Civil Jury Verdicts Against Simpson

Re “Simpson Liable in Slayings,” Feb. 5:

Now that the two O.J. Simpson trials that split our society are over, what messages has our judicial process left for us? What is the American public to think? Why is it that a man judged “not guilty” on murder charges is now liable for paying at least $8.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages? And, why is it that this man who was judged to be liable for the wrongful deaths of two individuals is allowed to be free?

If Simpson was responsible for these egregious killings, then he should be in jail. On the other hand, if Simpson was not responsible, then he should not have to bear the cost of compensatory and punitive damages.

The burden of proof aside, it gives me no comfort knowing that Simpson is free or that he has been punished.

KEVIN M. CHUN

Norwalk

* It is nauseating to recognize the priority chosen by our local television news networks in highlighting the Simpson civil verdict above the right of every U.S. citizen to hear his or her president’s State of the Union address. Instead of being beckoned into the future with information disclosed by our elected representative, we took a journey back in time to Salem.

Whether or not Simpson did it, the media took each viewer unwillingly into the personal space of another human being vis-a-vis a helicopter and a camera. Escape was difficult, the story predominated the channels. Who cares if Simpson stopped at a deli, and was it really necessary to have three news commentators tell us the exact location? Not only is our intelligence demeaned, but our very character insulted. It was an intrusive and repugnant experience.

All stories have a place and time. Tuesday night was the time for the State of the Union; a supermarket tabloid is the place for the Simpson hullabaloo.

MALKA TASOFF

JOSHUA TASOFF

Tarzana

* And as the verdicts were read and the onetime black hero was felled, across the country throngs of white people cheered and high-fived, saying this was justice, not race. At the courthouse, the victors laughed and yelled “yes” and waved to the crowds, saying this was about their grief, not the money.

And at the networks, the decision was made to put aside the president’s speech for this scene, saying the courthouse celebration was the more newsworthy event.

Truly, this is the State of the Union.

DOUGLAS GREEN

Los Angeles

* Simpson is not your average American, but neither is Rodney King.

Will there ever be a day in America when the color (and wealth) of the defendant and the color of the jury are inconsequential? Will there ever be a day in America when “justice” no longer means “just us”?

LYNN F. KESSLER

Sherman Oaks

* For those that still choose to believe O.J. is innocent, wake up! It’s not black and white. It never has been. The true color of the case is the overwhelming evidence against him, which absolutely 100% points to a double murderer.

That’s not the messenger. It’s the message!

LAWRENCE MONACO

Los Angeles

* A white jury gave whites the verdict they wanted, after a black jury had done the same. O.J., now guaranteed to be a pariah and maybe a pauper, may have been better off with a guilty verdict.

And can we all get along? I doubt it.

S.Z. NEWMAN

Los Angeles

* The civil trial should have been held first, then the criminal trial.

HAL HIEB

Arroyo Grande

* Let me see if I’ve got this straight: Simpson has to pay $8.5 million in compensatory damages plus an additional sum as punitive damages--all as punishment for committing a crime that his criminal trial concluded he did not commit.

How do I use this to explain our judicial system, and especially the constitutional prohibition on double jeopardy, to my grandchildren?

IVAR TOMBACH

Camarillo

* It is pretty sad indeed when our supposed role models lack the meaning of the word “respect.”

When a judge, a supposed role model, insists that the Simpson verdict will be read at the time of the president’s State of the Union address, he is totally ignoring what is important to the people of our country. The fact that “fate” intervened and it was delayed in being announced in no way excuses the judge’s decision.

When the 10 p.m. news, a program we had previously also respected, spends the first 25 minutes on the Simpson verdict, and at 10:26 mentions that the president delivered a State of the Union address, I find this too lacks the meaning of “respect.”

We should get our priorities in order.

HARRIET LEWIS

Los Angeles

* Tuesday evening Los Angeles television set a new standard. After years of the soap-opera-viewing public being disgruntled when their shows were displaced by a major news event, we now have the State of the Union message displaced by a long-running soap opera.

DIANE KENNEY

Los Angeles

* I am a fifth-grader who wanted to watch the president of the United States give the State of the Union address. I was cut off of the most important speech that President Clinton was giving to the people of the U.S. I feel that it was unnecessary to stop this speech.

I’m proud to be an American in this great country and I have respect for our president.

JENNIFER McKENNA

Studio City

* Simpson can’t be retried for the murders of Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson, but in his civil trial he committed perjury more than enough times to lock him away for the rest of his life. And now that he won’t have the millions to hire another “Dream Team,” even Gil Garcetti shouldn’t have too difficult a time getting a conviction.

Is anyone in the D.A.’s office listening?

RICHARD BAER

Los Angeles

* Fred Goldman and Bill Cosby both lost their sons through senseless violence. One took the death of his son with furious outrage and we all shared his rage. The other took the death of his son with dignity and saint-like calm out of respect for his son, “his hero.” Who of us in a similar circumstance would request that tax and sleazy tabloid money not be used to fund a reward for his son’s killer?

Both of these men can never be compensated for the loss of their sons. One of these men received a moral victory on Feb. 4. Let us all hope that the other receives at least the same. He more than deserves it.

FRED R. LANG

Irvine

* Isn’t it ironic that it was the shoes that tripped up the runner?

LELAND P. HAMMERSCHMITT

Ojai

* The two jurors from the Simpson criminal trial who wrote letters to the jurors in the Simpson civil trial should be arrested (Jan. 31). Their lawyer claims they didn’t realize they were doing anything wrong. Baloney! They served on a jury. They know jurors are not supposed to discuss the case with anyone else, not even their spouses. This was a flagrant disregard for the law. I might even go so far as to say that it is grounds to declare a mistrial in the Simpson criminal trial.

This also raises the issue that jurors’ addresses should not be available to anyone except the judge.

LORRAINE KNOPF