Did O.J. get a fair trial in Las Vegas?
For which crime will he really be going to jail?
Did the judge and jury decide this particular case on its merits? Or was there some left over baggage from when he was found not guilty of killing his wife years ago, and so many people did not agree with that verdict?
Judging from some of the board comments on this site, it would appear that many folks don't believe the jury made the right decision the first time.
So before using the first trial to condemn the former football star and issue a tough sentence on him, consider this:
A man on death row in Florida confessed to killing Nicole. It's all in a book "Cross Country Killer" by former private detective Joyce Spizer. Here's the abstract as copied and pasted from Amazon.com:
"Product Description
The Cross Country Killer, the Glen Rogers Story provides an insightful look into the mind and making of an American predator. Glen Rogers, twice on America's 10 Most Wanted list, is currently on death row in Florida. He brags about having killed over 70 people, one of which may have been Nicole Brown Simpson. Could it be a coincidence she was murdered just after meeting Glen. There are witnesses who saw them partying together and there's even a photo of them together. A sad but fascination story that will keep you mesmerized to the end."
The book was written in 2001, and there was no need to prosecute Rogers since O. J. had already been found not guilty, and it didn't make sense to spend time and money on another trial.
Knowing this, I can accept the not guilty verdict from the murder trial. However, I do wonder if that trial was still on the minds of the Las Vegas jury and female judge who, according to some, "finally put O. J. where he belongs."
The judge in Las Vegas said she didn't know if O.J. was "arrogant or ignorant," but that she got her answer by the end of the trial. "It was both."
O.J. claims his only intention was to retrieve his own property. I think the judge and jury had their minds made up before they even heard any of the evidence.
What do you think?
