HOW EVIDENCE AGAINST LUCIFER
AND OJ HAS BEEN DISMISSED
The leading sign of the end is DECEPTION. This was Jesus' answer to His disciple's question regarding what signs would predict His return and the end of the age (world). The very first sign (and warning) He gave was: "Take heed that no man deceive you." Matt. 24:3. So, the leading sign of the end is deception. Rev. 12:9 reveals that Satan has indeed deceived the whole world. Furthermore, we know that the "Crowning act in the great drama of deception" will be when Satan personates Jesus Himself. G.C. 624. In order for this to happen people's minds must be prepared little by little. When I think of the events in the world today that are conditioning the people to accept this terrible deception as truth and lying as an acceptable way of life and especially as a method of striking back at your enemies, I think of the recent trial of a famous football hero, O.J.
The O.J. Simpson case was called the "trial of the century." It was aired by CNN alone in 200 countries. When it came time for the verdict CNN reported that 142 million Americans listened on TV and radio, an incredible 91 percent share of the viewing audience was tuned in. This famous and popular athlete, with the help of his 17 lawyers, were able to cause a great many people to be deceived about what really happened on the night of June 12, 1994, when Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ron Goldman were murdered. Because all the public knew was what the media were telling them, many people believed O.J. was innocent. I wanted to believe it because O.J. was a likeable man. How could he do such a terrible thing? When he stood up before Judge Ito, and the world on TV, and said, "I am 100% not guilty," I wanted to believe him more than ever. Surely he is telling the truth. How could such a fine looking man who has accomplished so much lie about murderering his own wife?
In her book, "Without A Doubt," lead prosecutor, Marcia Clark, makes this insightful observation about O.J.'s attitude the morning after the murders. I'd seen plenty of people whose family members had been murdered. An innocent man who's just learned about the death of his children's mother---when the children were asleep in the house---would most likely be stunned, distraught, even hysterical. And he wouldn't hesitate to take a polygraph. He'd be demanding. 'How can I help you catch this monster?' But the O.J. Simpson who emerged from that police interview struck me as cold and detached---fundamentally unaffected by the news of his ex-wife's murder. Page 73. Many other people also thought Simpson not only acted guilty in his mannerisms, expressions but in his attitude and words.
Most men would be going through the emotions of anger and depression. But, O.J., in narcissistic form, was thinking and talking about himself. Clark thought the interview by Lange and Vannatter might be as long as two hours. She was shocked when they terminated at 4:07 after only 32 minutes even though Simpson had spent three full hours at the station. She felt they were two more star struck cops treating him with kid gloves, never pressing him on any point which might have led O.J. to say something incriminating or even to make an outright confession or something close enough to it which the prosecution could use later on to make a good case against Simpson. She felt angry and disappointed. The prosecution team later referred to this interview as the Fiasco of June 13th. Yet, Bugolosi, who put Charles Manson and cohorts in prison claims the detectives did succeed in getting enough out of Simpson to convict him out of his own mouth alone. OUTRAGE, pg. 103.
Why didn't O.J. seem to feel he needed his attorney present during this interview? Toobin's explanation on page 66 of his book reasoned that Simpson's huge ego led him to believe that he could talk his way out of trouble and that he didn't want the police to leak word that O.J. was afraid to talk. When you look at all of the possible times that the circumstances or his own words could have themselves indicted O.J. it is truly amazing. One might say it was supernatural, even Providential. Take for example the night of the murders. There were no eyewitnesses and the dog's personality, it was later analyzed, was not aggressive enough to defend Nicole or even itself but only to wail. Simpson's bloody cut finger actually became a good alibi for him as the reason there was blood in his house and car. If O.J. had been involved in a car accident at the corner where Jill Shively identified him that alone may have been enough to have convicted him. Would he have driven off...hit and run? or fled the scene? No matter what he did he would have looked guilty, as he was.
What most of the public did not know was the private side of O.J....his real character. Only one person knew what he was really like...the woman who had lived through 17 years of hell with him, his wife, Nicole. And she had told only a few intimates. None of the rest of us knew anything about the real O.J. Up until about April, 1998, with some reservation and doubt, I still clung to the idea that O.J. was probably innocent. His testimony at his civil trial that he had never abused Nicole was a surprise. Because I like to believe the best about my fellow human beings, I pushed it to the back of my mind and forgot about it until I read a book by Gerry Spence. This started me on my own investigation. I am going to share with you how I have come to believe O.J. Simpson is 100% guilty of the murder of Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ron Goldman.
Although a number of books have been written about this most watched trial in history, all my information had come from magazines, newspapers and television reports. Two of the latest books are "EVIDENCE DISMISSED," and "O.J. THE LAST WORD." The first book is by the two detectives who were originally assigned the case, Tom Lang and Philip Vannatter as they told their story to Dan E. Moldea. The second book is by famous trial lawyer, Gerry Spence, who has never lost a case. Since I had already read two of Spence's other books and offered them to my readers, naturally this new one intrigued me as well. What was Gerry Spence's opinion? Did he think O.J. was innocent or guilty? I could hardly wait to read this one.
Well, I must tell you that I was not disappointed. This is not a book you read just once and forget. It is a book you study. It has depth and substance. In the first chapter Spence admits, I didn't believe O.J. Simpson could have committed this crime. Who would believe it? Not this smiling man, this good natured man, this great athlete, this talented hurdler of objects in airports, this man whom we forgave for his poor acting because he was a decent fellow. 'The Juice.' Yes, how People loved to watch O.J. run on a football field. He was America's hero. I didn't realize that until the trial as I hadn't watched football during the 70's because I was so absorbed in preaching and writing books on the character of God. But who could avoid the "Trial of the Century?" So, we all got involved and waited breathlessly for the final verdict on that fateful day when the jury returned. Although I felt O.J. was innocent and hoped the jury would find him so, I still had that lingering doubt in the back of my mind. There were just too many loose ends. Yet, when the jury foreman said, "We the jury find the defendant 'not guilty' I was glad. So, why these lingering doubts? Something didn't seem quite right. Spence's book, "O.J. The Last Word," would tie all those lose ends together and resolve my doubts once and for all. But I didn't realize the Lord was leading me in my search for truth until I Providentially found and bought the second book by the first two detectives on the case, "Evidence Dismissed," for only $3.98. Evidently their book had also been dismissed by both the media and public at large. The original price was $24.00.
The detectives' book is written in a very open, straight-forward, candid, "just give me the facts maam" honest manner. Whereas, Spence's book is more flowery with Gerry's colorful commentary and "God bless America-let freedom ring" philosophy every true American loves but seldom hears anymore. But in addition to those sterling qualities Gerry explains and interprets the deeper meaning of the events that have transpired and like a modern prophet warns us of the dire consequences that will surely come if America continues on its present course. So, when I finally finished his book, re-reading some to try and absorb the deeper meanings I was glad to find a book that just gave me the straight facts of the case. Since then I have checked out other books from the library. So, lets examine the facts and events as we know them and see what parallels we can draw between this case and the mass of evidence against Lucifer, the fallen arch angel who has "deceived the whole world." For the evidence against Lucifer has also been dismissed. But by whom? We will come to that later.
First of all, let's consider the blood evidence. I will deal with the theological aspect of the blood later. The prosecution believes it has won a huge victory on Wed., Jan. 4, 1995, when Simpson's defense lawyers waived a formal hearing to challenge the DNA (blood) evidence and not try to have any of the blood evidence dismissed. It proved to be like a chess player's excitement when he has just captured his opponent's queen only to be checkmated three moves later. This is basically what was happening to the prosecution move by move. Simpson's defense team cleverly played what became know via the media "The Race Card." Why not, when there are nine black jurors!
Their strategy became evident nine days later when Cochran and Darden argued about Fuhrman's alleged use of the "N"-word. Knowing it would most likely be impossible to refute all of the blood evidence Simpson's lawyers shrewdly allege that officer Mark Fuhrman is a racist who planted much of the evidence at the murder scene in an attempt to frame Simpson for the double murder. It turns out to be a brilliant (diabolical in the detective's eyes) move, especially when it is finally revealed that, according to some cassette tapes made back in 1985, Fuhrman actually did use the "N" word many times. These cassette tapes, recorded only for a fictional screenplay, made Fuhrman look like the worst racist since Hitler. In fact, Bailey compared him to Hitler. This was necessary in order for the defense "dream team" to portray Fuhrman as racist so they could sell their bizarre conspiracy that DNA and the bloody glove had been planted by Fuhrman and others. Almost every book confirms that this was not only an untrue accusation, it could not and did not happen according to Bugolosi. It should be noted that Mark Fuhrman could not have planted the glove at Simpson's estate in the early morning hours of June 13, 1994, even if he had wanted to. Fourteen LAPD officers had arrived at the Bundy murder scene before Mark Fuhrman arrived at 2:10 A.M., and all fourteen saw only one glove at the murder scene. Therefore, there was no second glove at Bundy for Mark Fuhrman to pick up and deposit at Simpson's Rockingham estate. From Foreword.XVII. "Murder in Brentwood", by Mark Fuhrman.
Fuhrman and others state that the defense team failed their cause and Fuhrman as well by not sticking by him. Mark and others believe if Clark or Darden had put him on the stand and brought out the real truth about these tapes they could have averted disaster. Here is what Fuhrman says Clark should have said about the tapes: The only evidence against Mark Fuhrman are notes and tapes for a fictional screenplay and witnesses who are easily impeached. Regardless of what Mark Fuhrman said, did or thought---these are the facts. Mark Fuhrman did an outstanding job investigating and testifying in this case. No, he didn't admit to something he said a long time ago. Perhaps he forgot or was embarrassed or felt too much pressure, some of which I may have been responsible for. But your decision should be based on his professional approach to this case, the job he did, and the evidence he found, and not the soap opera this trial has become. Page 296.
Instead of standing by the detective, and LAPD, who were, after all, responsible for most, if not all, of the "mountain of evidence," Clark and Darden joined with the media and prosecution in agreeing that Mark was guilty of everything of which he was being accused. After reading Mark Fuhrman's book I now believe that his account of what happened is probably the most accurate and honest but not the most comprehensive, like Toobin's book. In his book, "Murder In Brentwood," Fuhrman states that although Toobin might have thought of himself as an independent, objective journalist, but in effect he was a stooge for the defense. He took the defense's position from the beginning, and then after doing enormous damage to the truth, slowly tried to slither back into the prosecution camp. As the first media purveyor of the planted glove theory, I have to wonder, did Toobin believe it? No. Did he compromise himself by reporting it? Yes. Did he wish that he hadn't? I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say yes. Page 106.
