People are not two dimensional. Movies and TV would have us believe that people are either 100% good or 100% bad so you know who to root for or root against.
I loved OJ, and I was too young to ever see him play. I loved the guy who ran through the airport. The sideline reporter. Detective Nordberg. When that white Bronco was being followed by a procession of police cars, I remember saying to myself, kinda heartbrokenly, "say it isn't so, OJ."
But he committed one of the most heinous acts a human can commit. I guess I have to understand that an incredibly charming, talented, and funny guy can also have the anger and lack of morals to violently murder someone.
Excellent read, and, as usual, a willingness to look at all sides of a story. I had not considered the CTE angle before, but as you say, that is no excuse. And while the comments on Dershowitz are, I think, a little off base (defense attorneys are not primarily interested in justice), he should have had the sense to avoid anything that would remind the public he was part of this fiasco.
I've read your work, serious ("Progress Paradox") and silly (NFL team nicknames), for 20 over years. I don't always agree with you, but I value the intelligence and knowledge you bring to your arguments. However, your characterization of Alan Dershowitz as going "to great lengths to prevent justice" shocks me. I know that you are not your brother, but particularly as his sibling, you must know better. Criminal defense attorneys' job -- our obligation -- is to promote justice by defending the rights enshrined in our Constitutions (state and federal). Exposing police misconduct, upholding the presumption of innocence, and forcing prosecutors to prove their case to a jury of the defendant's peers beyond a reasonable doubt are the foundations of our system of justice. I take no opinion on Dershowitz, in general, but your suggestion that winning the trial prevented justice suggests that justice is served by NOT defending people's rights in the courtroom. Lack of zealous defense attorneys would prevent justice!
Thank you for a(nother) great article! Loved the behind-the-scenes insights from your encounters with OJ and Ralph Wilson, truly fascinating.
The passing of OJ Simpson provides a very good reminder to us all of two important things to keep in mind:
1. We are all mortal - As TMQ has stated in the past: "The knock on your life's door can come at any moment - when it does, will your heart be ready?!?" All the money and fame in the world will not buy another minute on this vale of tears, so focus on being right with God, yourself, and others.
and:
2. Beware the allure of great wealth, fame, and power, etc. - as while these items initially can be a great blessing, they can quickly turn into an accursed burden. If these trappings become one's sole focus, one may quickly lose their moral compass, happiness, gratitude, and eventually self-destruct (These things are called 'trappings' for a reason, ya know...!).
OJ wasn't the first person to struggle under the burden of super-sized fame & fortune (Elvis, Pete Rose, and Michael Jackson all got their first, along with many others). Let's hope that his example will prevent future such outcomes...!
I'm always confounded when people are unable to make a decision based on new information. Removing the displays of honor is the right thing to do and can't see where the objection would come from. I'd there were some blowback the phrase "it's the decent thing to do" would suffice as an explanation for most.
I think parallels can be drawn between the trial of OJ and the ongoing criminal and civil trials of former President. The defendant as the victim. Ignoring the crimes and focusing on the system. Black society celebrated the Simpson acquittal, pushing aside the charges, as a validation of police corruption and racism. Similarly, Trump constantly pulls out the victim card. His followers, as with Simpson, ignore his crimes and will ultimately, regardless of the outcome, charge the "rigged, corrupt" system as the real culprit. In both, a verdict of acquittal is not a verification of not guilty.
Simpson was a murderer. That’s open and shut. Many of these cases are gray areas. For instance the Brits who wanted the name Arthur Harris removed from public display. I think it’s fine if a social consensus changes IE “once we thought Lee was a great man now we realize he was not”
I just think OJ is less open and shut than you think. There are several/many folks who were murderers, but either not tried or not convicted b/c of the politics of the time (sometimes racism, sometimes just deranged scientists doing horrific experiments), with their names on things.
I agree on OJ, but I think we should be doing a whole cloth housecleaning too.
Excellent read. I think it is a shame that the mainstream media would try to retcon OJ as a victim of the systemic racism in the USA. That take cheapens the whole argument. He killed those two people and got away with it and hid from the civil verdict like a dog on the run. Thanks for pointing these things out and calling out those who have whitewashed it since the miscarriage of justice in 1995.
I hadn’t considered the cte possibility. I wonder if his brain will be examined?
I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I was in the Army in the mid-80’s and knew some guys from LA and I was not at all surprised by that verdict. The LAPD was well known for framing suspects. In this case they framed a guilty man who could actually afford a good defense and lost the case as a result.
A few years later the Ramparts investigation happened.
Respectfully, his defense team argued that the LAPD was either trying to deliberately and expertly frame an innocent man but also look at the way all the evidence, including multiple DNA samples (blood AND hair), was mishandled by those incompetent LAPD detectives. Could both arguments be true at the same time?
Yes LAPD was spectacularly inept— tampering with evidence! Maybe they did that all the time assuming they’d never be caught. But even with the tampered evidence suppressed and Furman impeached there was proof beyond reasonable doubt
People are not two dimensional. Movies and TV would have us believe that people are either 100% good or 100% bad so you know who to root for or root against.
I loved OJ, and I was too young to ever see him play. I loved the guy who ran through the airport. The sideline reporter. Detective Nordberg. When that white Bronco was being followed by a procession of police cars, I remember saying to myself, kinda heartbrokenly, "say it isn't so, OJ."
But he committed one of the most heinous acts a human can commit. I guess I have to understand that an incredibly charming, talented, and funny guy can also have the anger and lack of morals to violently murder someone.
Life is infinitely complex.
I would hope the family would allow for his brain to be examined for signs of CTE.
Knowing if he had CTE won't excuse his murders. But knowing may unlock other information that someday can help others.
