|Nicole Brown Simpson|
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams in Defense of the British Soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre.
I will never forget the way that I felt the day that O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murdering his wife Nicole and her friend Ron Goldman. It wasn't so much that a murderer had gotten away scot free as it was the reaction of the black people where I worked. I was at Bridgestone in Lavergne and the verdict came in while we were on our break. Bridgestone is a big place and the machines were down. I was taking my break on my machine when I heard a gigantic cheer go up all over the plant from black people overjoyed by the verdict. When I watched the news later the reaction among blacks nationwide was similar to the reaction of blacks at Bridgestone. Whites on the other hand, like myself, were dismayed. There was a sense of outrage that a cold blooded killer had been set free. I wanted to know why blacks felt the way they did and so I asked as many of my black co-workers and friends as I could why they were so happy. Just about every one of them that I talked to believed that O.J. Simpson either committed the murder or was involved in some way. I actually had some of them admit to me that because of past injustices O.J. Simpson was somehow payback. That is for all of the times that black defendants, during the days of Jim Crow, were convicted wrongly by all white male juries.
I cannot relate to this kind of thinking. Ultimately I want justice to prevail in all situations. I am bothered by the fact that blacks were once the victims of injustice but do you correct past injustices by continuing those injustices albeit in reverse by allowing a guilty man to walk. My opinion of the Simpson case was this. If I was on the Simpson jury, from what I have read about the case in books and articles, I would have voted not guilty. The burden of proof lies with the state. You are innocent until proven guilty. A juror must know beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty, otherwise his moral responsibility and duty is to vote against conviction. The State of California didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt and Simpson walked. Even though the state conducted a poor prosecution of Simpson I am still convinced of his guilt. The lawyer representing Nicole and Ron, in the subsequent civil trial, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Simpson committed the murder. This whole concept of justice seems to be lost on the average American. Too many times they allow their emotions and prejudices to determine how they feel about a case. At least those cases in the glare of the media, like the Simpson case and the Zimmerman case. The media always complicates things by their bias and prejudice. They try to mold and shape the narrative to fit their agenda as we saw in the Zimmerman case. The irony of the Simpson case is that blacks are constantly leveling the charge of sellout toward Conservative blacks, however they rallied around a real sellout , O.J. Simpson. Marsha Clark, the leading prosecutor in the Simpson case wrote in her book that on her first inspection of the Simpson home there was not one picture of O.J. with another black person, with the exception of his bi-racial kids. All of his pictures were of him interacting with white people. Later, when the jury was taken through on a tour someone had switched out all the pictures to that of primarily black people.
In 1986 I was selected for jury duty in Rutherford County. Many people look upon jury duty with dread but I looked forward to it because it was going to be a learning experience. Most of the trials that I was picked for were civil trials but I did get picked for two criminal trials. On one I was an alternate. You don't have a vote but you must listen to all of the testimony in the event that a juror cannot fulfill their obligation. The other was a very difficult trial that I was an actual juror and we were sequestered, or locked up for three days. This is the same as being under house arrest. We were put up in a motel where we had one whole floor to ourselves guarded by sheriff deputies. All we did there was pretty much sleep because we were in court bright and early and listened to testimony until late in the evening. At first we were taken to a restaurant under guard for our meals . Everywhere we went was either in the backseat of a patrol car or in the back of a paddy wagon. When we went into deliberation on the afternoon of the second day our meals were brought into us from that point on.
It was a rape trial. The defendant was charged with committing a brutal rape of a young woman as she slept on her couch in a Smyrna trailer park. She had been raped for a long period of time. She was raped anally and then forced to perform oral sex on the man repeatedly. Emotionally I wanted this man to be found guilty and harshly punished if he was guilty. This trial was hard for me emotionally because I have a child who was sexually molested by a neighbor when she was seven. When I was questioned for jury selection I had to admit to the court that someone in my family had been the victim of a sexual crime. For that reason I really didn't think that I would be picked. The lawyer for the defense gave me a thorough grilling which seemed to last forever. Finally his last question to me seemed to seal the deal. He asked me, almost shouting, will you allow what happened to your child to prejudice your decision in any way. I looked him straight in the eye and said "I will not vote to convict an innocent man". I thought I saw a slight smile on his face as he turned to leave, ending his interrogation. All of the evidence presented was circumstantial. I had always been told that you cannot convict anyone on circumstantial evidence. However the judge told us that if the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming you may convict.