In spite of this early indiscretion on Toobin's part his book remains the best overall source of information. Even in Spence's book I found one error and an inaccurate remark. The error is in regard to the jury's early vote being "unanimous." Page 121. As already noted in this report the first time the jury took a secret vote ten voted not guilty and two voted guilty. The remark was in regard to the alleged lesbian affair between Nicole and Faye Resnick. Spence spoke of it as if it were a fact when, in fact, Faye explained in painfully blunt terms, in her first book, that no such homosexual-lesbian encounter/affair occurred because she and Nicole were both straight. My impression was that Faye was trying to explain how they were like soul mates, i.e., David and Jonathan; and faced with the opportunity to be sexual like lesbians they chose not to because they both were straight. Still, I believe Spence's book is excellent, second only to Toobin's. The next two are "MURDER IN BRENTWOOD," by Fuhrman and "OUTRAGE," by Bugliosi.
The latest book I just finished was "Search For Justice," by Robert L. Shapiro with Larkin Warren. At the beginning Shapiro asked O.J. if he did it or not and O.J. told him that he did not do it...that he was innocent. Shapiro never looked back or questioned him and O.J. never changed his tune. On page 39 he described O.J.'s physical condition early on in jail. I was genuinely concerned about the potential for suicide. For a man who defined himself in physical expression and motion, there was a curious stillness to O.J., a leaden presence. His skin was ashen and his eyes seemed somehow flattened out in his head. On page 190 he quotes G. Spence as saying on TV, If O.J. did do it, he didn't know he did it. O.J. reacted to this with anger, saying, I know what I do and what I don't do, and I didn't do this. This attitude was what caused many sincere, truth telling people to believe O.J. was innocent. But, as you shall see, the facts are clear on every level that O.J. did do it. Maybe he is a multiple personality and does not remember what his other personality did. That would be my only explanation. But no one has ever remotely hinted that O.J. is a multiple. Shapiro's book is simple and direct yet skirts most of the hard facts and explains away the evidences that obviously pointed to O.J. the same way his team did throughout the trial. Yet, on page 353 he candidly asks questions about how O.J.s blood got in so many places. How did the blood of the victims become intermingled with his (O.J.) in the bronco? I don't know. This was the most honest page of the book. It also contradicted a law he tried to live by which I thought was a good one. "Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to." On page 178 he said that Ito showed us an article from NEWSDAY that reported that blood on the floorboard of the Bronco had been DNA tested and identified as Nicole's. On page 190 we read, On the way to court, Dean Uelmen told me that he'd been informed by the prosecution that a blood sample in the Bronco tested positive for Nicole and that a mixture of O.J.s and Ron Goldman's blood was on the console. This evidence would be the most challenging to overcome. I discussed it with Cochran, and he said, 'Well, we'll just have to deal with it.' Page 190.
Of course, we know now that the way they dealt with it was to convince the jury that the collection, preservation and analysis of the blood and other samples was improperly handled and thus contaminated and cross-contaminated as well as degraded in various ways by degrees with the end result being that the DNA blood evidence had no relevance, impact or effect on the jury at all. On page 258, 259 Shapiro speaks of the "heart" of the DNA strategy was to attack the LAPD's collection and contamination of the evidence. Dennis Fung admitted that a trainee, Andrea Mazzola, had performed many of the DNA lab procedures or tests. She didn't change rubber gloves between blood samples, and the video recorded her touching the ground with supposedly 'clean' gloves. Thus doubts were planted in the jury's mind. It was like an earthquake causing a mountain to shake, crumble and collapse under an avalanche of incompetence, contamination and possibly some lies, if the defense was to believed. Did this change the truth that these blood samples proved conclusively that O.J. did it. Of course, not. But this was the kind of speculation the defense successfully engaged in for over a year, eventually planting enough doubt in the juror's minds to create reasonable doubt. Shapiro says the jury deliberated four hours. Others have said two or three. Although he was happy with the outcome of the trial he was disappointed and angry at the methods Cochran used, dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck he called it on Larry King Live and later on the Barbara Walter's show. He said he would never work again with Cochran or F. Lee Bailey either one due to the way they chose to prosecute the case.
All through the trial Cochran and his team members played on the prejudices and sympathies of the jury by accusing the LAPD of a conspiracy to frame O.J. Black people in LA had a long history of being abused and misused by the Los Angeles Police Dept. (LAPD). Many experts believe the case against O.J. was lost during the jury selection when the prosecution accepted an almost all black jury. Eight of whom are black women. Spence says that, lovely and honest-hearted Marcia Clark naively believed the black ladies would side with Nicole because she was an abused wife. Spence wrote, Having decided to build her case on the cause of domestic violence, it became Clark's duty to think about the jurors who would be hearing the case.... She doubtlessly thought that a jury composed mostly of 'sisters,' black or white, would join with her and bring this abuser to justice. Page 130. "OJ: The Last Word."
Spence had very strong opinions and words regarding the jury selection process. He believed that Marcia didn't seem to have clue one regarding how black people feel and/or think, men or women. He also felt she had resisted free advice from expert state jury consultant, Don Vinson, who proved with a mock jury that the majority of black jurors would vote "not guilty" even when they were told that the shoe prints and the skin oils on the inside of the glove matched those of Simpson. Vinson also demonstrated with specific questions about domestic violence that black women did not see this as out of the ordinary and that even though Simpson had threatened Nicole and stalked her and beaten her this did not mean that he had killed her. Spence did not think this info had any effect upon Clark's strategy. In his opinion she was just a proud, arrogant stubborn woman. Her response to the news that most black women viewed her as a "bitch" was to go out and get a new hair style, as if this would help her convince an almost all black jury that O.J. was guilty.
Yesterday I went to the public library and checked out "WITHOUT A DOUBT," in which head prosecutor, Marcia Clark, gives her version of the trial. This is a 502 page autobiography for which Clark received a $4 Million book advance. Spence believes Clark was a well-meaning prosecutor, hard working and dedicated to her job. He feels she could have won this case as easily as the other murder cases she had tried and won. Anyone who has seen Marcia on CNBC and Rivera live knows she is a highly personable, intelligent and articulate, lawyer. In her book she invites us into her personal life during the time of trial which not only focused on the accused but on each member of the prosecution and defense teams as well. It became a media feeding frenzy in which all aspects of everyone's private life became tabloid headlines. If it wasn't her divorce it was her hairstyle or the dark circles under her eyes (from stress and lack of sleep) the length and color of her skirts and how she stood and walked in court. Because she was a woman Marcia Clark seemed to be on trial as much as O.J. But as difficult as it was, in the end everyone (except for Ron and Nicole) benefitted and prospered, even some of the victim's family in the civil suit. Those of us who believe in a loving God who is sovereign over all the affairs of men can see how He held His hand over this event of the century to teach the world lessons they need to know as this last generation prepares to enter the final phase of the Time of Trouble. It is the judgment hour and each of us are on trial in a much larger context whether we realize it or not. This is a vitally important lesson the Lord would have us understand.
In her book Clark writes about an "impossible" situation she ran up against during the jury selection. She felt it was a no-win, catch 22, predicament but tried to make the best of it. Gerry Spence felt Clark should have listened to Vinson more. Clark explains why she didn't like Vinson, felt he only wanted publicity and never really helped them when they needed it. Toobin agreed with Spence on the jury selection issue. The jury consultant for the defense, Jo-Ellan Dimitrius worked closely with defense lawyers Cochran and Shapiro to obtain the characteristics of what she considered the Most Preferred Jurors who would render a not-guilty verdict in favor of O.J. Simpson. Young; Less Educated; Blue Collar; African-American; No Prior Jury Service; Lower Income. This was the same thing Vinson had told Clark. According to Toobin, the twelve jurors who ultimately decided the case had the following characteristics. All were democrats. Only two were college graduates. None read a newspaper regularly, showing their analytical skills of logic and reasoning were not high. Only three owned their own homes. Only two had jobs requiring supervisory or management responsibilities at work. Ten did not. Eight watched tabloid shows like Hard Copy on a regular basis. Those jurors who liked/believed tabloid news were found to favor Simpson. Five had endured a negative experience with law enforcement. Five thought it was acceptable to use force on a family member. But the real zinger which revealed the lack of logic of 75% of the jurors was this one: NINE OF THE TWELVE THOUGHT O.J. SIMPSON WAS LESS LIKELY TO HAVE MURDERED HIS WIFE BECAUSE HE HAD EXCELLED AT FOOTBALL!
With this kind of twisted mentality how could a fair verdict ever be rendered? Only brilliant attorneys such as Gerry Spence or Bugolosi could deal with such a jury. The final jury members consisted of one black man, one Hispanic, two white women and eight black women. Amazingly, Marcia Clark was pleased. Toobin also pointed out that Clark and Hodgman had not even exercised all twenty of their peremptory challenges. The prosecution was no match to begin with against a master of the courtroom like Johnnie Cochran and his team. No wonder that Clark and her team basically became spectators at the "Trial of the Century," while the world watched on TV. You could almost compare the two teams to a chess match between Bobby Fischer and a local high school champion or the Chicago Bulls playing against the worst team in the NBA. The outcome should have been predictable yet very few knew for sure how the jury would vote in the end and even they were not certain. Spence and Bugliosi both felt a conviction was possible with this jury. Admitting this was a non-intellectual group biased in Simpson's favor, Bugliosi still believed that a powerfully presented case and summation; in which you put bibs on the jury and spoon-feed them, can virtually always be counted on to overcome both of these problems. And this jury wasn't quite as dense as some have felt.
Spence believed that the case very possibly could have been won on the very credible witness of one Jill Shively. On June 12, 1994, about 10:45 P.M., the same night of the murders, Jill was heading east on San Vicente when a large white vehicle headed north on Bundy sped into the intersection in front of her, against the light. She slammed on the brakes, and the white vehicle did likewise, running partially over the raised median on San vicente. Another car, a gray Nissan going west on San Vicente, also came to a sudden stop to avoid hitting the vehicle. For a brief moment the three automobiles were stopped within a few feet of one another. Then the driver in the white car began honking his horn. 'Move your d____ car!' he was hollering at the driver in the gray car. 'Move it!' At that moment Shively noticed that the driver of the white vehicle was a familiar looking black man, and as she heard him screaming she recognized the voice and realized it was O.J. Simpson. She got a look at the license plate just before the driver in the car peeled off up Bundy. It was 3CZW788.
The first time the detectives mentioned this incident in their book it was: Jill Shively supposedly saw Simpson when he crashed a red light and hit another car. Pg. 143. But to Jill it was a positive identification. The next morning her mother asked her if she had heard that Nicole Simpson had been murdered the night before. Jill's response was, That's weird, O.J. nearly ran me down last night. As a good citizen she called the police and was interviewed on June 14. She was to appear before the grand jury on June 21 but on the 19th her name was leaked to the "hounds of the media," as Spence calls them. The next day she gave an interview to Hard Copy who paid her $5,000. Spence called it a pittance in comparison to the $4 million plus Marcia Clark would eventually receive as a book advance. Spence and others believe the case could have been won on the basis of Shively's testimony plus that of Robert Heidstra, who heard a white man yell, 'Hey! Hey! Hey!' and who heard the voice of a black man in response---according to Vannater, one belonging to O.J. Simpson. Heidstra also heard a gate slam. But this was 10:35 to 10:40 P.M. twenty to twenty five minutes after the time the prosecution had nailed down the moment of the murderers, namely 10:15, a time from which Clark would not budge.
