The last time OJ Simpson was in trial, it was a media goldmine. Every news station was covering each development in the trial. It went on for months and the final verdict was that OJ was not guilty. So, in a way, it ended on a good note. This time OJ broke into a hotel, stole property that he claims was stolen from him, and kidnaps someone at gunpoint. Now he gets caught and is sentenced to 33 years with the possibility of parole after 9. This one was a media sensation but not nearly to the extent of the previous one. Why is that? Did it lose its mystique? Did people think that because he was a football player that he could get off of this one if he could literally get away with murder? OJ Simpson is not that smart of a man so I doubt he would have been able to pull off a heist without getting caught.
There is another side to this story that no one is talking about. OJ Simpson claims that the sports memorabilia that he stole was originally stolen from him. If that was the case, then what happened to the other guy, the original perpetrator. Why were those items stolen from OJ Simpson in the first place? One picture that was stolen by OJ Simpson was a picture of Simpson's son at 5 years old in the oval office standing next to Gerald Ford. Who would want that picture other than OJ Simpson or his son?
I think that because OJ Simpson lost his previous trial that he was portrayed as the bad guy and no one in the media cared to listen to his side of the story. I'm sure the judge listened to it, but I doubt she was using both ears. She knew what crimes he was accused of and she was a woman. OJ was accused of murdering a woman. There were no African-Americans on the jury (the two that were chosen were dismissed). I'm not saying that there is some kind of scandal here but I am saying that no one really cared to listen to OJ, A.K.A. The Juice. (Orange, not steriods).
3 comments:
I agree... I think people were trying to make up for the mistake of letting him go the first time so they decided to hang him on this one. It may not seem fair (the charges) but if he really did kill that woman then he deserves it. It's just the wrong case.
Yea it does seem that he was convicted with his previous allegation still in mind. I don't think he had a chance going into that trial, but maybe he did get what he deserved.
Yeah, as much as someone says they are keeping his last case out, I feel it is nearly impossible to actually do so. Good post, I even asked myself some of the same questions in a posting.
Post a Comment