I have read that most women are raped by someone they know. Yet in those cases, where the woman is raped by a stranger, they rarely see their face and rape convictions are hard to get for that reason. The woman who was raped could not identify her attacker because she never saw his face. The prosecution built it's case around several forms of evidence. It's strongest evidence was the fact that the defendant was found to have semen under his fingernails when he was arrested. The defense countered by saying that the defendant could have masturbated just before arrest. The prosecution produced a short blue denim jacket lined with fleece. The woman positively identified the jacket as the one the rapist was wearing. The problem with this evidence was that the pictures taken of the defendant, on the day of his arrest, showed him to be very overweight. In the ensuing months he had lost a lot of weight. When he was told to put the jacket on it was obvious that even after the weight loss it was too small for him. He claimed all throughout the trial that the jacket belonged to his brother and was not his. The last major evidence was that the girl said that her rapist had a large scar next to his navel. The police who questioned and photographed the defendant testified to the same thing. They were specific that the scar was next to his navel. The defense attorney made the defendant take his shirt off and discreetly pull his pants down enough to reveal that there was a scar but it was on his side and not anywhere near his naval. In my mind the defense had created enough doubt that I couldn't vote guilty with a clear conscience.
There were twelve people on the jury. Ten men and two women. Four of us, the two women and a former Air Force C-130 pilot and myself voted not guilty in the preliminary vote just after we went into deliberations. If I remember right a couple of people also voted not guilty but they soon changed to guilty. The four of us never changed our vote. We began deliberations on the afternoon of the second day and we discussed the evidence until late that night. Things got pretty heated at times. My neighbor, who lived several doors down from me, voted guilty and he seemed to take it personally that I wouldn't change my mind. We had known each other for years and had always been on very friendly terms. We shared a room and when we got back to the motel he icily told me that either me or him would have to find another room. I told him that I would move. It amazes me how many people personalize a difference of opinion. I have always tried to disagree agreeably. The only time that I get mad is when people cannot debate logically and resort to name calling. The other jurors, I believe, were more intent on punishing someone for this heinous crime rather than logically looking at the evidence. It was somewhat surprising to me that the only two women on the jury were for acquittal.
We were back in the deliberation room bright and early the next morning after a good breakfast. We argued all day long until late in the afternoon of the third day. Finally we sent a message to the judge asking what our options were since we couldn't arrive at a decision. He told us that our indecision would result in a mistrial. It was obvious at that point that nobody was going to change their minds and a mistrial was declared. Obviously the defendant was very happy. On the way out we passed through the judges chamber. One of the women jurors and myself, whose son was a good friend of my son Robbie were stopped by the judge. He was sitting at his desk and asked us how we voted. When we told him that our vote was not guilty he asked, "I'm just curious why you voted the way you did"? We told him about the location of the scar and the fact that the jacket was obviously not the defendants and he continued to claim that the jacket belonged to his brother. Who we felt may have actually committed the rape. The judge then said something that vindicated my not guilty vote. He told us that the prosecution was not aware that the defendant even had a brother and the brother had a lengthy criminal record. The defendant had no record however. Finally he said the brother left town immediately after the rape and had not been seen since.
A side note to this story, which has nothing to do with the trial, is that the C-130 pilot and myself had much to talk about since we were both in the Air Force. He was horribly scarred on one whole side of his head and face from being burned. I never asked him how he got hurt but I assume it was probably from an aircraft accident. I asked him how many engines he had ever lost in flight and he told me that he was once caught in a violent thunderstorm that drowned out three of his four engines. Miraculously he looked down through a break in the clouds and spotted the runway at Pope AFB North Carolina and was able to land the plane safely. Recently I was looking for something on the internet a few months ago when I ran across the story that the pilot had told me. It was about the only known incident in history of a C-130 landing successfully on only one engine and it is still the record.
Like the Simpson trial, which had nothing to do about race, the Zimmerman trial in my view had nothing to do with race either. The media and the race merchants had to make it into a racial incident. The following are facts discovered about Zimmerman from a Reuters investigative reporter who did his homework.
Twenty-eight year-old Zimmerman comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather – the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him. Zimmerman’s maternal grandmother, Cristina, lived with the family during Zimmerman’s childhood. For several years she babysat for two black girls who ate their meals at the Zimmerman house and went back and forth to school each day with the Zimmerman children.
At age 18, George Zimmerman got a job at an insurance agency and began to take classes at night to earn a license to sell insurance. In 2004, Zimmerman partnered with a black friend and opened up an Allstate insurance satellite office. In June 2011, a wave of break-in robberies rattled the gated community where Zimmerman lived — Retreat at Twin Lakes, in Sanford, Florida. The homeowners association asked Zimmerman to launch a neighborhood watch. Zimmerman began to carry a Kel-Tec gun (for which he had received training) on his regular, dog-walking patrol of the neighborhood.
The series of break-ins in his neighborhood was committed by young black men. A black female neighbor of the Zimmermans said recent history should be taken into account: “Let’s talk about the elephant in the room. I’m black, OK? There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood. That’s why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin.” The woman declined to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. At least eight burglaries were reported within Twin Lakes in the 14 months prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to the Sanford Police Department. Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood. In several of the incidents, witnesses identified the suspects to police as young black men. Twin Lakes is about 50% white, with an African-American and Hispanic population of about 20% each, roughly similar to the surrounding city of Sanford, according to U.S. Census data.