Spence points out that Clark's unrealistic hard-line, unyielding position that O.J. killed the two victims at 10:15 rendered the testimony of Jill Shively and Heidstra useless and of none effect. Marcia Clark's co-prosecutor, Chris Darden, agreed with Spence. We had staked much of our case on the idea that the murders occurred at 10:15 P.M., yet I didn't think we should have allowed ourselves to be pinned down like that. "IN CONTEMPT." Page 336. But his opinion did not prevail. Lange and Vannatter also blame Clark for not introducing into evidence the Bronco chase scene tapes, their tapes of the interrogation of Simpson along with his supposed suicide note and the other evidence found in the Bronco...the disguise, passport and $8,000 cash. All these evidences were hashed over by the media as well until everyone from the paper boy to President Clinton had their own take and spin on the meaning of each item of evidence which had the ultimate effect of destroying the case and turning the main prosecution team against each other. So, why were there no gag orders to stop this media circus?
Another book I checked out is THE RUN OF HIS LIFE: The People V. O.J. Simpson, by Jeffrey Toobin. Spence not only called it the "best" but the definitive history of the whole trial. Before Toobin became a staff writer at the NEW YORKER in 1983, he served as an assistant United States attorney in Brooklyn and an associate counsel in the office of independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh. His writing style and spin is far and away not only the most readable but the most honest, accurate and insightful of all the books. Gerry Spence calls it The most comprehensive and complete book on the criminal trial...his competence in reporting the events of the trial, his research, and his independent view of this case make his work the standard. This is the main book I will offer to my readers besides Gerry Spence's book because it is the absolute best and also because there is no profanity in it. Clark and Darden both use profanity freely. Spence's book has a few cuss words but usually only when he is quoting someone and trying to be totally accurate. Toobin's book is now in paperback and only $12.95 + shipping. Fuhrman's book is also excellent with almost no cuss-words.
In his book, "O.J.: The Last Word," Spence characterized Clark as being arrogant. Toobin's narration of the Shively case verifies this. Clark was apoplectic when she learned Shively had sold her story to Hard Copy. She demanded an explanation in person. Shively was terrified as she waited almost all day for an audience with Clark. She could have saved herself the worry because no criminal action was brought or had been brought or could be brought (legally) against the many people who sold vital information to the media about the O.J. Case. But the power of prosecuting attorneys is to make people think you have broken the law and that they can prosecute you to the nth degree, guilty or not. Who do you suppose is really in back of all these false threats, harassment and accusation?
Finally, Clark arrived and began accusing Shively: You lied to us! The diminutive Shively, with her mother by her side, shaking, halting and apologizing all at the same time tried in vain to explain that she didn't realize Clark wanted to know all of the people she had spoken to, etc. Clark scoffed, 'We've got plenty of circumstantial evidence,' she said. 'We don't need you. We're going to make an example out of you.' Page 127 of Toobin's book. Clark next ordered her to return the next day, June 23, to explain to the grand jury what she had done and why. Shively hired a lawyer to protect her from Clark's wrath. She could have saved the time and money because Clark tongue lashed her again before they went before the grand jury. I was nervous and hadn't slept all week, and wasn't really thinking, Shively said. I wasn't trying to hide anything, because I knew it was being aired the next day. After Shively left Clark explained to the grand jury that she felt it was the duty of her office to only present evidence that they were sure was absolutely true. She then requested them to completely disregard the statements and testimony of Jill Shively. Toobin's comments on this scenario are insightful: In part, Clark's denunciation of Shively to the grand jury reflected a high degree of prosecutorial ethics, because prosecutors should never present evidence they find less than fully believable. But there was a kind of self-defeating sanctimony in Clark's posture as well. Prosecutors deal all the time with witnesses who take a while to tell the full truth. Some lie far more extensively than Shively did before they get around to a credible story. And Shively's "lie" seems more pathetic than evil; as Shively herself pointed out, she could not have expected that the prosecutors were going to miss the fact that she had spoken to a national television program. But Clark thought she could summarily dispose of Shively. A simple and unadorned request to the grand jury to disregard Shively testimony would have more than satisfied Clark's ethical obligations. Instead, in a fit of pique, Clark denounced Shively in terms that made her permanently useless to the government. But Marcia Clark felt she could afford it. After all, the prosecution had plenty of witnesses. Page 128.
Now, I want to share with you Gerry Spence's brilliant commentary on this one incident which very well, could have decided the outcome of the case. If, as a defense attorney, I paid a witness $5,000 for her testimony, the prosecutor would have me locked up in ten minutes for obstruction of justice. But to the prosecutors and the judges, the media are the leopards in the night. The prosecutors and the judges fear the media as baboons fear leopards. Like baboons, the prosecutors kill the smaller monkeys. The prosecutors kill those they have cornered, kill them with their words, kill them with their arguments for death. The judges, too, kill the smaller monkeys, kill them with their judgments, their rulings, kill them with their death decrees. Like baboons, the prosecutors and the judges hang together in herds, and they kill together. In herds they will sometimes even take on the larger monkeys and kill them, too. A prosecutor and a judge have more power than any single citizen in the nation, more power, in fact, than the president of the United States, whom they can order into court to face his own political death at the hands of whoever wishes to claim they have seen the inside of his drawers. But the prosecutors and the judges are afraid of the leopards in the night, and they will run and hide from the leopards and, when cornered, placate them. The leopards are untouchable. Ah, the inexorable, merciless power of the media. I remember when one of Hard Copy's producers, an old friend of mine, called me after the Shively issue heated up and became still another media event. She had been threatened. She wanted to know what the prosecutors could do to the show, to the network, to the producers, to her. She confirmed that the show had paid Shively the $5,000 for her appearance, and now she wanted to know if it was illegal. The media could act with impunity. She hadn't understood yet that the media is untouchable, that the prosecutors and the judges could only howl and scatter and make a big ruckus.
And so a key witness in the Simpson case became disqualified, allegedly because she had been seduced by the media; at least, she was now judged unchaste in the mind of Marcia Clark. Jill Shively could have placed O.J. in his white Bronco on his way home from the scene at the approximate time of the murders. She was the closest thing the prosecution had to an eyewitness. Numerous officers urged Clark to call her to testify, including Fuhrman. Why not use her? She had called the police and given her interview to the officers before she made the deal with Hard Copy. And, as Fuhrman argued in his book, Clark had not hesitated to use the testimony of the owner and salesclerk from Ross Cutlery, where Simpson had bought the stiletto knife, even though both had also sold their stories. Bugliosi said he would have used Jill Shively's testimony. He was right again. She had made a positive identification of Simpson and had given an accurate license plate report. Her testimony placed Simpson near the crime scene and contradicted Simpson's various alibis that, instead of cutting the throats of innocent victims, he was chipping golf balls or sleeping or take a shower. But her testimony didn't match Marcia Clark's time line exactly, and if anyone, including the facts, didn't agree with Ms. Clark, well, forget it. The consensus was, and is today, that Clark had locked herself into a too-precise time frame and, being headstrong, wouldn't open it up to meet the facts as they developed. After all, the Akita had no reason to lie. Spence here refers to the report about a barking dog about 10:15 P.M.
In Clark's book the time of death is referred to on pages 36, 60, 66, 67, 128, 296, 315, 366, 432. I have to agree with Spence and the others that Clark should have called better witnesses, such as Shively. In her chapter "ME RECUERDO" (Spanish for I remember), page 296 Clark shows the weakness and contradiction of one of her arguments. For example, she claims that although her first witnesses were not flashy they were rock-solid. She claims they were all emphatic in their testimony about a dog they said began barking about 10:15 to 10:20 P.M. Possibly O.J. parked and sat in his car for ten or 15 minutes before he made his final decision. Or maybe he was waiting for Ron Goldman? This witness and some other neighbors never identified the dog as being Nicole's dog. Is it possible that this was another dog in that particular neighbor hood barking at some other dog or even at O.J.? We probably will never know for sure. But it was not definite enough to be dogmatic about and base your case on. But Clark proves Spence correct in his criticisms of her by stating categorically: they'd heard a dog start to bark at 10:15 to 10:20 P.M. By that time the killer was most likely on the premises. The murders were most likely in progress. IN FACT, RON AND NICOLE WERE PROBABLY DEAD. And what was the time? 10:15 to 10:20 just as Gerry Spence said. Yet, Ms. Clark goes on to try and defend herself from her many critics on this point by saying that a bleating throng of pundits would try to suggest that I declined to put on certain witnesses because they didn't fit into my 'time line.' That is absolute rubbish. At no time did I or any other member of the prosecution team lock ourselves in to 10:15 as the time of the murder. What? Are we speaking the same language? Absolutely, without a doubt, she locked herself into 10:15 P.M. just as Spence stated in his book. How? By stating, as I quoted her above, that Ron and Nicole were probably already dead. And what was the time she was referring to? 10:15 to 10:20 P.M. Of course, this is too early because Jill Shively stated that O.J. almost hit her car at the intersection at 10:45 P.M. If the murders took place at 10:15 or even 10:20 P.M. Simpson would have escaped at 10:20 to 10:25 P.M. as all the experts agree it took less then five minutes for the murders to take place. This would have been 20 to 25 minutes too early for Simpson to almost hit Shively's car at the intersection on Bundy. Even if he took off in his Bronco at 10:30 to 10:35 P.M. it would still have been too early to almost hit Shively at 10:45. Spence's criticism is right on target. No wonder he has never lost a case.
Perhaps the worst tactical error that was made in the Simpson trial was filing the case in downtown L.A. instead of Santa Monica where the crime was committed. Bugliosi pointed out in his book, "OUTRAGE," Simpson is black and every survey shows that blacks are overwhelmingly sympathetic to him....that the sympathy blacks have for Simpson at this point may override the evidence at the trial---is justified...If the DA tried to transfer the case out of downtown now, there would be an enormous hue and cry that he was prejudiced against blacks. But if he had filed the case where it should have been filed, and where he had every right to file it, who could have complained? page 58. Bugliosi further reveals in his extremely thorough book that Gil Garcetti called him after he read the above remarks in a popular magazine. He told Bugliosi that the reason the case had to be tried downtown was because once he took the case to the grand jury (there is only one grand jury in LA County) it had to stay downtown. Bugliosi told him that he was wrong and to call Jerrianne Hayslette for verification at the LA County Superior Court who had already confirmed to him that this was true. The jury pool would have also been substantially different...i.e. people with higher IQs and more education and more whites. Of course, then if you had more whites than blacks on the jury the black community would have said that the white jury was prejudiced. Although in retrospect the situation may seem like a "catch 22" Spence believes that if the case had been presented correctly to the jury they would have found Simpson guilty. This is his opinion based on fifty years experience which we need to respect. But the times are changing.
