 By Frank Borzellieri
On the occasion of the death of O.J. Simpson, I am reprinting my column, which was published in the Leader Observer newspaper in New York City in October 1998, on the three-year anniversary of O.J. Simpson's acquittal of murder charges by the criminal jury. Twenty-six years later, the column is still prescient. Three years ago this week, after languishing in prison for fourteen months, O.J. Simpson was finally set free by a jury which was determined – in the interests of racial solidarity – to acquit the man who slit his wife’s throat from ear to ear, nearly decapitating her. At the time of this travesty, during a post-verdict press conference, the inept District Attorney Gil Garcetti managed to crack a half-smile when a reporter queried as to whether this would trigger another search for the killer. “Just because there has been a not guilty verdict doesn’t mean we have the wrong man,” he said. The task, it seemed, would be left to O.J. Simpson himself, who volunteered that he would indeed find the “real killer. He has probably undertaken this endeavor when the cameras are off, and in between golf matches. The verdict in the Simpson case, widely predicted by whites without blinders on, was the most profound and significant reality check in the history of race relations in America, the equivalent of an anvil landing on the heads of naïve whites. For some, the moment of the verdict resulted in a first-time eye-opening experience which forever shattered silly illusions about racial realities. Other whites, literally cried or became physically ill. Still others were visibly chilled and shaken at the sight of all those black hoodlum law students at Howard University erupting in wild cheers and celebration. Whites finally realized, despite those nonsensical polls which showed a majority of blacks believing O.J. to be innocent, that the real reason blacks were jubilant was not because they really believed their guy was not guilty, but because they knew that their hero murderer was guilty -- and were overjoyed that he had gotten away with it. The establishment made heroic efforts to hammer home the point that the “legal system” failed, but in reality it was the concept of multi-racialism that failed. Whatever mistakes the prosecution may have made, the reason O.J. Simpson was acquitted, in the face of such obvious and overwhelming evidence of guilt, was because the blacks on the jury had a “score to settle.” Minutes after one juror (a former black panther) gave O.J. the black power salute, black prosecutor Christopher Darden nearly collapsed at the press conference, sobbing in mid-sentence. Months later, Darden would say, “On the first day of trial, I looked into those faces on the jury and I knew what was coming.” Indeed, Darden was called every variation of “Uncle Tom” and needed to hire body guards because of the threats against his life. Prosecutor Marcia Clark said, “A majority black jury won’t convict in a case like this. They won’t bring justice.” Darden’s father had told him the same thing. In addition to the degenerate law pupils, students at historically black Morehouse College in Atlanta erupted in delirious pandemonium following the verdict. On New York City’s subways, black teenagers were chanting, “Not guilty, not guilty.” One teen was observed saying, "Now he’s free and will assassinate someone else.” “Assassinate" is a quite telling term – signifying that many blacks consider themselves to be in a permanent state of war against whites. In Los Angeles, gangs covered walls with the message, "O.J., you owe us your life,” referring to the fact that the threat of riots may have assisted in the verdict. The swine defense attorney Johnnie Cochran said before the trial if he had one black, he’d deliver a hung jury; if he had five, he’d get an acquittal. The District Attorney gave him ten. Some apologists for the jury tried to make the point that a “not guilty” verdict merely means the jury could not determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (as if there were any doubt), not that they necessarily believed Simpson to be innocent. But that’s not what the jurors themselves said. One dismissed juror asserted that the prosecution had “a whole lotta nothin’.” Juror Brenda Moran said, “We don’t know who killed her. But we know O.J. Simpson didn’t.” Blacks have shown with remarkable consistency and durability throughout the years that evidence and justice are barely considerations at all compared to racial consciousness. The late Bronx District Attorney Mario Merola remarked as far back as the late 1970’s that it was virtually impossible to get black juries to convict other blacks who had victimized whites. But the Simpson case provided Americans, for the first time, with this startling reality right in their living rooms. Never before had the country seen exactly what was presented as evidence before a jury in a spectacular trial. The unbridgeable chasm between the black and white worlds – where both races look at the same thing and see something so entirely different – was revealed nakedly. The silver lining in this tragedy is that the Simpson trial acted as a catalyst for a white awakening of sorts. A Eurocentric publication polled its subscribers in 1996, with one of the questions being, “What Americans have most advanced white interests?” O.J. Simpson made the list of finalists. So now with O.J. still searching for the real killer, blacks remain jubilant that their hero is free. Whites are sadder… but wiser. |