At least eight burglaries were reported within Twin Lakes in the 14 months prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to the Sanford Police Department. Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood. In several of the incidents, witnesses identified the suspects to police as young black men. Twin Lakes is about 50% white, with an African-American and Hispanic population of about 20% each, roughly similar to the surrounding city of Sanford, according to U.S. Census data. One morning in July 2011, a black teenager walked up to Zimmerman’s front porch and stole a bicycle, neighbors told Reuters. A police report was taken, though the bicycle was not recovered. But it was the August incursion into the home of Olivia Bertalan that really troubled the neighborhood, particularly Zimmerman. Shellie was home most days, taking online courses towards certification as a registered nurse. On August 3, Bertalan was at home with her infant son while her husband, Michael, was at work. She watched from a downstairs window, she said, as two black men repeatedly rang her doorbell and then entered through a sliding door at the back of the house. She ran upstairs, locked herself inside the boy’s bedroom, armed herself with a pair of rusty scissors, and frantically called a police dispatcher. Police arrived just as the burglars – who had been trying to disconnect the couple’s television – fled out a back door. After police left Bertalan, George Zimmerman arrived at the front door in a shirt and tie, she said. He gave her his contact numbers on an index card and invited her to visit his wife if she ever felt unsafe. He returned later and gave her a stronger lock to bolster the sliding door that had been forced open. “He was so mellow and calm, very helpful and very, very sweet,” she said. “People were freaked out. It wasn’t just George calling police … we were calling police at least once a week.” The Bertalans decided to move out, and left two days before the Trayvon Martin shooting. Less than two weeks later, another Twin Lakes home was burglarized, police reports show. Two weeks after that, a home under construction was vandalized.
In September, a group of neighbors including Zimmerman approached the homeowners association with their concerns. Zimmerman was asked to head up (as “captain”) a new neighborhood watch. He agreed. On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor’s empty home, according to several friends and neighbors. “I don’t know what he’s doing. I don’t want to approach him, personally,” Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled. The “young black man” turned out to be Emmanuel Burgess (see below).
On February 6, the home of another Twin Lakes resident, Tatiana Demeacis, was burglarized. Two roofers working directly across the street said they saw two black men lingering in the yard at the time of the break-in. A new laptop and some gold jewelry were stolen. One of the roofers called police the next day after spotting one of the suspects among a group of male teenagers, three black and one white, on bicycles. Police found Demeacis’s laptop in the backpack of 18-year-old Emmanuel Burgess, police reports show, and charged him with dealing in stolen property.Burgess was the same man Zimmerman had spotted on February 2. Burgess had committed a series of burglaries on the other side of town in 2008 and 2009, pleaded guilty to several, and spent all of 2010 incarcerated in a juvenile facility, his attorney said. He is now in jail on parole violations.
About two weeks after Burgess was arrested, Zimmerman noticed another young man in the neighborhood, acting in a way he found familiar, so he made another call to police. “We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there’s a real suspicious guy,” Zimmerman said. The young man was Trayvon Martin. This time, Zimmerman was not so patient, and he disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin. Referring to the incident in February when the police had arrived late so that Emmanuel Burgess got away, Zimmerman muttered in an aside: “These assholes, they always get away.” Moments later, Martin lay dead with a bullet in his chest.
The media established the narrative that a white man profiled a young black man because he was wearing a hoodie and that Zimmerman, the wannabe cop, irresponsibly provoked Martin into attacking him and another innocent black man bit the dust. The media could not safely go after Zimmerman if they portrayed him as hispanic or black. So they had to make him into a "white hispanic". He was an honorary white man because he lived in a gated community. The first pictures I saw on the news was a picture of a young good looking teenager, Trayvon Martin, as opposed to a very sinister mug shot of George Zimmerman. Later NBC News would actually edit the 911 tape in order to portray Zimmerman as a racist pursuing Martin. Fifty two black people were killed in Chicago during the Zimmerman trial by black gunmen and it was virtually ignored by the media and race merchants.
Did you know that 90% of blacks are murdered by blacks, and 83% of whites are murdered by whites?
Did you know that there are 14.82 murders per 100K by blacks versus 2.17 per 100K for whites?
Per capita there are 7x more murders committed by blacks than whites.
These statistics are from the F.B.I. They are numbers that the media and the left do not want you to know.
In conclusion I did not sit around watching the Zimmerman trial anymore than I watched the Simpson trial. Yet what I did learn is that the prosecution looked foolish and their witnesses seemed to help Zimmerman rather than hurt him. This was a trial that should have never happened. It was pretty much an open and shut case from the start. It only happened because of political interference from the Obama justice department and of course pressure by the race merchants and the left wing media. They have created a situation in which an innocent man will have to live in fear for the rest of his life. Then the media begrudges him for carrying a gun in Texas. They have created such a hostile environment for him that he would be a fool not to carry one. Since the trial we have learned that Zimmerman is no angel. Not being an angel doesn't mean that Zimmerman was guilty in the Martin killing anymore than it would justify the killing of Martin just for being a thug. Granted every jury doesn't get it right. Casey Anthony got away with murder in my view. In the case of Zimmerman acquittal was the best that he could hope for because there is a consequence to everything that you do, right or wrong.