gate.  But he left with Simpson, so
> Simpson could not have parked it there in time for it to
> be found at that spot early the next morning.  Either way,
> Simpson could not have driven to Bundy and back and then
> leave with the limo driver.
> 
> OK, it's *possible* that Simpson drove back, parked the
> Bronco without Park noticing, went round to the other
> side of the house, bumped into Kato's wall, dropped the
> glove, and cleaned up and disposed of the knife/clothes
> etc.  But is it likely that Park, who was waiting anxiously
> at the gate, would not have heard or noticed a car pulling
> up, and parking just a few feet from the driveway?  No, it's
> not, especially because that street is quiet and narrow and
> had been visited by the jury.  More likely is that the Bronco was
> always there or never there, in which case Simpson could not have
> used it to drive to Bundy and back.
> 
> On this reasoning--why did Park never notice the Bronco's
> return--the jury had all the reasonable doubt needed for an
> acquittal.  And remember, Marcia Clarke said that Park was
> the prosecution's best witness in her closing argument.
> That is why the jury asked for his, and only his testimony
> to be read back to them.  As soon as it was read back to
> them, they realized they had a reasonable doubt at the heart
> of the prosecution's case, and were duty bound to acquit.
> Hence the swiftness of the verdict.
> 
> OK, who was the man seen entering the house by Park?  That
> was Simpson.  He had packed most of his bags earlier, and
> then lain down to rest.  He fell asleep, and didn't hear
> the buzzer.  He rushed around in his room when he woke up
> shortly before 10.55pm.  He grabbed a bag and rushed downstairs,
> and out into the courtyard.  Park did not see him go *out* of
> the house--he was looking the other way/smoking a cigarette,
> talking on the phone to his boss--but he saw Simpson go back
> into the house.  At this point he buzzed again, and this time
> Simpson answered.  He'd be down shortly, and he was, this time
> with the rest of his luggage.  Maybe Simpson said something about
> taking a shower <had just taken one, or was about to take one, doesn't
> matter, since Simpson may just have been unwilling to admit that he'd
> fallen asleep.  Anyway who knows for sure what he said, and he was
> in a rush.>  He was in a rush, out of breath, and anxious to
> leave.
> 
> If Simpson really is innocent then either the police or the real
> killers planted evidence or there was a bit of both.  But even
> if he isn't, the jury still had enough of a reasonable doubt as
> soon as they heard again that Park had not noticed any Bronco
> returning from Bundy.
> 
> QED
> 
> Peter Burns SJ
> rburns at scf.usc.edu
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---



More information about the Marxism mailing list