Dear FRONTLINE,
I have always wondered if whites have rioted if there was a video of O.J. killing Brown and Goldman but somehow the jury acquitted him as the jury did on the Rodney King beating trial a few years earlier. (I believe the program should have mentioned the fact that the gross injustice in the Rodney King trial was fresh in the minds of many when the O.J. verdict was read.)
We will never have a case like O.J.'s that incompassed an interracial couple, money, celebrity, murder, a televised trial, botched investigation, and a polarized nation. I believe that we need to revisit it every five years because the issues of race and class will never go away as witnessed during hurricane Katrina.
Ben K.
Richmond, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
Some people have eyes and do not see or learn. Some people hear, but do not listen. This was an excellent documentary about a case NO ONE will ever forget.
Anyone that thinks this was not about race is really ignoring the cold hard facts. Race is and will always be an issue in this country. It was 100 years ago and it's still the same today.
We would not be having this conversation and the passionate anger over OJ's guilt or innocence if indeed Nicole had been Margarite (OJ's first, black wife) and Margarite's black male friend. If people are honest with themselves, they would admit it. The person that says, "anyone that thinks OJ is innocent is stupid..." still shows the intense anger one still feels over this case 10 years later!
If we really stop and think about it, we cannot compare OJ to the countless white people who were guilty of lynching thousands of blacks over the years and who got away with it. If we're going to be angry at injustice, let's go all the way.
Hopefully this documentary invoked a thought process instead of ignoring the truth.
Kay B.
Portland, Oregon
Dear FRONTLINE,
Race played a sad role in the trial, and the verdict..However, the OJ trial DID open the worlds' eyes to Domestic Violence, and its hidden evils. Our country has always claimed to protect the rights of all..but, if you are female, young or old, rich or poor, you are at a higher risk for some kind of interpersonal violence in your lifetime!! ( in this case, race truly doesn't matter). 1 in 4 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, most by someone they know and trust. My hope is that our society starts to heal and protect its diverse population by giving us the tools to legally protect ourselves and to be BELIEVED when we cry out of fear. I cry for all who have suffered at the hands of a "loved" one.
Debra Virden
Beavercreek, Ohio
FRONTLINE's editors respond:
The significance of the domestic abuse issue is addressed in a discussion among middle class, professional black women who live in Los Angeles and talk about this, the verdict, Marcia Clark and what's changed, ten years later. Click on Special Video on the homepage of this Web site.
Dear FRONTLINE,
I enjoyed your documentary. I believe it was insightful even if controversial. This country was built on both racism and classism. In my opinion, the biggest difference between white americans and black americans when it comes to the law is blacks will trade righeousness for justice, white americans will ignore justice to see righteousness. In otherwords, blacks will justify the breaking of the law because most feel the law is not on their side. White Americans simply want someone to pay for the crime. Black Americans (not all) feel that justice is owed. White Americans (not all) believe blacks are given too many benefits just because they are black.
The OJ trial was called (by some) reverse discrimination. The problem I have with that phrase is how do you reverse a generic word? Discrimination is discrimination, it means you prefer or prejudge based on bias. To say reverse actually proves a guilty conscience about how many white americans feel about blacks. We simply do not measure up to what my white brothers consider to be an acceptable identity. The OJ case did not cause the racial divide, it exposed what has been here since the country was founded.
Terrill Talton
Houston, Texas
Dear FRONTLINE,
How can an intellegent white person ever hope to deal with a group of individuals who believe Simpson is innocent, or that jury nullifcation is acceptable for any one of any race.
How do we ever hope to find any common ground to work with people, 80% of whom hold the irrational belief that President Bush targeted blacks in New Orleans or as long as we must maintain the political correctness to not mention the obvious black problems that of the majority of black famlies headed by females, the majority of black children born out fo wedlock to teen mothers, 30% of black males between the ages of 18 & 34 involved with the justice system and black men believing it is accetable to refer to black women as bitches and whoes ,unfortunenatly I do not see any way that we can continue as one common society with this disparate set of mores and beliefs
greg w
Dear FRONTLINE,
I am not sure what was more interesting: your program or reading the polarized reactions to your program. I appreciate your program for creating a space where we can discuss racism as it currently exists in our country. Denying or ignoring racism will not do anything to further our society.
I would be curious to know how many of the people who criticized the jury have actually sat on a jury and been explained the rules of the court. I recently sat on a jury in that same court house in downtown LA and listened to a case brought forth by the LAPD accusing a young African American male of a robbery. The Prosecution (District Attorney) did not provide evidence proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and we aquitted the boy. We were not being asked to determine his innocence but rather evaluate the evidence brought forth. Don't resent the jury of the O.J. Simpson trial for following the rules of our judicial system - be happy we live in a country where a person is presumed innocent until a burden of proof is met!
k ward
marina del rey, ca
Dear FRONTLINE,
As a victim of domestic violence that escalated over 15 years, I am deeply upset that PBS chose to focus their coverage on the issues surrounding the OJ Simpson trial as limited to by race and not to use the venue to expose out blind eye to domestic violence!. How about just listing some raw facts on domestic violence as it relates to African Americans and their heritage. (okay maybe to `racy'). You could find hundreds of African American women who have been tired, beaten, abused by white, black or any power hungry man. Granted you may have wanted to waste 60 minutes on the obvious reasons for the outcome of the trial- our ability to shoot ourselves in the foot with racial inequalities - but doesn't PBS have a standing commitment to unbiased non discriminatory opinion to it's viewers?