One only need remember the recent Rodney King case in which a video clearly showed in living color the police beating King unmercifully. Yet, the Simi Valley jury found the white policemen "Not Guilty," and a race riot ensued. When they had a new trial for King the policemen were found guilty. I don't know the make-up of the jury in the second trial but I believe it was tried in a different location. It was stated before the trial that even if Simpson had been video taped killing his wife and Goldman Simpson was so popular that no jury would convict him. So, what does this say about the times in which we live? People do not make decisions on the bases of truth but on the bases of their biases and prejudices.
In spite of this I believe a higher power held His hand over this entire episode as an object lesson to put on center stage in the spotlight for all the world to see. In every second of every event in life God is guiding, controlling, teaching, disciplining every one of his creatures from the lowest human being to the highest angel. Isa. 45:7; 46:10. I believe God is allowing the universe to see in this, our age, before Jesus comes and the 1,000 years begins, the highest level of goodness in His final Remnant and the lowest level of evil in human beings who are selling themselves to the world at various prices. Our eyes are being opened and we will never be the same. I think of what Jim Garrison said in the movie JFK. "My eyes have been opened," he told his wife who did not understand his new obsession on trying to find who killed Kennedy. As he began to realize how the entire justice system had been corrupted he felt that his own life was a fraud.
Our God does what He deems best in our human affairs. Notice what the humbled King Nebuchadnezzar wrote after his conversion: "He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay His Hand or say to Him, 'What doest thou?'...for all His works are right and His ways are just; and those who walk in pride He is able to abase." Dan. 4:34-37.
On another subject Spence asked: Where were the gag orders that could have mitigated the media riot? Both Tom Lange and Phil Vannatter, detectives on the LAPD, claim they pleaded with District Attorneys Gil Garcetti and Marcia Clark to push Judge Ito for a gag order on all of the parties in the case. The prosecution had already lost Jill Shively, who might well have sealed the case for the prosection. And Simpson's lawyers were putting their own spin on witnesses and evidence that hadn't yet seen the light of day in a courtroom. Clark seemed to have no interest in a gag order. Nor did Garcetti. And the defense lawyers---what would they do without the cameras? No one wanted to be gagged, not even the judge. This was their show. This was their time in TV paradise...This case was tried in the media and became the biggest money-producing news event of all time. Its ratings exceeded even those delivered to the networks by the Gulf War. Rivera Live would not give the case up, not even for a day. Inside Edition and Hard Copy, along with A Current Affair, burst prominently onto the scene and made multimillions of dollars on the case...Had this not been a media extravaganza, the facts were ordinary enough that Clark could have dealt with them and probably could have won the case as easily as any of the other murder cases she had tried. Page 84, 85, 86.
Even Clark admitted that the debate during the trial descended to the length of her skirts to say nothing about the circles under her eyes, the color and style of her daily wardrobe, the way she walked, her hairdo, etc. I was overexposed, she said, claiming that she got about the same exposure in seven days as five years worth of Seinfeld episodes. With all of this focus on the main players of this court room drama how could anyone have enough energy to focus on the facts of the trial which were being analyzed by everyone every day until there was no potential jury member who could not have a pre-trial opinion. The trial itself took on a life of its own with each player achieving star status before the final verdict. Careers were being made at the cost of truth and justice. The prosecution team basically self-destructed. Later everyone wrote their blaming books, as Spence calls them. Although Fuhrman blamed the prosecution's loss on the bumbling of Lange and Vannatter along with many others I personally felt they did as good a job as anyone else could have done under the circumstances. The prosecution felt Fuhrman had not been honest with his friends and co-workers about his racist views and background. But instead of allowing him to testify and explain the whole situation the prosecution treated him like a leper. He ended up taking the fifth, retired from the LAPD, pleaded "no contest" to one count of perjury on Oct. 2, 1996 and was sentenced to three-years probation and fined $300.
Like most everyone else I felt Fuhrman was probably the worst policeman in the history of law enforcement, until I checked out his book, "Mark Fuhrman, Murder in Brentwood," just two days ago. I quickly changed my mind. He alone is the author of this 392 page very well organized and easy to read volume. In his prologue he is totally honest about the fictional cassette tapes he made with Laura Hart in 1985 in Westwood and admits the error of his ways. The mistakes I made and the pain I inflicted on myself, the citizens of this country, and the people I love will forever haunt me. An apology for the racial unrest I caused seems painfully inadequate. My immature, irresponsible ramblings with a screenwriter were never intended to be heard by anyone but the two of us. Although truthful, this simple explanation is no excuse for the disrespect that I showed millions of people. People I never met, saw, or heard of were affected by my cruel words. These words echo in my mind daily, and I am ashamed...In my heart, I always knew it was wrong, even if I said them only to create a fictional story. My first failure was the lure of greed, and the second was my lack of compassion. There is nothing in life that comes free. I failed myself, my friends, and my family when I grabbed the chance to make money...I take full responsibility for my life and career.
Vincent Bugliosi wrote the foreword to his book and defends Fuhrman throughout. Was Fuhrman a racist cop? He affirms he wasn't, but others say he was because he did use the "N" word, if only in make believe in a screen play. Be true or false the facts of the case prove beyond a doubt that it was impossible for him to have planted or faked evidence to frame O.J. They didn't even think of O.J. as a suspect at that point and even these cops had a high opinion of O.J. He was not a criminal in their minds. So, the accusation is a fabrication, a lie from beginning to end. But it worked. Why? Because anyone who felt sorry for O.J.'s predicament or was Afro American or even pro-Afro-American like O.J. and wanted payback and perhaps revenge was eager to believe this accusation so O.J. could go free. I even remember myself feeling happy whenever the trial went in O.J.'s favor. But after reading Fuhrman's book I can see why the defense saw Mark Fuhrman and the evidence he uncovered at the crime scene and O.J.'s house as their greatest threat. Somehow, some way Fuhrman and the LAPD must be discredited. It didn't matter how. Fuhrman's publisher says that the O.J. case is a study in deceptions. Alfred S. Regnery published Mark's book in order to expose, not only the truth about O.J. Simpson, but about the greatest victim after Nicole and Ron. After reading the book I believe Mark Fuhrman is a fine human being. If even half of the suggestions he makes in his book had been followed the trial would have had a different outcome.
Gerry Spence also deals with Fuhrman and many other issues, especially the race issue, (the "N" word) and I encourage everyone to read his book which goes beyond the case and looks at the changing justice system today, how the O.J. case has changed it, how our rights are being lost and eroded and where America is headed as the new millennium approaches. On page 439 of her book Clark puts her spin on the Fuhrman factor that basically torpedoed the ship that had already begun to lose its bearings.
Detective Mark Fuhrman had met Laura Mckinny in 1985 in Westwood at an outdoor cafe. She was working on a screenplay about female police officers. He told her he was an LAPD officer himself. McKinny immediately saw a window of opportunity and began taping Fuhrman's sexist and racist remarks and rants about his experience as a mean, nasty, very abusive ("N" word) hating LA cop. He made it sound so real, as if these were his very own experiences. He says that he was just trying to jazz them up for her cinematic purposes. She never asked him if everything he told her---all of his opinions, all of his war stories--were literally true. It was agreed that McKinny would give Fuhrman a $10,000 fee as a technical consultant if the movie was ever produced. The die had been cast.
These cassette tapes became the time bomb/torpedo that would completely destroy the prosecution's case against O.J. Simpson. Clark says that the tapes had not made Fuhrman the main star (Although he boasted in a July, 1994 tape, I'm the biggest witness in the case of the century---If I go down, they lose the case.) they just made him the most vulnerable witness. She and the prosecution team felt betrayed. After all their hard work on the DNA, PCR and EDTA, the case had melted down to simply MF, Mark Fuhrman, one single policeman, who became in the eyes of the jury and most Americans, black or white a symbol of the corruptions and racist attitudes and actions of the entire LAPD. Chris Darden's book, "IN CONTEMPT," verifies the sad conditions and negative attitudes of the LAPD against minorities, especially Black and Spanish young people. The persecution he received during the year long trial caused him to leave his job as a prosecutor for the safety and anonymity of a college classroom. Both Clark's and Darden's books are auto-biographical, as well as about the trial. In spite of the grueling marathon of a trial, which took its toll on their tempers they remained friends and continued working together to the end. Chris was the one who broke down crying at the final press conference and couldn't finish his speech. It was obvious from his book that he wanted to let all the black people know that he was still truly one of them even though many had rejected him. He admitted some of his mistakes in the trial, such as pushing for O.J. to try on the glove, but he did not seem to have any regrets for the way he had treated Mark Fuhrman from the beginning. It was obvious he was trying to distance himself not only from this "racist" cop but from the whole LAPD. Fuhrman became the scapegoat not only for the defense but for the prosecution, as well. Fuhrman explains in his book that once Clark and Darden refused to talk to him before he went on the witness stand again he had no choice but to plead the 5th amendment. After it was over Clark, on page 453 told how one of the D.A.s who guarded Mark Fuhrman reported that When they were on their way back to the hotel, the radio was on with the story of Fuhrman's day in court (when he kept taking the 5th). In the backseat, Mark was crying. Bugliosi took a strong stand for Fuhrman in his own book as well as in the Foreword of Mark's book, "Murder In Brentwood." He says, Mark Fuhrman had black friends, he was getting up two to three mornings a week at five to play basketball with fellow black officers, and in a 1994 case I verified before the publication of my book 'Outrage,' worked very hard to free a black man charged with the murder of a white man when he came upon evidence of the black man's innocence. (And it's the view of virtually everyone that Fuhrman, who finished number two in his class at the Police Academy, was a thoroughly professional officer throughout his career whose daily work was a model of efficiency.)
The Bible indicates that our God knows the end from the beginning and oversees and guides the affairs of men and nations. He permits and prevents as well as directs and determines. "Above the distractions of earth He sits enthroned. All things are open to His Divine survey and from His great and calm eternity He orders that which His Providence sees best." MH 417. The prophet Isaiah even goes further proclaiming that God not only knows all things in advance...He actually does them...brings them to pass. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." In the light of these passages it seems very clear to my mind that our God was involved in every aspect of the Simpson case. The trial became a revelation of where a person's pride, fame and financial success in a brutal, athletic profession, such as football could lead a man. At the same time O.J. Simpson, though guilty, became a symbol of hope for justice against a cruel and oppressive white police system. And God allowed (planned, guided, orchestrated without interfering with man's free will or choice) all these various individuals and events for the purpose of exposing evil that man might see the problems and be willing to learn from them and correct them.
