Letters, Nov. 6, 1995

THE END OF THE SIMPSON TRIAL

“Is it time to change the jury system? Should a panel of judges determine the verdict in capital cases based solely on evidence and not on defense strategy?” MICHAEL N. CARTER, Santee, California

I AM A 44-YEAR-OLD BLACK MAN WHO DID not look forward to hearing the O.J. Simpson verdict [SPECIAL REPORT, Oct. 16] because I was sure another black man would not receive justice. I was overcome with emotion when the not-guilty verdict was announced. I was so proud. At last, justice had embraced a black man. I suddenly noticed that among my co-workers, none of whom is black, not a single person shared my feelings. You could see the disappointment in the faces of two of my female colleagues and the males were strangely silent. Since blacks are always assumed to be guilty, I feel the not-guilty verdict was one for all black people. The shoe is now on the other foot, and whites don’t like the way it feels or fits. BILLY CHATMAN, Houston Via E-mail

THERE IS ONE RECOURSE FOR THOSE WHO think O.J. got away with murder: we can refuse to finance his return to society. I didn’t serve on the jury, but I’m casting my vote now–with my wallet. Whatever O.J. is selling, I’m not buying. KATHRYN WRIGHT STRAND, Alpharetta, Georgia

MY MESSAGE IS TO THE PIOUSLY PREACHing Johnnie Cochran and others: “Woe to you, lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering you hindered” (Luke 11: 52). CAROL BERRY, Waco, Texas

YOUR REPORT ON THE LOS ANGELES Police Department following the Simpson verdict painted a very misleading and inaccurate picture of the L.A.P.D. and the officers who struggle to maintain order in a very complex community. As a 22-year veteran of the L.A.P.D. and a member of the command staff, I take particular exception to your reference to the “good ole boys who still run the show.” Any suggestion that the entire management staff should have been purged when Chief Willie Williams took over implies that those of us who are in positions of authority are resistant to change and don’t support Williams. This is far from the truth. The L.A.P.D. has more than 10,000 employees, and they are representative of society. The nearly 16% female membership is a much higher figure than in most police departments. As in any large organization, there are some bad apples, but Mark Fuhrman is no more representative of L.A.P.D. officers than O.J. Simpson is of retired N.F.L. football players. DANIEL B. WATSON, Commander Los Angeles Police Department Los Angeles

NO MATTER HOW MUCH ANYONE LIKES OR dislikes O.J., adulation does not make him innocent and hatred does not make him guilty. If the people so caught up in this case would separate their emotions from the facts presented, it would be very clear that evidence alone did not prove Simpson’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that this was primarily due to the mishandling of the case by the Los Angeles Police Department. Whether Simpson is guilty, only he only he knows for sure. But given the multitude of mistakes made during the investigation and the blow to the prosecution of having Detective Mark Fuhrman perjure himself on the stand, was there any other verdict the jury could have returned? HEIDI R. HETTINGER, Champaign, Illinois Via E-mail

I AM REMINDED OF SHAKESPEARE’S COMment on justice in King Lear: ”Through tattered clothes small vices do appear;/ Robes and furred gowns hide all./ Plate sin with gold,/ And the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks;/ Arm it in rags, a pygmy’s straw does pierce it.” JANICE JOHNSON, San Gabriel, California

I FOUND THE SCENES OF JUBILATION OUTside the Los Angeles courthouse after the verdict quite distressing. I wonder how reaction to such behavior might have differed had a mostly white crowd rejoiced after an acquittal of a famous white person accused of brutally murdering two African Americans. ALLEN YATES, Johannesburg, South Africa

THE VERDICT HAS COME DOWN, AND A man I think is a murderer has been found not guilty. The lawyers representing him were able to switch the focus of the trial away from the deaths of the two victims and somehow turn it toward the disparity between whites and blacks in the U.S. But O.J. Simpson is not by any stretch of the imagination a representative of the African-American people. He did nothing for them when he was at the peak of his career or at any time afterward. There used to be a very effective remedy for those who violated the laws of the community. It was “shunning,” or treating the offender as if he were dead. That might be better than a guilty verdict for this particular man. He lives by his reputation as a smiling endorser of products. Take that away from him, and you punish him where it will have a meaningful effect. PATRICIA DRYBURGH, Prince George, British Columbia

