OJ Simpson Jury: We Stuck To The Law
The latest jury members to find themselves in the life of OJ Simpson declared that they were not tainted by memories of that travesty of a verdict in 1995, nor are they a bunch of racists:
The jurors all denied they wanted to punish Simpson for past wrongs. One panelist, Dora Pettit, said she prayed for him before and after the case.
“I think he’s an ordinary man that made a bad decision,” she said. “I prayed for him and Stewart and the attorneys. I don’t have any ill feelings, and if they walked out tomorrow, so be it.”
Simpson, 61, was acquitted in 1995 of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman in Los Angeles. He was later found liable for the deaths in a civil case. He had claimed in the robbery case that he was trying to reclaim mementos stolen from him.
The jury also reacted to complaints by Simpson’s lawyers that there were no blacks on the panel; both defendants are black. One juror identified herself in a court questionnaire as Hispanic.
“We’ve been painted as an all-white jury who hates O.J., and that’s just not true,” Pettit said.
It seems the prosecution wasted their time bringing in those other witnesses/accomplices, and that the police need new transcribers:
The jury listened repeatedly to recordings made by collectibles dealer Thomas Riccio _ the host of the hotel confrontation, who was granted immunity _ and felt they heard things that had not been fully transcribed by police, juror Michelle Lyons said.
But jurors could not trust the credibility of witnesses who were given plea deals, Lyons said. “We felt we could not rely on that witness testimony,” she said.
And without those famous recordings, OJ just might have walked free:
Seven panelists who attended an extraordinary news conference Sunday concluded that without the recordings the prosecution might not have won convictions.
“It would have been a very weak case,” said Dora Pettit. Another juror David Wieberg chimed in, “Yes, a weak case,” and other jurors nodded in agreement.
It also seems that five of the twelve thought that OJ should have been found guilty in his famous double-murder trial. However, they said that their belief in his guilt did not in any way influence their decision in this trial.
And that is how it should be. The verdict in this trial will never make up for the verdict in the other trial. As much as so many of us hate to face it, he was found not guilty (NOT innocent, as his apologists like to say), and that was that. He can’t be tried again for that crime. However, OJ does seem to be getting payback for thinking that he is above the law and can do as he likes, an undercurrent in the previous trial as well as this one. Plus, had he not been trying to hide (and subsequently retrieve) memorabilia from the families of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, maybe this wouldn’t have happened. So perhaps the two are linked in more than just the obvious.
But let’s face it, OJ is probably not going to spend the rest of his life behind bars, unless he only plans on living another five years or so. I mean, it could happen…the man is sixty-one years old. He could have a heart attack tomorrow, he could live another thirty years. But the general consensus on the interwebs is that he’ll get about five years…which, with time off for good behavior and considering time already served, would get him about…three and a half days in jail.
Seems fair, right?




