In their book "Evidence Dismissed," Lange and Vannatter sum up the basic reasons they believe the case was lost. Their best evidence was cast aside in favor of the DNA blood analysis and the evidence of Simpson's spousal abuse. And this is what everyone saw presented who watched the trial from time to time or caught evening news summaries. It was so long and boring that instead of proving O.J. was guilty it had the effect of making everyone doubt because it seemed so scientifically complicated. How could anyone really be sure? I quote from their book:
The detectives now see the pattern clearly: The prosecution does not want to use anything initiated by the LAPD unless absolutely necessary. Any such evidence brought in will have to be accompanied by the testimony of a police officer and the legacy of a now tarnished police department. By this time, it is clear to both the prosecution and the defense team that the LAPD is on trial, as well as O.J. Simpson. In short, this is no longer a case about evidence. It has become a political drama, and the police are being portrayed as villains." Page 270. Although this statement is true their book does not deal with the history of abuse and violence against the black community in Los Angeles specifically and the USA in general or the many crimes committed against black individuals since the slave trading days when they were brought here from Africa. Nor was the Rodney King issue dealt with to any degree or the possibility of another race riot should O.J. be found guilty. Few, if any of the white people involved in this trial seemed to understand the Black community's mentality let alone their attitude and prejudices. In spite of this, both authors believed the case still could have been won if the following evidences had not been dismissed by the prosecution.
In addition to the above the hair and fiber evidence revealed that fibers found on the knit cap and the right-hand glove are consistent with the carpet in Simpson's Bronco. Also, multiple hairs found in the cap and a single hair found on Goldman's shirt are consistent with Simpson's. Hair consistent with Brown and Goldman's hair has also been found on the right-hand glove.
O.J. was one of the most famous athletes in the world, All-American--All Pro---considered by many to be the greatest football player ever. He was also a movie star and popular TV commercial celebrity for Hertz Rent-A-Car with virtually a spotless record except for his abuse of Nicole which he tried to cover up. Because of his outstanding achievement on the gridiron and his ads for Hertz running through an airport to catch a flight, most Americans were more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Over 90% of the black community were willing to stand by and support him guilty or not. As the trial progressed he not only became their hero (David) against the LAPD (Goliath), he also became their symbol of justice against an unfair, evil, corrupt, abusive, degrading and unjust system of justice which had been persecuting them for decades. These black people were not about to believe the police, many of whom they knew would lie and plant evidence to get a conviction. So, when Mark Fuhrmam took the fifth amendment over and over again even in response to the last question: "Did you plant the bloody glove as evidence at the crime scene?" Only the most die hard opponents of O.J. still believed there was a ghost of a chance the jury would find him guilty. Johnny Cochran's slick and brilliant defense was just the icing on the cake and the final nail in the coffin of the LAPD. There were many opinions as to the outcome of this trial of the century. The "National Law Journal" had commissioned a survey of lawyers in which only 27 per cent had said that Simpson would be found guilty. "William Kunstler said that twelve people anywhere in the country could not be found to convict O.J. The very best they could hope for was a hung jury."
One question many have asked is, If O.J. is really guilty of killing those two innocent people, as the evidence now presented correctly indicates, how is it that he was able to maintain such a consistent straight face and continue to proclaim that he was 100% not guilty? First of all, you must remember that O.J. is an actor and performer. Maybe not the best but he studied and trained to know how to play certain parts. That is his profession...what he gets paid to do. Secondly, he feels vindicated in his own mind. He feels Nicole was guilty of adultery and by (his interpretation) the law of God in the Bible, all women caught in adultery must be put to death. In some of the most graphic language in the book author Spence does an excellent job of explaining O.J.'s mindset which generated the rage which led to the double murder...why he felt justified in killing her especially...he was simply carrying out the demands of the law. This would also justify his killing of Goldman, her supposed lover. But beyond Spence's projections, which I happen to agree with, I believe O.J. was a believer in Old Testament justice as well as the non-Biblical double standard of "It's ok for the man to go out with other women but not for the woman."
Another reason Simpson showed no guilt was his hatred of the white man's system of justice he was forced to live and operate in. Everyone was using him and he was using them. A spirit of anger and bitterness had begun to control him many years before similar to the spirit which gradually enveloped and controlled King Saul's life. Like so many through the centuries, "A lie, believed, practiced, becomes a truth to them." TM 364. In I Tim. 4:2 Paul explains how in the last days "seducing spirits" or evil angels will lead men to believe in false doctrines. We can see this today in the media with the UFO phenomena, psychics who claim they can predict your future, help you win big money and even put you in contact with your dead relatives. These lies are made possible because they believe the dead are still alive and floating around us. This is the foundation for the belief that Mary and the saints can intercede for us before the throne of God and to protect us from His wrath. What a slander against the Name and beautiful character of Jesus! So, it is in this flourishing age of lying that the consciences of an entire generation are being seared with a hot iron to the extent that they could cheer when O.J. Simpson is found "not guilty" even though evidence clearly showed that he was guilty.
O.J. beat his first wife just as he beat and abused Nicole. The problems arose in his marriage to Nicole because of his many affairs. She feared he would give her AIDS. Who could blame her? They argued and fought, but O.J. came to believe he was above the law. The law was for other people and didn't apply to him. He threatened to kill Nicole if he ever saw her with another man. Spence goes into detail regarding the possible scenarios and motives leading O.J. to murder his beautiful ex-wife. Did O.J. attack her from behind, knocking her to the ground unconscious before Goldman came on the scene and yelled, Hey! Hey! Hey! Or were they standing together talking when he attacked them? "O.J. The Last Word," analyzes the various possible scenarios. Was the murder carefully planned or an on the spur of the moment thing? Why didn't he clean his hands off better before getting into his Bronco? One dismissed juror's comments gives an insight into some of the jury's attitudes and thinking. "Lange and Vannatter are mortified when they hear the postdismissal comments to the media from of these dismissed jurors, Willie Cravin. He tells reporters that the police could not violate a man's rights and go over his wall. During the trial, the police had repeatedly explained their justification for this action. Also, discussing the blood evidence while dismissing the DNA testing, Cravin claims, Just because there's blood, it doesn't mean much. A lot of people have the same kind of blood. And regarding the gloves found at the two crime scenes, Cravin insists, No one would be stupid enough to leave a glove on their front porch for everyone to see." Both detectives are shocked that anyone could have so misunderstood the trial testimony. It also points out the widespread ignorance and suspicion regarding DNA. Lange believes it is an omen and they are going to lose the case. Clark also had a sense of doom early in July. It was early July when I first got a hint of the disaster that would ultimately ruin us. page 435. She was referring to the Fuhrman tapes which the defense would use to brand Fuhrman as the worst racist in history. The fact that this was not true didn't matter. But in addition to that Fuhrman was further accused of planting evidence to frame O.J. It didn't matter anymore how guilty O.J. was with or without the "mountain" of evidence. The police themselves were now on trial shifting the focus of guilt off of O.J. and onto Fuhrman and the entire LAPD. One of the most honorable members of the prosecution team, Asst. D.A., Bill Hodgman, later stated, It's a real tragedy that we have a mountain of evidence to convict O.J. Simpson, and he walks free. Meanwhile, Mark Fuhrman, with an almost total absence of evidence against him, is convicted.
Nevertheless, the fact remained that a glove or gloves with blood were left behind and that the same blood in the Bronco indicated that the murderer was in a very big hurry to escape, was very nervous, careless and was not thinking clearly. This seems to indicate that his murderous act was more of a spontaneous act then a carefully calculated, pre-meditated murder. The Prosecution team pointed out that Nicole purposely avoided O.J. at the recital. Nor was he able to get a hold of Paula Barbieri by phone. The feelings of rejection he must have felt truly could have pushed him over the edge to commit a spontaneous, rage crime. It seems very possible that his previous thoughts of killing his wife suddenly all came together galvanizing him into action. The fact that he would be able to fly to Chicago that same night to establish an alibi no doubt sealed his decision.
Obviously he wanted to shield his mother and children from the awful truth that he had killed Nicole. Yet, he must have felt some guilt and fear of being caught--evidenced by the Bronco chase and holding Nicole's pictures and crying. Was this staged to try and make him look like a victim instead of a perpetrator? What about holding the gun to his head and threatening suicide? Was this an act of guilt from killing Nicole or sadness and despair from losing her to a senseless murder? When placed in the context of all the DNA blood evidence plus the eye and earshot witnesses, etc. it definitely appears to be the actions of a guilty man. The fact that he never once admitted to anyone that he had killed Nicole and Goldman indicates his conscience was truly seared. He obviously felt justified. Another point is that the dog, Akita, did not attack O.J. Why? Because he knew O.J. and only began howling in terrible grief at what he had witnessed.
Faye D. Resnick's Testimony
Until last month, like many of you, this writer was still of the opinion that O.J. Simpson had not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The first book to finger O.J. as the killer was authored by Faye Resnick, Nicole Simpson's best, and closest friend. Her book, "NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON, The Private Diary of a Life Interrupted," hit the New York Times best selling list in 1994. It had come out right in the middle of jury selection. Faye was also a friend and confidante of OJ himself. In other words, Faye not only knew what was going on between Nicole and O.J. from Nicole's viewpoint but from O.J.'s as well. Caught in the middle of their marital strife she found herself mediator, counselor and referee. O.J. told Faye that if he caught Nicole with another man he would kill her. This has been quoted many times from several people who knew Nicole, as well as in the media. She really did fear that O.J. would kill her. Resnick's book clearly confirms this. Here is the exact quote from page 175. My other phone line rang. I put Nicole on hold. It was O.J., yelling, cursing. 'Faye, that xo#$*& bitch, she told me she never wants to be with me again...' 'O.J., listen...' He cut me off. 'If she's really serious about this, and I find out she's with another man before August. I'LL KILL HER!' 'Whoa! O.J., what are you saying?' 'I can't take this, Faye, I can't take this. I mean it. I'll kill that bitch.'
After Nicole's murder, Faye feared for her life. Her phones were tapped, private journals and photographs were stolen from her home and veiled threats were made by private investigators. Slanderous stories and theories were spread making it seem like Faye was tied to the murders. All of this had its effect upon the public who were feeding on every last word coming out of the tube. I myself remember having negative feelings toward this woman named Faye Resnick. Yet, I knew nothing about her except that she believed O.J. was guilty. After reading her two books I have changed my mind. Her second book is entitled, "SHATTERED. In the Eye of the Storm." On page 92 of this book she tells how she was able to check the messages of her boyfriend's answering machine to see what O.J. was telling her ex-boy friend who worked closely with O.J. Here is what she heard. Get all the information out of her that you can, and see if you can confuse her. Convince people that her book (First Book "Private Diary") is a pack of lies. In the beginning the interview circuit was favorable to O.J., slanting their interview spins against Faye's book and Nicole. But as the trial progressed, Rivera and others switched 180 degrees as they realized the great white majority believed O.J. was guilty. Part three of her book, "Shattered," is entitled, "THE LIAR'S CLUB," in which she begins with a quote from Emerson. Every violation of truth is not only a sort of suicide in the liar, but is a stab at the health of human society. All of the lies that were told to defend O.J. set the stage for all the lies that are now being told on a daily basis in the name of protecting the highest office in the land. In reality it is not protecting but destroying.