I LIVE IN HOLLAND, WHERE ONE JUDGE rules whether someone is guilty or not guilty. In the U.S., a jury of 12 decides the verdict. I thought the American way was much fairer until I heard the O.J. Simpson verdict. I have learned from this case that because Simpson was rich, he could buy his defense. The American system of law is not all that fair. KOEN BAART, Barneveld, the Netherlands

SIMPSON HAS ESCAPED LIFE IN PRISON, but he will never escape the prison that is his conscience, which I hope will torment him for the rest of his life. GIANNI VASDEKIS, Buenos Aires

AFTER NINE MONTHS OF THE O.J. SAGA, one thing seems perfectly clear: juries do not decide whether the accused is innocent or guilty. They vote on which side has better lawyers. AZAM JAMIL, Karachi Via E-mail

NOW THAT THE WORLD HAS O.D.’ED ON O.J., I cannot wait for the next macabre episode to grab the public’s fascination. Will it be another serial killer, government scandal, celebrity crime? What will the media dish out for us next? ROBIN KALMEK, Grahamstown, South Africa

THE SIMPSON TRIAL SHOWED THE WORLD that in the U.S., money is color-blind. ADELE M. KAVANAGH, Caracas

KEY ATTORNEYS IN SWEDEN WHO FOLlowed the Simpson trial concluded that 50% of the mass of evidence presented would have been sufficient for a guilty verdict if the trial had taken place in Sweden. In contrast, the jury’s ridiculously short deliberation was a travesty of justice and a complete disservice to the community. African Americans and women would be the chief beneficiaries of a more just society guided by responsibility, which this jury sadly renounced. THOMAS MARK, Stockholm

AS A GREAT ADMIRER OF THE U.S. JUDICIAL system, I encouraged my children to watch the Simpson trial so they would get an idea of how the system functions. After seeing Simpson’s Dream Team of defense attorneys in action, I am not so sure it was a good idea. My sincere condolences to the families of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. JUAN SOTILLO, Caracas

THE SIMPSON TRIAL HAS SHAKEN AMERIcans’ confidence in the ability of the U.S. judicial system to deliver justice. As time passes, the case may recede into being only another speck of sand on the sand hill, but its effect on the shape of the hill will last forever. There is far more at stake here than the case. Yes, one side lost and another won, but did either one rise to the occasion? MAIR ZAMIR, London, Ontario

I CANNOT UNDERSTAND HOW THE STATE of morals in the U.S. has sunk to such depths that the African-American community has decided to make a wife beater its hero. ANA V. JIMANEZ, Grand Cayman, British West Indies

WHEN A CIRCUS GOES AWRY, IT IS USUALly the fault of the ringmaster. Judge Ito was not able to keep the sideshows under control, and as a result the knife thrower got away with murder. This was not justice; this was a travesty. MARE-LIIS BALLES , Agincourt, Ontario

IN DEFENSE OF JUDGE LANCE ITO, WHOM you accuse of taking time “to usher celebrities into his chambers,” let me offer a personal experience. My wife Lynne was found to have a malignant brain tumor in October 1994, when she was 35 years old. She followed the Simpson proceedings religiously as a diversion from her own death sentence. After learning of Lynne’s case, Judge Ito offered her seats in the courtroom. On July 25, she accepted and spent the afternoon session in court as his guest. Upon her arrival, Judge Ito invited her into his chambers, and during the afternoon break, he sent his law clerk to ask if Lynne would like to come back to his chambers and rest. In the weeks that followed her visit, Judge Ito continued to call to check on her condition, and after her death on Sept. 8, he phoned me to offer his condolences. Lynne was not a celebrity. Judge Ito’s care and compassion touched her and lifted her spirits in ways words cannot express. KENNETH W. BATCHELOR, Burbank, California

AS A TRIAL ATTORNEY, I BELIEVE NONE OF us have the standing to question the jury’s decision in the Simpson murder trial. We in the public had access to much more information than did the jury, which heard only that evidence the attorneys chose to present and the judge ruled admissible. Under our wonderful Constitution and the Anglo-American law’s presumption of innocence until guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the State of California was ruled not to have carried its burden of proof. I for one am happy to live in a country where the rule of law governs and not the rule of the mob. MARK W. BYRUM JR., Springfield, Virginia

THE TENDENCY TO IDOLIZE AND CELEbrate O.J. Simpson in the wake of his acquittal is appalling. He may not be guilty of murder, but a man who violently beats and terrorizes his wife is no hero. He deserved a fair trial, and one has to assume that is what he received. But it makes me sick to see how quickly ”not guilty of murder” is translated into ”innocent.” A man who threatens to kill his wife is very likely to do just that. He is neither a pillar of the community nor the victim of a witch-hunt. He is without a doubt a criminally abusive man, and that fact must not be ignored. MOLLY MINER, Evanston, Illinois Via E-mail

