Memories of the O.J Trial: Twenty Years Later

It seemed to be a slam dunk case, or in this instance maybe more of a touchdown case, with all the blood evidence, a history of violence and a suspect who attempted to flee; yet ‘not guilty’ was the verdict. It’s been twenty years since the O.J Simpson trial, an event which many would like to forget, but remains so memorable for a number of reasons. It was true ‘reality TV’ with stakes much higher than a million dollar prize and without any Kardashians…well yes, the Kardashians were involved.

I was pretty consumed by the O.J Trial as it provided more legal drama than even ‘The People’s Court.’ The participants were not actors, unless you count “Naked Gun,” but real litigants having their case heard on national television. It’s the most I ever watched CNN, (Fox News was not yet invented), where Greta Van Susteren got her start as an analyst, pre plastic surgery. I also watched a lot of the coverage on E!, which was hosted by the more attractive Kathleen Sullivan. (Remember, it was twenty years ago)

No matter where you stood on the case, there’s no denying that it was all very riveting. Before the trial even began was the historic White Bronco slow speed chase, which interrupted the NBA Finals. Millions of Americans tuned in to watch a Bronco, driven by A.C Cowlings, which contained O.J holding a loaded gun. Much more exciting than NASCAR. Meanwhile, Simpson’s attorney, Robert Kardashian (Kim’s biological father), publicly read what very much sounded like a suicide note written by O.J.

Yes, it all makes O.J look pretty guilty, plus the fact his blood was found at the crime scene and everywhere else of relevance; not to mention a cut on his hand; but that’s without anything from the defense. I think Johnnie Cochran could make the Devil sound innocent of any wrongdoing. He should have received an Emmy, or at least been nominated, because his performance was better than anything else on television in 1995, including Bob Saget in “Full House.” Seriously, Cochran was so captivating you almost had to root for him….I know, most of you disagree. However, all legalities, evidence testimony etc. aside, Cochran prevailed and narrowed it down to one simple line, “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

Simpson had a ‘Dream Team’ of lawyers, which in addition to Cochran and Kardashian, also included Robert Shapiro, F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Barry Scheck and others. It’s Scheck who introduced the world to DNA. Now DNA seems like common knowledge, as people routinely say, “It’s in their DNA,“ but prior to Scheck it was just, “It’s in their blood.“

The ’Dream Team’ are just some of the memorable figures that became household names during the trial. There was the fumbling prosecutors, Marcia ’the Mole’ Clark whose now an author of courtroom drama novels and Christopher Darden. The victims families, Fred Goldman with his handlebar mustache and daughter Kim. There was also Denise Brown . From the LAPD were detectives Lange and Van Atter, plus Mark Fuhrman , who before Paula Deen and Donald Sterling was most infamous for having used the ‘N-word.’ And of course Kato Kaelin the aspiring beach bum actor, whose only role of any significance was his testimony. There were many more intriguing witnesses, but those are the only names I remember.

Finally, after more than eight months the trial concluded and in just four hours the jury had a decision. I remember I was in class at Sinclair when the verdict came in, I wasn’t expecting it or I would have skipped. Fortunately, I’ve been able to see many of replays. To be honest, I was a minority amongst whites as I was rooting for O.J. I didn’t want to believe a likeable celebrity could be guilty of such a heinous crime and plus I supported Cochran. Plain and simple, irregardless of Simpson’s guilt, the case was won by Cochran…if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit.

Ironically, and perhaps somewhat fittingly after the ‘Trial of the Century’ and all the time, money and attention it took that Simpson’s freedom wouldn’t last. He ended up in prison for a totally unrelated crime, so I suppose in the end that justice was served, but it wasn’t nearly as entertaining to watch.

Facebook Etiquette..Is there such a thing?

Seemingly everyone in today’s society has a Facebook account, and despite its widespread use there is no User’s Manual. Without specific directions there are facets of Facebook that I’m unsure of and apparently I’m not alone as I often witness some violations. There’s recipes on how to boil water, but no real rules on how to handle social media. I’m pretty certain there are more Facebook users than cooks, though I do see a number of posts about what people are making for dinner.

One question I have is, how frequently should you post a status update? Some believe that at least once an hour is acceptable while others are on more of a yearly schedule. Ironically its sometimes those with the most uninteresting life who provides the most updates, assuming everyone really cares that they are stopped at a red light. There have been exceptions, but personally I try to limit myself to one post a day. On particularly mundane days I feel pressured to make something happen that’s worthy of a status update. There’s a lot of responsibility in using the allotted space wisely as there’s nothing more humiliating than a post that doesn’t get a single reaction. Not even a ‘Like’ from the ‘friend’ we all have that ‘Likes’ every single post that’s made. It’s like walking into a crowded room and everyone turns their back to you.

There’s even some uncertainty when something really exciting happens in my life, as I’m unsure when the best time is to post it is. I don’t want the news of me finishing a season of ‘Downton Abbey’ to go unseen, but posted whenever the most people are online. Is prime time for Facebook the same as it is for television? Posts made early in the morning, or before 10 a.m., seem wasted because the viewing audience is going to be down. Plus, if something really status worthy happens later in the day, I’ll have to break protocol and post twice.

Another confliction I have with Facebook is how much merit should be put into the dispensing of ‘Like’s?’ Should ‘Like’ really resemble a stamp of approval or just a customary habit? When someone makes a comments on a post of mine that makes me laugh or is especially thoughtful or something I ‘Like’ it, but then I feel the need to ‘Like’ all the other comments. I’m an equal opportunity Liker, but that lessens the value of the ‘Like’ I really mean. Nobody wants to be the commenter who doesn’t get a ‘Like’ when everyone else does. Trust me, I’ve been that person and it doesn’t feel good.

The ‘Like’ system is complicated on so many levels, as another issue is the where’s the boundary on who to ‘Like’? The term ‘Friend’ on Facebook is used very loosely. Honestly, we all have ‘Friend’s’ who we wouldn’t even consider asking for help in our greatest time of need, mainly because we wouldn’t be able to even think of their name. Rather than friends they are more of acquaintances, or people you really don’t even like but don’t have the heart to de-friend them.
Is it acceptable to ‘Like’ one of their posts, or even comment, if they like get married, have a baby or something (not particularly in that order)? Or if they ‘Like’ your post, do you then have to ‘Like’ one of theirs? Friendships need to be of  equal balance.

That’s only a small sample size of the complexities of Facebook that a User’s Guide would really be useful for (Hmmmm I just got a book idea). Of course, just like in society, the rules don’t matter anyway. It’s a free for all. Nobody really cares what you do, except for sending out requests to play games.