Excellent read, and, as usual, a willingness to look at all sides of a story. I had not considered the CTE angle before, but as you say, that is no excuse. And while the comments on Dershowitz are, I think, a little off base (defense attorneys are not primarily interested in justice), he should have had the sense to avoid anything that would remind the public he was part of this fiasco.
Gregg,
I've read your work, serious ("Progress Paradox") and silly (NFL team nicknames), for 20 over years. I don't always agree with you, but I value the intelligence and knowledge you bring to your arguments. However, your characterization of Alan Dershowitz as going "to great lengths to prevent justice" shocks me. I know that you are not your brother, but particularly as his sibling, you must know better. Criminal defense attorneys' job -- our obligation -- is to promote justice by defending the rights enshrined in our Constitutions (state and federal). Exposing police misconduct, upholding the presumption of innocence, and forcing prosecutors to prove their case to a jury of the defendant's peers beyond a reasonable doubt are the foundations of our system of justice. I take no opinion on Dershowitz, in general, but your suggestion that winning the trial prevented justice suggests that justice is served by NOT defending people's rights in the courtroom. Lack of zealous defense attorneys would prevent justice!
Point taken.
Thank you for a(nother) great article! Loved the behind-the-scenes insights from your encounters with OJ and Ralph Wilson, truly fascinating.
The passing of OJ Simpson provides a very good reminder to us all of two important things to keep in mind:
1. We are all mortal - As TMQ has stated in the past: "The knock on your life's door can come at any moment - when it does, will your heart be ready?!?" All the money and fame in the world will not buy another minute on this vale of tears, so focus on being right with God, yourself, and others.
and:
2. Beware the allure of great wealth, fame, and power, etc. - as while these items initially can be a great blessing, they can quickly turn into an accursed burden. If these trappings become one's sole focus, one may quickly lose their moral compass, happiness, gratitude, and eventually self-destruct (These things are called 'trappings' for a reason, ya know...!).
OJ wasn't the first person to struggle under the burden of super-sized fame & fortune (Elvis, Pete Rose, and Michael Jackson all got their first, along with many others). Let's hope that his example will prevent future such outcomes...!
Excellent view. A great read.
I'm always confounded when people are unable to make a decision based on new information. Removing the displays of honor is the right thing to do and can't see where the objection would come from. I'd there were some blowback the phrase "it's the decent thing to do" would suffice as an explanation for most.
The “fine guy” was an abuser, a bully and a thug long before he became world renowned for ‘descending into mortal sin.’
https://x.com/mouvement33/status/1778566905881829792?s=46&t=tug3SkOQZIB4UM8FYEtIMw
good point I just changed subhead. read the piece you will see your issues mentioned
I think parallels can be drawn between the trial of OJ and the ongoing criminal and civil trials of former President. The defendant as the victim. Ignoring the crimes and focusing on the system. Black society celebrated the Simpson acquittal, pushing aside the charges, as a validation of police corruption and racism. Similarly, Trump constantly pulls out the victim card. His followers, as with Simpson, ignore his crimes and will ultimately, regardless of the outcome, charge the "rigged, corrupt" system as the real culprit. In both, a verdict of acquittal is not a verification of not guilty.
I'm curious, sir, given what you write about taking OJ's name off the halls of Fames in this article, what your position is for:
1) names on university and Boarding school buildings,
2) names of public places in most of the south of insurrectionists and racists,
3) names of stadia where the CEO of the corporation naming the thing does criminal activity (a stadium in LA pops to mind).
Simpson was a murderer. That’s open and shut. Many of these cases are gray areas. For instance the Brits who wanted the name Arthur Harris removed from public display. I think it’s fine if a social consensus changes IE “once we thought Lee was a great man now we realize he was not”
I just think OJ is less open and shut than you think. There are several/many folks who were murderers, but either not tried or not convicted b/c of the politics of the time (sometimes racism, sometimes just deranged scientists doing horrific experiments), with their names on things.
I agree on OJ, but I think we should be doing a whole cloth housecleaning too.
Excellent read. I think it is a shame that the mainstream media would try to retcon OJ as a victim of the systemic racism in the USA. That take cheapens the whole argument. He killed those two people and got away with it and hid from the civil verdict like a dog on the run. Thanks for pointing these things out and calling out those who have whitewashed it since the miscarriage of justice in 1995.
Small typo: "conservations" should be "conversations"
Thanks again fixed
What are the technical differences between:
"Later, as a journalist, I learned to be skeptical of information sourced as: 'Well, everyone knows that…'”"
AND
"Your writer is reliably informed this decision was made to prevent the Bills"
The difference is I know who my source is
I hadn’t considered the cte possibility. I wonder if his brain will be examined?
I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I was in the Army in the mid-80’s and knew some guys from LA and I was not at all surprised by that verdict. The LAPD was well known for framing suspects. In this case they framed a guilty man who could actually afford a good defense and lost the case as a result.
A few years later the Ramparts investigation happened.
Respectfully, his defense team argued that the LAPD was either trying to deliberately and expertly frame an innocent man but also look at the way all the evidence, including multiple DNA samples (blood AND hair), was mishandled by those incompetent LAPD detectives. Could both arguments be true at the same time?
Yes LAPD was spectacularly inept— tampering with evidence! Maybe they did that all the time assuming they’d never be caught. But even with the tampered evidence suppressed and Furman impeached there was proof beyond reasonable doubt
I had not realized that each year two Heisman trophies are produced. Because I remember watching on television as his Heisman trophy was being melted down and later made into angel-shaped pins, sponsored by a battered women's program. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1999/06/26/ojs-trophy-to-be-melted-down/cbb0bbba-873f-499a-a8e3-288e0fa7a316/
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-2003-yard-odyssey-joe-zagorski/1145283398?ean=9798886939149