WHAT A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE! IN TENnyson’s words: “Blind and naked Ignorance/ Delivers brawling judgments, unashamed,/ On all things all day long.” VIRGINIA P. STEWART, Summerville, South Carolina

THE MISAPPLICATION OF THE WORD hero–your table of contents says “an All-American hero is whole again”–speaks volumes about America’s mixed-up priorities. When we define as heroes grown men who play little boys’ games, we demean the Audie Murphys, Sergeant Yorks, Florence Nightingales and countless anonymous police officers, fire fighters and others who have risked and sometimes forfeited their lives in the service of humanity. There are many great talented sports figures, including Simpson. Role models they may be. Heroes they are not. JOHN LUTHER, Buffalo, New York

AS A WOMAN AND A FEMINIST, I WAS OUTraged to read of nothing but racial issues in articles about the verdict. Before the trial, O.J. Simpson was never much of an advocate for African Americans. Everyone involved in this fiasco did his best to confuse the real issue of domestic violence, the reason Simpson was brought to court the first time. It is obvious that our society still considers domestic violence a private matter rather than an important human-rights issue. KATE SULLIVAN, Plainfield, Vermont

FOR THE RECORD

IN OUR ARTICLE “MAKING THE CASE” [SPECIAL REPORT, Oct. 16], we said that in August 1994, O.J. Simpson’s lawyers discussed a plea bargain for manslaughter. We said one source said Simpson attorney Robert Shapiro and “F. Lee Bailey, the legendary trial lawyer brought on by Shapiro, were willing to entertain the idea.” F. Lee Bailey denies that he ever considered the idea of a plea bargain. In fact, Mr. Bailey maintained the innocence of his client throughout the trial.

USA WEEKEND ON EQ

YOUR ARTICLE ON EQ, OR EMOTIONAL intelligence [COVER STORY, Oct. 2], referred to a piece that we ran, but unfortunately it was credited to USA Today rather than USA Weekend. We fight this misidentification a lot, although we are entirely separate publications. USA Weekend is a newspaper magazine carried by 450 newspapers and reaching readers in 19 million homes. Please set the record straight. MARCIA BULLARD, Editor USA Weekend Arlington, Virginia

GREENPEACE’S VICTORIES

GREENPEACE HAS CONSISTENTLY DEDIcated itself to one simple goal: protecting our planet for future generations. While “It’s Not Easy Being Greenpeace,” as TIME noted [ENVIRONMENT, Oct. 16], we have achieved major victories for the environment, including most recently a worldwide ban on the export of hazardous wastes to developing countries, and an international agreement eventually to eliminate dolphin deaths by the tuna industry. The primary issue for the news media should not be our ongoing debate over strategy but the larger context of how governments and the U.N. have failed to tackle the serious global environmental problems we are facing today. If the condemnation of 158 countries, the disapproval of a majority of its own public and the concerted efforts of millions of citizens worldwide cannot prevent France from testing nuclear weapons, how can we ever expect real progress on other critical issues where the balance of opinion is not so one-sided? Greenpeace will continue to work for a greener and more peaceful planet, but we cannot do it alone. BARBARA DUDLEY, Executive Director Greenpeace USA Washington

BILINGUAL SCHOOLING DILEMMA

THE IDEA OF OFFERING BILINGUAL CLASSes to students who are new to the U.S. is absurd [EDUCATION, Oct. 9]. Such classes will not allow the students to learn the English language as quickly as they would otherwise and will not let them attain a level of fluency in English, which is so essential in this country. When my family and I immigrated to the U.S. in 1985 from Bangladesh, I was just five and could not speak a word of English. My parents registered me in kindergarten, and after a few months I had a good grasp of the English language. Children are able to learn things very quickly, but if they are put into bilingual classes where they can manage without speaking English, their progress can only be hindered. They have to learn the language on their own. IMRAN CHOWDHURY, New York City

YOUNGSTERS SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN whatever language they understand best. It is ironic that many English-only advocates want a reduction of federal involvement in local matters. But who would enforce a proposed federal English-only mandate if, as part of the federal budget reduction, the Department of Education were virtually decimated? Washington, butt out! W. DONALD HEISEL, Cincinnati, Ohio