LeeAnne Chappell
Corte Madera, CA
FRONTLINE's editors respond:
The Special Video section of this web site (accessible off the homepage) offers a video taped conversation with middle class professional black women in L.A. discussing the issue of domestic violence and the impact the O.J. trial had on this issue in their community.
Dear FRONTLINE,
I was 18 at the time of the verdict and quite frankly I was and am one of those who feel that the verdict was correct.
I still find it somewhat puzzling that some people, presumably white, are still so perplexed and angry that the trial included issues of race. In a country that has a history of lynching black people, all white male juries and a system where only the wealthy can afford justice, this was a situation where laws designed by white men to get poorfolks and black folks took it between the eyes.
Johnnie Cochran played by the rules and all of a sudden white America started saying that the justice system was corrupt. Was it corrupt when those men were acquitted of lynching and killing Emmitt Till? Was it corrupt when the LAPD officers got off for beating Rodney King? Or is it only corrupt whan a black man gets off for killing 2 white people?
Shontale Johnson
Anchorage, Alaska
Dear FRONTLINE,
When the America public was polled aout the performance of the federal government in responding to the katrina hurrican disaster an ovewhemling number of white respondents denied that there could be a racist motive to the response while Black Americans voted overwhelmingly the other way.
The disconnect in awareness about racism and its existence is as prevalent now as it was ten years ago and the divide equaly as tragic. White people universally find it hard to talk about racism and their role in its maintenance both personally through privilege and institutionally. Guilt forces denial now as it did then. The media promotes this view of a just society because it panders to an audience that needs to believe in their innocence because the alternative would be unbearable.
Rogier Gregoire
Edina, MN
Dear FRONTLINE,
As a couple folks said in this effective documentary:.."the LA police framed a guilty person."
And its that lack of fair play that dominated this case from the very beginning to end.
Old Kayaker
Benicia, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
I chose not to watch TV when the verdict was forthcoming. I grieved to see it overwhelm the masthead of the local paper.
I wished it would all go away, mostly the enormous national divide further exacerbated by an astonished and indignant media. The media did not begin this policy 10 years ago. It has helped to develop and sustain the chasm, as the voice of white america, for over two centuries, even when the only extant medium besides the live human voice was print.
I am an African American who has always found it difficult to believe OJ had nothing to do with the murders. To watch your program I am alone.
Your program's vitues notwithstanding, unfortunately yielded to the system that serves the divide.
David Moore
Dear FRONTLINE,
What about the "Social class" card? We never seem to bring up the issue of income and social class in these discussions.
If OJ was working class, middle class or poor he would have been convicted no matter what his race was or the racial make-up of the jury. OJ was acquitted because he had resources and money.
Income is the great divide in our justice system and country.
Luke Walsh
Healdsburg, CA
Dear FRONTLINE,
I was working at an upscale video salon on the Upper East Side. In our back room, we had the trial on. It was the only thing anyone wanted to see that afternoon. ...
As the verdict came down, the room was crowded. The mostly white crowd gasped. As they dispersed, I received disgusted stares. And or course got the litmus test question 'do you agree with the verdict.' And the father passed by, commenting 'you got what you wanted.' One of the women was buying something from one of the other staff in the shop, and while staring at me to make sure she got her point across, loudly spelled out her first name, Nicole. After that day, white clients acted like I wasn't even in the room for several weeks past. So no matter what is claimed about the area, I know the Upper East Siders of New York City can be racists in a heartbeat. They will let you know you're not wanted.
Kurt Vilis
New York, NY
Dear FRONTLINE,
Motive: drug debt not paid.
Witness: women who lived two blocks over who testiflied to seeing several latin looking men in blue jumpsuits pasting her as she was going home.
Bad evidence: blood on the gate, glove,amount of blood in the bronco,no one looked for evidence of multi-persons envolment,the planted blood on the sox,the box the knife was surposed to have held the knife used in the killins could not be tied to the killing.
Frame Job? you bet. Why did the police try so hard to pin this on a black man? Because in America it easier to convict a black man. You say all of the evidence, what hard evidence except the foot print do you have? To explain the foot print I say O.J
came to the house to see his kids and walked into this mess. Look at how the detective descriped how he left turned around to look back and left. Can you say O.J would not think he would be blamed. Hey, the glove did not fit...
cornelius Harris
monticello, new york
Dear FRONTLINE,
Does Mr. Toobin truly consider it irrelevant that the prosecution put up perjured testimony? As an attorney, one would think that he would know that when one side lies in any trial, that side is likely to lose. Mark Fuhrman perjured himself. The prosecution lost. In the civil trial, they demonstrated that OJ lied. He lost.
While I understand that the racial issue permeates this trial, it is also the case that most majority-black juries convict black defendants. Is it not possible that the jury in this case acquitted this defendant because the defense demonstrated that Fuhrman lied, that this cast doubt on the rest of the case and, possibly, that the jury wanted to make a statement about corruption in the LAPD - concerns, incidentally, that were later demonstrated to be correct when the Rampart scandal was exposed?
I'm white, by the way, and I'm not expressing an opinion on whether OJ did the crime. I am disappointed that the commentary on your program so overlooked the issue of credibility, and its impact on both sides of any case.
Lyn Greenberg
Los Angeles, CA