If one were looking for a theological metaphor you couldn't find a better example then the O.J.-Nicole relationship. Here we have a classic scenario of Satan (working through the beast powers of earth through the centuries) trying to control the woman (church). Slowly but surely the woman comes to understand and realize the nature of the beast, just as Nicole realized O.J. was not in love with her but simply had an obsession, a sexual fantasy and infatuation that had lasted for 17 years. No matter how many times he beat her, put her down, threatened her, etc. she always went back to him. In Nicole's diary, which the Brown family turned over to the prosecution, Nicole had documented something like sixty-one (61) incidents of abuse, but the jury was allowed to hear very little of it. Nicole had a premonition that O.J. was going to kill her and the papers, articles, and clipping in her safe-deposit box clearly revealed this fear. She had purposely saved these so the world would one day know the truth. Yet, for so many years she was his plaything, his possession or prize that he wanted to show off to the world. He complained to Faye that Nicole did not like to go out with him to special events or parties to be shown off like another one of his many trophies. She didn't like the limelight. Even though they divorced in 1993 they continued to see each other in an off and on relationship. Finally, O.J. began a serious relationship with Paula Barberi who did enjoy the limelight. O.J. seemed content and didn't bother Nicole. Although this drove Nicole crazy, according to Faye, she did not contact O.J. until one day she got word that OJ seemed to be changing. He had even made the statement to some mutual friends that he was not going to go out with other women anymore but just stick with Paula. Upon hearing this Nicole said: Maybe he's changed. Maybe we could have a sane relationship. Maybe that obsessive behavior of his would stop. Page 82. Not long after this she phoned Faye to announce that she was going to go see O.J. and try and put her family back together. I'm going to ask O.J. if he's interested in trying again. Page 83. O.J.'s response was, Oh,...this is just too much. I'm happy with Paula. I may not be in love with Paula, but she's good to me. She doesn't hate showing up with me at parties or personal appearances. Ibid.
At first O.J. didn't respond but a few days later he drove to the house on Bundy to tell Nicole he liked the idea and felt they needed to talk about the whole thing. Once again he began his obsessive calling, demanding that Nicole not go out dancing without him or have any guys hanging out at her house or even spend so much time with her girl friends. Once again he wanted her all to himself. Forget it! I'm not going to go back to you under these conditions. But what really upset the apple cart was O.J.'s insistence that Nicole confess in detail all of the men she had been with during their separation. Nicole saw red flags realizing this would cause a lot of trouble. But O.J. demanded to hear it all. Nicole protested that divulging intimate details of her past sex life would be very harmful to a successful reconciliation. She knew O.J. would not be able to live with it. But as usual, O.J. won. It was just another game to O.J., as if he were out on the field dodging the tacklers heading for the goal line and touchdown. But this time it would not lead to success but failure. He made her recite the list...one man after another, Brett, whom she had been with for six months, then Marcello, Joseph. Grant, etc. O.J. kept getting hotter, sweating profusely. Finally, she had to admit her last affair, the one she knew would upset O.J. more than any other...Marcus Allen, O.J.'s second best friend after A.C. Cowlings. O.J. exploded and turned on her, threatening her like a man possessed. He told her if she was ever with Marcus again that he didn't know what he would do but that it would really be bad because he wouldn't be able to control himself. Later he confronted Marcus and made him swear he would never touch Nicole again. According to Faye this did not stop Nicole and Marcus from getting together again, even after Marcus married Kathryn. Although Allen has denied this, Faye documents in her book that she saw Allen's car in front of Nicole's house. Furthermore, Nicole admitted that she was seeing him even after Faye Resnick made Nicole promise she would never see Allen again. The fact that she broke her promise to her best friend who was trying desperately to save her life clearly shows both her defiance and fatalistic "Que Sera, Que Sera" (whatever will be, will be) attitude. This decision to live dangerously and defy O.J makes one wonder if she may even have had a death wish for she realized that no matter how hard she tried or loved O.J. nothing would ever change. How sad that so many people have the same attitude because they don't know or understand the power of Jesus Christ to save them and protect them. God always has the answer if we are willing to give our all to Him.
This brings us back to O.J.'s threats which intensified as the summer wore on. He told Faye to tell Nicole that she had better play her role and look like his wife until August. Remember Nicole was murdered on June 12th. Later Nicole explained that O.J. takes off for New York in August and stays there four or five months doing his broadcasting. He wants me to stay away from men until then but of course he will go with any woman he wants, she explained to Faye. Faye was terrified by O.J.s threats and tried her best to get Nicole to leave town for awhile. But Nicole wouldn't budge. She cussed him out saying she wasn't afraid of him and wasn't going to allow him to control her anymore. Both women claimed to believe in God and went to church but cussed like sailors. Although Faye was a cocaine addict she was a very honest hearted and open person. Both her books clearly reveal this quality. Nicole and some other friends finally prevailed upon her to enter a rehabilitation center.
On Monday, June 13, Faye was in Exodus rehabilitation center, thanks to the intervention of friends. It was her third attempt to escape her cocaine addiction. Nicole had been her number one supporter to quit once and for all. She was called out of her morning group therapy session to be informed of Nicole's tragic murder. Although she had a premonition Faye went into shock and convulsions when the head counselor told her, Faye, its Nicole. She began screaming, No-o-o...No! Oh, God not Nic. Oh, Nic. Shrieking and babbling like a wild woman she cried out, It was O.J. He told me he would kill her. Now he has. Her convulsions lasted nearly two hours. She refused valium to sedate her and through sheer force of her will regained control of herself. Then the hysteria turned to cold fury. She knew beyond a doubt that O.J. Simpson had murdered Nicole. Her grief was so overwhelming she thought of committing suicide. On page 231 she revealed the real reason she didn't. The only reason I didn't kill myself was because I was praying. I was getting down on my knees. I prayed and asked God to relieve me from my bondage of self. I was very impressed by this. She forgot herself and focused on the needs of her daughter and others like Nicole's children.
Whatever criticism people might have brought against Faye and Nicole for their sexually addictive lifestyle, one has to admire this woman for her courage to put her life on the line in order to speak out and write down the plain truth of what she knew as fact from her close and intimate relationship with both O.J. and Nicole. Faye could not understand their relationship. Why did Nicole continue going back to O.J. again and again throughout their stormy 17 year relationship, including nine years of marriage on paper? Nicole finally confessed that only O.J. was able to truly satisfy her sexually. So, this was the price she had been willing to pay. No doubt it was symptomatic of a deeper underlying problem of low self-esteem. But Nicole finally grew past her need of O.J. It wasn't easy to break away from the lavish lifestyle. She had many things going on in her life. Her two children, her daily exercise routine, including running nine miles a day. As long as Nicole had been willing to look the other way and ignore O.J.'s ongoing affairs their relationship remained intact. But the minute she confronted him about his unfaithfulness he became enraged. Before the divorce Nicole received $5,000 to $7,000 a month allowance and child support. O.J. also owned homes in New York, Beverly Hills, Laguna Beach and San Francisco. Because of the generous divorce settlement of $450,000 plus $10,000 a month child support Nicole was able to live the life of a princess. Yet she was in constant danger from O.J.'s increasing threats on her life. He also spied on her through the bushes and stalked her. Because of O.J.s smiling public persona everyone believed O.J. to be innocent. Especially when he proclaimed in court that he was 100% not guilty. Not long before the murders O.J. threatened to report Nicole to the IRS. He said that Nicole had been fooling the IRS into thinking she lived at his place and thus had committed tax fraud. He said that she would have to pay $90,000 or go to jail. Nicole explained to Faye that when she'd sold a condominium she owned in San Francisco, which she leased to tenants, she owed the IRS $90,000 in capital gains taxes unless she immediately bought another property for business purposes. She bought the condo on Bundy Drive intending to lease it out and move back to O.J.'s place on Rockingham. She used the Rockingham address on her tax return, figuring that's where she'd be living with O.J. Instead she stayed in the Bundy condo, in the home she was supposed to be leasing out. So, Nicole had to find another place to live, or she was going to have to immediately pay $90,000 to the IRS. O.J. deliberately made this threat to report her to the IRS in order to frighten her into doing what he wanted. He said that he was doing it because of all the pain she's made him face. He seemingly had no concern for his own children and how this would affect them. His lawyer actually sent a letter detailing what O.J. was planning to send to the IRS. Nicole really exploded. Faye had never seen her so furious. She could not believe O.J. could be so vicious. O.J. told her, This is the last time I'm going to be nice. If you don't realize how wonderful I am to you, then it's time you learned what real life is like. Nicole's response was: Just get out of my life! Just stay away from me! Because you're not the person I knew. You're a monster! I don't even know who you are! This was the last straw for Nicole. It really opened her eyes as to what kind of person O.J. really was and she totally rejected him from that day on. Faye tried again to persuade Nicole to leave town with her for her own safety but Nicole refused. O.J.'s final decision was to take Nicole's life which I believe he did on the night of June 12, 1994. But why? Chris Darden gave one of the best answers on page 184 of his book, "IN CONTEMPT." He was obsessed with her, obsessed with controlling her. He had raised her from her youth and she owed everything to him. He couldn't stand losing her, losing control of her. He had warned her so many times that he would kill her, and the first time she had laughed at him. At Him! She had even told him once that he was too old, that she was thirty-five, in her prime, and she couldn't imagine spending the rest of her life with a man in his sexual decline---practically a cripple. You could just see this insecure, frightened beast inside this guy, hurt, vengeful, and dangerous.
Faye's book was published before the trial, actually during jury selection, whereas Gerry Spence's book, and all of the rest of them dealing with this case have come out after the trial. Spence carefully analyzed the case day by day explaining in detail what went wrong and why the jury came to the conclusion that O.J. did not do it and should be set free. "Evidence Dismissed," reinforced Gerry's opinions and conclusions.
These two books have given me a much clearer picture of what happened to the original "MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE" against O.J. Simpson. The main purpose of this article is to show what happens when a person investigates the facts for himself as I have tried to do. My ultimate goal has been to show the spiritual relevance, parallels and applications this case has to the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan. I hope everyone reading this article will be willing to investigate the evidence against Satan as the real killer and destroyer and Jesus as the life-giver who has never destroyed one person, angel or animal. His shed blood on Calvary proves that. Yet, all of the blood evidence Jesus gave us at the cross has been dismissed by the theologians down through the centuries. How? By twisting this evidence of His non-violent, harmless and lamb-like character into a doctrine of substitution, which reduces Jesus' sacrifice down to the level of simple forensic evidence to be presented in a worldly court of law. From this false interpretation, theologians have built their cases for the hard, cold, unloving doctrine of Justification, which is a correct doctrine when presented correctly. Jesus' death on the cross does justify us and does give us right standing before God. This is what is known as the "substitutionary" doctrine of the atonement. But the way it is taught makes God out to be a harsh, unforgiving heavenly Father.
The way it is taught is that Jesus became our substitute so His Father would no longer be angry at us and demand that we must die to pay for our sins...for breaking the law. Jesus is said to have stood before His Father and pled with Him not destroy us...that He would come to earth and shed His blood and die in our place. The Father reluctantly accepted this knowing how much it would hurt Him to see His only Son die. But His anger and wrath were satisfied in Jesus' perfect sacrifice. The Catholic church has gone one step further with this doctrine by making Mary the intercessor...going before Jesus, pleading for Him to go before the Father and plead for our lives so He will not destroy us. What a blasphemy against the Father and Son! But this is how the blood evidence Jesus gave at the cross has been distorted and twisted so it has lost its true meaning...i.e. to prove that Jesus Christ is "Holy, harmless and undefiled." Heb. 7:26.
On July 6, 1995, after 92 days of testimony, 58 witnesses, 488 exhibits, and 34,500 pages of transcript, the Prosecution, weary and exhausted from the year long battle against overwhelming odds rested their case. They didn't even bother to present the evidence they had regarding the Bronco chase. Why? They were just so bone tired they no longer had the will to continue on. They felt that if the jury had not been persuaded by the domestic violence and the overwhelming mountain of DNA blood and hair follicle evidence it was futile to continue presenting more facts for them to ignore and reject as irrelevant. In the end, the hair and fiber evidence seemed to have had virtually no impact on the exhausted jurors. It was not even mentioned during the jury deliberations. "The Run of His Life," Toobin, page 374. Can you see a parallel with the gospel message in our day. The church is tired from trying to "finish the work." The people are burned out on the arguments over Righteousness by Faith, the Sanctuary, Perfection, what happened back in 1888 and did Ellen White really copy some or most of her books from contemporary writers of her time? No wonder the Bible speaks so often about having the patience of the saints and "waiting" til the end of the 1335 days. See Dan. 12:12.
We could also draw a parallel regarding the many evidences in the Bible and nature itself that there is a Creator. These also have been dismissed by our modern critics. But for those who wish to be Atheists or evolutions it doesn't matter. People believe what they want to believe or already believe in spite of evidence. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up. I remember a friend of mine who watched the trial every day. He believed O.J. was innocent and still does today. I plan to talk to him and share this article with him. He is a highly educated, religious, white professor who feels sorry for Black people and has had at least one negative, abusive experience with law enforcement. Although I have never been abused by the police myself, I have felt deeply about the way Blacks have been discriminated against. So, the mountain of evidence against O.J. was not the greatest proof for me personally, mainly because of the reports that the blood had been tainted or not tested correctly. What made me lean toward the idea that O.J. could very well be innocent was his calm, cool composure day after day and his constant, consistent denial that he did not do it. I also had heard that Nicole and her friends were into drugs and her murder could have been the work of drug gangs, etc. But mainly, I wanted to believe that this very handsome, famous, personable man was not guilty.
This is the same thing that caused the holy, loyal angels to believe there was nothing evil or wrong with Lucifer. He was able to conceal his real identity for 4,000 years. "Not until the death of Christ was the character of Satan clearly revealed to the angels or to the unfallen worlds. The archapostate had so clothed himself with deception that even holy beings had not understood his principles. They had not clearly seen the nature of his rebellion. It was a being of wonderful power and glory that had set himself against God...Lucifer had been the covering cherub. He had stood in the light of God's presence. He had been the highest of all created beings, and had been foremost in revealing God's purposes to the universe. After he had sinned, his power to deceive was the more deceptive, and the unveiling of his character was the more difficult, because of the exalted position he had held with the Father." DA 758, 759. Now, if you want to talk about people of their own race standing up for their own just think of how the good angels stood up for their own...one third of the original fallen angels. So, it was with the jurors on the Simpson case. In the first straw vote it was 10 for acquittal and 2 for conviction. Anise Aschenbach was the defense's white demon. She told everyone that she had been so outraged at Cochran's summation that she almost stood up and told him to shut up. He told them to send the LAPD a message. Does he think we're so stupid that we're going to send a message rather than decide based on what we heard in the case? I hope I was not the only one offended by his remarks. Page 426.
The response she got was a resounding silence. A lady named Cooley passed out the exhibit binders and they discussed the gloves, and blood. There was only one reference to DNA tests! The two who had originally voted for conviction changed their minds. The white lady said she might have "hung in there" if she had some support but had been deeply troubled by Mark Fuhrman's testimony and his racial views. Slowly, but surely the prosecution's case was inundated by wave after wave of reasonable doubt that finally swept away the mountain of evidence. One juror even gave the "black power" sign as he walked out of the courtroom. The merits of the case were discussed by the jurors for only about two hours before reaching a decision. Toobin, Pg. 428. The sheriff's deputies hired to guard the jury leaked the jury's not-guilty verdict to their buddies guarding Simpson. O.J. is going to walk. So, it is possible that O.J. and his defense team already knew the verdict before they went back into court to hear it read. After the verdict was read, the judge ordered O.J. to be released and the court to stand in recess. When the jurors arrived back in the deliberation room they hugged and wept and clung to one another for support. Later as they sat in shell-shocked silence on the couches and easy chairs waiting to be released themselves Carrie Bess, a black juror spoke the real truth from her heart, yet not addressing anyone in particular: We've got to protect our own. Page 431, Toobin. I really liked Clark's comments about the verdict and its aftermath. She realized I'm still here. She wanted everyone to see that she had put herself through "hell" for the right thing. I had to believe that suffering was part of something bigger. Justice, like the will of God, doesn't always manifest itself on the spur of the moment. It doesn't always come when you think it should. You just gotta wait it out. Page 479.
Now, let's talk about guilt.
Listen to what Gerry Spence says about O.J.'s guilt: Although we may feel that justice was aborted in this case, we celebrate the jury's verdict because, even though it may have released a guilty man, it preserved a system that can also protect the innocent. If a jury can convict the guilty Simpson on less than evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the same jury could convict us, the innocent, on insufficient evidence as well. We celebrate the jury's verdict, not because a guilty man escaped, but because that jury has taken the brave and irreversible step in the most notorious of all cases, to preserve our rights against the tyranny of the state. Without jurors who will release those suspected of crimes when the crime has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, we would be left to the horrors of a system where we could be incarcerated, even executed, on mere probability, put away on perjured testimony, or our lives terminated on whim and speculation, on the hatred of the mob, on the implacable power of the state against us, the powerless people. It comes down to this: If the government can put any criminal away on less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it can put us away as well. The safeguard applies to every case, not just their cases. When the safeguard is lost in their cases, it is lost in ours as well. We may disagree with the jury, believing as many do that proof beyond a reasonable doubt was there. But the witnesses were tested by the experience of that jury, not by our experience. That jury heard only the evidence that was presented to it. How would we like to have a jury that was trying to take into account all of the garbage we heard on national TV from the jabberers who filled the airways? We judge the O.J. jury on our entire fund of knowledge gathered from every source, including the tabloids, gossip, rumors, and talk shows. How would we like a jury to judge us based on such 'evidence'? I say we must celebrate the verdict in the Simpson case, and honor the jurors for their wisdom and the unappreciated gift of freedom they have delivered to us.
Another book I checked out at the library is "Reasonable Doubts," by Alan M. Dershowitz, a leading Jewish intellectual, professor of Harvard Law School and America's leading appellate attorney. Dershowitz defends the tactics of the defense team, even Johnny Cochran's. He quotes hate letters from people of his own Jewish faith condemning him because he was part of Simpson's defense team. He explains how the law works and why guilty people sometimes are not convicted. He believes there was reasonable doubt because in his opinion the gloves did not fit and because enough doubts were raised about the police's sloppy handling of the evidence.
But worst of all he believes Fuhrman lied about his use of the "N" word and that other police officers also lied and possibly planted evidence. In his book he says: Every objective study of police perjury has come to the conclusion that police perjury is widespread and condoned. And the problem is rampant in most parts of the country. In upstate New York...the FBI has proved that state troopers 'faked fingerprint evidence on a routine basis' between 1984 and 1992. He says that at least three jurors, in a book and in interviews...believe that Simpson may have been involved in the killings but that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Their description of the jury's decisional process corroborates much of the thesis outline in Chapter IV of this book. Page 208. He understands why many people feel the justice system should be changed to favor the prosecution so fewer criminals go free, as many believe O.J. did. He says this would be a serious over-reaction due to the fact that although our system may have some flaws, it is still the best system in the world and he has seen many others throughout the world which favors the prosecution. The result is that, yes there are more convictions but more innocent people are in jail. We must believe that God is still on the throne overseeing the affairs of men and nations. No one really ever gets away with anything, for as one sage mused, The mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceeding fine.
Some worry about O.J. having gotten away with murder. Do not worry. There is a saying among old criminal defense attorneys who occasionally see a known murderer walk out of the courtroom free. 'You can't beat the big one,' the old lawyers say. 'You cannot.' What happens to the freed murderer? He is freed to live a life of misery and guilt. He is freed to drink himself to death. He is freed to face the banishment of his community, the rejection of his neighbors, the trust of his loved ones. He is freed to be killed by his enemies, to live a life in hell---his own hell. Pages 230, 231. And isn't this exactly what the Bible predicts will be the fate of Lucifer---now Satan? "You will die the death of the uncircumcised By the hand of strangers, for I have spoken! declares the Lord God!" Ezek. 28:10. "He will come to his end, and no one will help him." Dan. 11:45.
It is most interesting to note that the old testament prophets did not teach extinction or annihilation. Instead they taught life has three days. The first day represents your birth and life. The second is your death and the third is your resurrection and judgment. So, even Satan and his angels will be judged in the final day. Jude 6 indicates that the evil or fallen angels (including Satan) have been held in chains of darkness until the great day of judgment when God will enlighten them with the glory of His redeemed creation. If, as Revelation 21 and 22 predict, all creation will be renewed then this would also include Satan and his angels. They will be given 1,000 years to stew in their guilt and knowledge of all their failed efforts to destroy the human race. I was surprised many years ago by a statement found in a book entitled, "PEOPLE OF THE LIE," By Psychologist Dr. M. Scott Peck. On page 209 he spoke of two scenarios he had heard about in Christian eschatology regarding the final end of Satan. The first was that he would ultimately be saved and the second one was that he would reject God's offer of salvation and be lost. Of course, most Christians believe Satan's fate was settled at the cross. But early Christians did not believe that at all. They believed the first scenario Scott refers to: "In one (the first) all human souls, having been converted to light and love, reach out to the spirit of hate and falsehood in friendship. Finally realizing itself to be totally defeated, with no human body left to possess, with all immune to its (Satan's) power, out of loneliness it (he) breaks down and accepts the offer of friendship, and thereby in the end even Satan is converted. This is the scenario I pray for."
I can just hear someone say, Well, it is a nice fairy tale, but that is not what the Bible teaches. God's word says the wicked will be burned up in the lake of fire forever and ever or just never exist again. Either way they will not be saved. My response to this attitude is, "Where is the good news of the gospel in this kind of theology?" The fact of the matter is, Universal Reconciliation was a doctrine of the early church until the 4th century, when Latin became the language of theology for the church Catholic. It was at this time that the word "Aion" (eon or age) lost its true meaning and the church with its new theology about a killer God who destroys and burns His enemies forever, etc. went into the dark ages. So, history confirms the teaching of Universal Salvation in the early Christian church.
This brings us to the question, "what does the Bible actually teach?" In Phil. 2:6-11 Paul clearly teaches that "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess (avow or affirm or rejoice), to the glory of God the Father." I did not believe this concept when I first heard it but after I began investigating for myself found out, just like in the O.J. case, that I was wrong. There is truly a "Mountain of Evidence" to prove that God will rescue, redeem and reclaim every last one of His creatures.
In conclusion I want to quote from a book O.J. wrote: "I Want To Tell You." This is a very easy book to read as it is simply letters to O.J. and his comments. It has been estimated that he received about 300,000 to 350,000 letters, most of which were positive and supportive of him. This is a man who touched millions of lives all over the world but mainly in the USA, among sports fans especially.
I will quote only two letters, from the many he published in his book, he chose to publish and I believe through these two letter he is confessing vicariously.
Hi, O.J., I believe that you loved Nicole very much and that you feel you have lost perhaps your best friend. Sometimes our greatest "sin" is caring too much for someone, (being obsessed is what he means) being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and/or not implementing ways to avoid and abstain (not killing) from that which could cause the most harm. (In other words killing her) Someone today mentioned 'the victims' as though the two deceased people were the only victims. I believe that you, too, have been and will continue to be a victim. God bless you and your children. Unsigned.
In case that one was not clear enough for you let us try this one:
Mr. Simpson,
One thing I wanted to say, everyone is focusing on the alleged abuse you inflicted on your ex-wife. (It was not alleged but fully documented by police reports and 911). No one has mentioned the abuse she inflicted on you. In the tapes that were aired this past week, it stated that you were extremely violent towards her sometime last year. What I heard in the tapes, was someone who exercised incredible control when up against this situation. Based on what was said in the tapes, I commend you for striking out at something else and not at her. (please notice how this writer is justifying O.J. Watch how he continues this and gives O.J. an excuse for killing Nicole. I believe that O.J. used this letter to unconsciously make his confession without coming right out and saying it. This is obviously how O.J. feels and this man is expressing what he wants to say but cannot because so many people believe he could never kill his wife or any person. But his conscience was hurting him so much he had to relieve it in some way and this was the method he chose. He goes on now.)
I understand some of the torture you endured over the years. The difference between physical abuse and emotional abuse is one you can see with your eyes. Emotional abuse is much more difficult but even more damaging. (Here this man denies the truth that physical abuse includes both physical and mental and emotional.) I was a victim of emotional abuse by my paramour (girlfriend or lover without being legally married). We were together for thirteen years. I can understand the anger, frustration, jealousy, insecurities, low self-esteem you might have felt in dealing with your ex. (Next he excuses O.J. for murder and puts the blame on the other person who was "playing games" and "hurting" you.)
If you are guilty of this crime, it would be very sad. But I understand. There are people out there, men and women, who enjoy playing games, who enjoy hurting. No one knows how they would react to loving someone to an extent, making sacrifices, and in return suffering humiliation and degradation. (Do you see the twisted logic here? The sick writer of this letter has the same philosophy as O.J. He is telling him that he understands that sometimes you love someone so much you just have to make a sacrifice by killing that person even though it causes suffering and humiliation when you get caught and have to go on trial publicly and be exposed for your crime and be degraded in the eyes of the people. This is the price you have to pay for doing what you have to do which is a "sacrifice." O.J. quoted this letter for it explains how his mind works. Now, notice how this same writer ends his letter on a spiritual note.)
Keep the faith, guilty or not. HOLD YOUR HEAD UP. EUNICE SIMPSON (His mother) worked hard raising her baby boy and I am sure you have made her PROUD. GOD BE WITH YOU
ALWAYS.
Name withheld-
During the slow Bronco chase on the free way Simpson was talking to his mother and it is reported that instead of admitting his guilt he blamed Nicole, "It was all her fault, Ma." "OUTRAGE," page 99.
Another time that O.J. is reported to have confessed to the murders was on Nov. 13, 1994. While Simpson was in the Los Angeles County jail Rosey Grier, a former NFL football player was visiting O.J. Simpson. They had to communicate by telephone through 3/4 inch thick glass. Jeff Stuart was the deputy on duty. When Simpson talked in a normal voice the deputy could not hear what he was saying. But then O.J. began shouting. Rosey had his Bible opened in front of him and he and O.J. had been talking for about half an hour, Stuart recalls. All of a sudden, O. J. slammed the telephone down on the counter and yelled: 'I didn't mean to do it! I'm sorry!' Rosey leaned forward, looked him in the eye and yelled back: 'O.J., you gotta come clean. You gotta tell somebody!' O.J. just sat there staring at the ceiling for several moments. I don't know if he was talking to his Maker, asking for forgiveness or what. Rosey started tapping on the glass that separated them. He was trying to get O.J.'s attention, to get him to pick up the telephone. Then O.J. buried his head in his hands. O. J. looked like a man who had been totally wiped out. His shoulders were slumped over, his head hanging low. Rosey and O. J. talked a few more minutes and then it was time to go. The sergeant came to get O.J. and he shuffled silently back to his cell. Rosey passed me wearing his usual poker face and said simply: 'Have a nice evening.' It was reported that Rosey Grier never visited O.J. again after this incident. OUTRAGE, Page 78.
A clinical psychologist, Dr. Stanton Samenow, who codirected an extensive study of criminal offenders in North America and served on a presidential task force on victims of crime, told reporters for PEOPLE magazine the following:
Publicly many people who commit murder are talented, accomplished. They may call themselves religious. They can be gregarious, charming, good at drawing people into their webs. In private they often have troubled relationships. He also explained that when they cannot dominate and control their partner in the day-to-day relationship they respond with threats, intimidation and violence. They often have a split personality, a cheerful persona who can write "Peace + Love O.J." at the bottom of his so-called "suicide note", days after he killed Nicole. Some people who have committed savage crimes have very sentimental minds. They wouldn't step on a bug. But can go from tears to ice just like that...Some people who commit a murder can shut off the violent side of their personality, almost like a light switch. Do these type of personalities feel any remorse? They may feel terrible that a child is left without a parent, but more often they see themselves as the victim...Their basic regret is for themselves, that life as they knew it is over. "Murder in Brentwood," pgs. 179, 180, Mark Fuhrman.
Bugliosi commented in the introduction to his book about O.J.s actions and personality at the trial. The biggest problem by far, of course, is that a brutal murderer was set free. But the straw that broke the camel's back was Simpson's demeanor throughout the case and in the wake of the verdict. I've seen many murderers in my life, but none even approached Simpson for audacity, which he has taken to unimaginable heights. Although he had administered several terrible physical beatings to Nicole, causing her to fear for her life...in his farewell letter before his arrest he referred to himself as 'a battered husband' and at his trial he said that he was 'absolutely, one hundred percent not guilty.' Since he knew what he had done, that bothered me a lot. OUTRAGE, Page 23. He also said that O.J. showed disgust and contempt for the prosecutors whenever they did anything at all which he perceived to be even slightly improper or unfair.
After much searching tonight in the book, "PEOPLE OF THE LIE," I found a statement by author Scott Peck about his experience with evil, possession and exorcism I had read a few years ago. He speaks of Satan's power and his glaring weaknesses. Often Satan's pride overrides its intelligence, causing it to showoff and thus reveal itself and be expelled. It also cannot stand to lose! Now we know who the "god" of competition is. But the statement I was after is this one and I quote directly: Satan's intelligence is afflicted with two other blind spots I have observed. One is that by virtue of its extreme self-centeredness, it has no real understanding of the phenomenon of love. It recognizes love as a reality to be fought and even to be imitated, but utterly lacking it itself, it does not understand love in the least. Its reality appears to satan only like the reality of a bad joke. The notion of sacrifice is totally foreign to it. When human beings at an exorcism are speaking in the language of love, it does not comprehend what they are saying. And when they are behaving with love, Satan is completely ignorant of the ground rules. Page 208.
This reminds me of another enlightening statement. "That the Son of God should come to this earth as a man filled him with amazement and with apprehension. He could not fathom the mystery of this great sacrifice. His selfish soul could not understand such love for the deceived race." Desire of Ages, 115.
We should not miss something very, very important here. What is God's purpose in allowing this spirit of evil to infuse the human race itself with this same spirit of amazement, ignorance, misunderstanding and outright rejection of God's love which often leads to hatred and murder from the time of Cain and Able to O.J. Simpson? Is it possible that an educational process is actually going on? Indeed. In fact, inspiration teaches us this very fact. "Our little world is the lesson book of the universe." DA 19. Compare this with Eph. 3:10 where Paul states that God is using his people to teach Satan and his angels. "That through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places."
At Nicole's funeral it was reported that Nicole's mother, Juditha, asked O.J. if he had anything to do with Nicole's death. O.J. just kept staring at Nicole's corpse even as he answered her question with: "I loved her, I loved her too much." Toobin, page 98.
Faye Resnick says on page 25 of her first book that O.J. said the same thing to her when she asked him, "O.J., what happened?" She says that he didn't move but she saw his jaw muscles clenching and his lips moving as he said to her, Girl...you---out of all of them know that I loved her too much. There it was again. He was admitting his obsession that he blamed for the murder which he could not bring himself to confess openly and directly before the world but would only hint at it in veiled terms which was his way of confessing, without confessing and thus protecting himself. Notice again the letter above...Loving someone to an extent... Same as I loved her too much...so much that he was willing to make the sacrifice of killing her and going through the humiliation of a trial for murder. It all fits together if you are willing to fit the words together in the right context and setting and with an understanding of how O.J.'s mind works.
As a final end note and comment on this last letter as well as how the jury favored O.J. We need to realize what this tells us about how close we are to the final deception Satan will pull off on this very generation. People today are not interested in the truth or any facts that would lead to the truth. What they are interested in is justice on their terms and according to their definition of right and wrong. So, the issue in this trial was not about whether O.J. broke the law by killing his wife and an innocent man who just happened to intrude into their private war at the wrong time. No. The trial became an opportunity for the black community to send a message to the LAPD that you cannot treat the black community unjustly and get away with it. Sooner or later we will get even and make you pay for your sins. They called it justice but the honest in heart, like Chris Darden saw it for what it was...revenge. Truth and righteousness are not popular today. They are not very high on people's agenda. We need to realize this and pray that we will not become part of this end time mentality. God is calling out a people who will stand for right though the heavens fall. A people in whose mouth is no guile (dishonesty). Rev. 14:5. A people who will put their full trust in Him, knowing that He is the final judge who will right all wrongs in that great final day of judgment. May we all be ready for that day is my sincere prayer in Jesus' Name. Article begun on 4-12-98---Fin. 6-2-98. By Pastor Michael F. Clute
Sources: