Defending Chris Darden 20 Years Later

Even though it’s been over 20 years now since the infamous OJ Simpson trial, the memories are still quite fresh with me. The verdict especially lingers with me, standing out as one of those “Where were you?” moments. I expressly remember being a young, high school junior witnessing the verdict on a TV cart wheeled in to the same class where we spent many months before discussing the case. I remember the images showing the various reactions of white and black viewers, and remembering how those expressions were similarly reflected in my class. I remember thinking this case represented a turning point (good or bad) for the country. But I also remember discussing how the case was won by one side and lost by the other. Almost unanimously, people agreed that one of the pivotal moments of the trial was when the blood-stained gloves used during the murders didn’t fit OJ’s hand. The trial was defined by the singular Cochran line “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”

Since it was the idea of prosecutor Chris Darden for Simpson to try on the gloves in the first place, he was naturally blamed for the outcome. But after re-examining the case from adult eyes, I have a much different take on – and appreciation of – Mr. Darden’s role in this trial. In the humble opinion of your intrepid host, none of this should have ever fallen on Darden. If anything, I think Darden was an unsung hero in this case. As he was unfairly being portrayed as a “uncle tom” or a bumbling lawyer, I think he was ultimately the main one looking for justice for two victims. While everyone else was looking to cash in on “The Trial of the Century”, I think Darden’s best intentions were pretty noble and unblemished by the magnitude of the case.

ESPN Classic used to air a show called “The Top Five Reasons You Can’t Blame…“, a series focusing on a player or organization widely blamed for a notable sports failure. But I’d like to go in a different direction and apply that to the OJ Simpson Murder Trial. So this post is written to prove to you that Chris Darden was not at fault for the outcome of the trial. Before I get to the top 5 reasons why you can’t blame Chris Darden, let’s examine a few reasons that didn’t make the cut. Here are, what TFRYCB would refer to as, “The Best of the Rest”:

The jury: Darden astutely pointed out that the jury’s deliberation would be ignited by passion. He was right. Once the trial started, objectivity was thrown out the window. One juror, for instance, stripped away any sympathy for Nicole Simpson because she believed Nicole put herself in her predicament by not leaving OJ in the first place. Another juror gave OJ a Black Panther salute as he exited the courtroom, apparently in a show of black solidarity. If you think the jury was impartial, you missed the entire trial.

OJ Simpson: Simpson exuded charisma and charm both as a football player and as a celebrity beyond his football years. Being a public figure and a well-established actor at the time, he knew how to turn it up or down to suit the situation. The courtroom camera and media coverage amplified that to a much larger audience. He knew the perfect time to flash his infectious smile or to garner our sympathy with his sad and stoic look. OJ was, dare I say, brilliant. And people ate it up.

And now, for the top five reasons you can’t blame Chris Darden for the OJ acquittal:

(5) Johnnie Cochran: Let’s face facts. Johnnie Cochran was good. Scratch that. The man was legendary. He possessed a legal mastery that was on full display before the entire world. With his spell-binding alliteration, his preacher-esque delivery, and a team of brilliant legal minds at his disposal, Cochran made this trial less about OJ and more of an indictment of an historically oppressive and disparate judicial system. Cochran could have squared off against Jesus Christ Himself and won the case.

(4) Fred Goldman: I’ll admit: this one is a little hard to critique, and I hate to include him in this list. Mr. Goldman was a grieving parent who deserved (and still deserves) our sympathy. But in his zeal to keep OJ from getting off by being a black man “victimized by the system”, he scoffed at the racial aspect of this case presented by Mr. Cochran. People noticed and despised Goldman for it. I remember his response to Cochran comparing Detective Fuhrman to Hitler was to accuse Cochran of “playing the race card.” When black people see a black person on trial for his life with white people out to get him, accusing them of playing the race card will fail, even if that person actually was playing the race card. It will fail. Every. Single. Time. In the blink of an eye, that rant turned Goldman from a sympathetic victim of violence into an agitator completely dismissive of the reality of systemic racism for millions of people.

(3) Marcia Clark: Regardless of what Chris may or may not have done correctly during the trial, the inescapable fact was that this was Clark’s case to win or lose. She determined the witnesses to call. It was her job to connect with the jurors. It was her job to predict any and all hurdles that could have came up over the course of the trial. It was her job to control the optics (I’m no legal scholar, but even I know that trials are less about right and wrong and more about delivery). It was her job to properly vet Mark Fuhrman if she planned to use him as a witness (ironically, Darden opposed putting Fuhrman on the stand. But Clark – thinking Fuhrman was the key to introducing the gloves as evidence – overruled him). Even her decision to add Darden to the case appeared to have been racially-motivated by many. I honestly think she was just showing confidence in his ability. But to the people who mattered most (in the case, the jury) it looked like a calculated racial play by Clark. She failed to forsee that or to deal with it once it came up.

Have I convinced you yet? If not, keep reading.

(2) Mark Fuhrman: Captain Obvious on this one, people. If Fuhrman is not put on the stand or associated with this case in any way, OJ is found guilty. No doubt about it. Again, I understanding the reasoning behind Clark’s decision to put Fuhrman on the stand. But anybody with even a modicum of courtroom insight knows that the minute a person is put on the stand, that person’s credibility is immediately up for dissection. The person testifying has to be virtually unimpeachable. Fuhrman wasn’t. Instead, he was a Nazi-paraphernalia collecting, unabashed racist who was recorded talking about beating up suspects (referring to them with the n-word) and planting evidence (Is it a shock that he’s now a Fox News contributor? But I digress). THIS, ladies and gentlemen, was the man central to the prosecution’s case. His coming up with the lamest of all reasons for saying those things on tape and then subsequently pleading the fifth on questions pertaining to him planting evidence pretty much closed the door on the trial. Need I remind you, this was Marcia Clark’s witness.

And the number one reason…

Rodney King: The OJ Simpson verdict was payback for the acquittals of the officers involved in the Rodney King beating. This, from the mouth of one of the jurors. The prosecution could have put on the best trial of their careers and they still would have lost. The City of Los Angeles was still reeling from Rodney King along with an assortment of other racially-charged events. In each instance, the people attacking and/or killing the black victims received little, if any, punishment. It was only a matter of time before the powder keg exploded. It just happened to explode around the same time that OJ murdered two people of the OJ trial.

There you have it. Have I changed your mind? What say you?

– ACL

Misconceptions of Equality

Right in time for Black History Month…

I have a confession to make. When people try their hand at being racially and culturally open-minded diversity, there tends to be a certain level of abject capitulation and annoyance on my end. On the one hand, I really DO appreciate any efforts folks make to be “colorblind.” But at the end – and I think many other minorities would agree – acknowledging (and celebrating) our differences is equally as important.

I suspect however, that out of fear of being labeled racist, pointing out racial and cultural differences amongst groups is a practice often avoided. When it IS done, it’s usually so absurd that it almost becomes offensive (for instance, I got a huge chuckle out of a strip from the Boondocks when Huey’s liberal teacher was trying to show his appreciation for Black History Month. During his lecture, the teacher uses a ridiculous line to the effect of “You can’t spell African without “I Can.” Egh. I had a teacher like that too. Drove me nuts). For a frame of reference, consider Exhibit A:

No two ways about it: we are all different. The pursuit of “equality” would have you believe we are the same, but we are not. Sure, we share similar qualities and – in some cases – characteristics. But that is not the same as being equal. When Thomas Jefferson first coined the “All men are created equal” line, I suspect he was pointing out the worth and quality of a person, not the physical and temporal similarities people may have (making it a little ironic that the same mentality that produced a document like the Declaration of Independence could also justify slavery and the 3/5 Compromise. But I digress.). Equality had nothing to do with physical properties, wealth, affluence, intelligence, or any number of attributes. Instead, it points out the fact that as living, breathing beings, we all have worth. That is not the same as declaring that people are the same.

To put it in simpler terms, consider the following example, since I’m a huge sports fan. In basketball a free throw is one point, any shot from inside the three point line is worth two points, and anything outside of that line is worth three points. These rules apply to any team, whether they are the league champions or the losers at the bottom of the ladder. Though the teams are very different in terms of their personnel, uniforms, athletic abilities, facilities, operating budgets, fan bases, win/lose records, etc. they are all equal under the rules and the spirit of the game.

So in order to avoid the temptation of tossing my computer out the window when I saw the clip, I had to pound the differences between equality and similarity into my head. Believe me: it was HARD! I mean, you saw how ridiculous that clip was. It was so bad, I felt compelled to find the show’s producer and smack him in the face with a shovel. Using unambiguous and bland stereotypes to make a point should be avoided at all costs. Still, at the end I also recognize that we tend to needlessly get riled up any time racial differences are pointed out…even if there was NO hint of racist intent in said demonstration. The song in the above clip was clearly trying to convey that we are all equal in God’s eyes, even when we are not the same. That can’t be too bad of a message…even if the delivery sucked something awful. Right?

What say you?

– ACL

Slavery and The Family Stone: Why Conservatives STILL Don’t Get It

Reason Why Republicans Just Don’t Get It #423

Republican presidential frontrunner Michelle Bachmann and fellow lagging candidate Rick Santorum both recently signed a highly controversial document in support of family values. The document – “The Marriage Vow – A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family” from Family Leader, a conservative group in Iowa, contained some pretty hot button topics; urging the candidates to reject same-sex marriage, pornography, and Sharia law. But the item generating the most controversy was a claim attempting to somehow link slavery to modern day family values. To wit, the document claimed that “…a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

After public outcry, vow has been revised omitting the line. But not before the intrepid host of this blog got my hands on the original version.

In their attempt the whitewash the damage already done, a spokesman from the group issued the following statement:

After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man. We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.

Source

Sure.

First, the comparisons between slavery and today are simply ludicrous with no real account of history. While it’s true that over the past few decades – especially since the Civil Rights movements – there has been a noted disintegration of the black family and abortion wasn’t exactly popularized during slavery, these people from Family Leader are clearly absent of one of the true atrocities of slavery. How many families were broken up as slaves were sold off like cattle? How much mating was forced on blacks to produce more able-bodied slaves? How many family lineages were destroyed after slave owners raped and impregnated enslaved women? If conservatives nt to focus on the voluntary disintegration of the family (if there ever was such a thing), using slavery for political points is preposterous.

It’s silliness like this that will all, but assure that Blacks as a whole will never support the Republican agenda. Even as black people generally hold many of the same morally (if not socially) conservative views as Republicans, they also recognize the consistent practice of conservatives to casually and insensitively make observations that completely ignore history. Even now when conservatives offer scathing analyses of black pathologies in the modern day, they fail to do so with proper social context. In short, they love to point out the problem areas, but never take into account the social factors in play that precipitate certain behaviors. Look no further than the recent trends of ahistoricism we’ve seen from neocons and Tea Party activists who have made deities of the Founding Fathers, while conveniently ignoring the legacy of slavery by which many of them benefitted.

Secondly, I can’t say enough about how annoying it is to watch conservatives sing the same off-key song about the sanctity of marriage and family; resting their case by rallying against wedlock and single parenthood found in the so-called “black community.” They love to spout off damning statistics which vilify blacks who have children born out of wedlock but will sit quiet when whites do the same thing. Uh, anybody ever watch MTV’s hit reality show Teen Mom? Lest my point be completely lost, can we not forget about one, Bristol Palin, who stands proof-positive that being a pregnant, unwed white girl is formula for success? Between her book, a TV show, and serious cash for being a “motivational speaker”, we have some evidence (albeit, outlying evidence) that single motherhood is not viewed in the same light for everyone. *As a side note: it’s odd to me that conservatives will decry having babies out of wedlock while ALSO trying to dictate reproduction rights.*

Third, what’s the deal with this vow nonsense anyway? Republicans (and yes, Democrats too) have a history of breaking promises, especially as it relates to marriage. So exactly what kind of legitimacy should we expect out of this? Candor dictating, I’m sick to death of hearing white conservatives acting as if they are somehow the exemplars of morality when – in reality – they are the complete antithesis. We have seen countless examples (and this is just in recent years) of “family values” conservatives involved in all sorts of kinky stuff. So it stands to reason that signing cheesy pledges will not stop anyone, including people vying for the White House, from engaging in the very same practices they claim to abhor.

Finally, backtracking on a statement doesn’t remove the sentiment behind it…at least, as the case may be, in politics. Most of us can make a claim or comment that is factually incorrect or unknowingly insensitive. And when brought to our attention, we simply say “I’m sorry. I was wrong. Please accept my apology.” But in this instance, one has to wonder if Family Leader and conservatives of that ilk truly sincerely remorseful or if they believe what they are saying and are just offering a damage-control apology. I don’t know much about Family Leader, I’ll be the first to admit. But following the history of conservative politics, I’d bet they have little for which they are truly apologetic. I’m pretty confident statements like this and sentiments like theirs will continually find there way into headlines…immediately following some tepid apology. Let’s face it: that’s just how they roll.

Like anything, though, I suppose there is a silver lining here. At least in the preamble, they pointed out how “disastrous” slavery was. Baby steps, right?

– ACL

Permanent Records

When we discuss the damaging permanency of the errors and mistakes online, its usually within the context of young people and their lack of discretion on social networking sites. But – in recent events – its pretty clear this lesson could and probably should also apply to adults as well, especially with high-profiled political figures.

For the sake of argument, consider the following examples of what not to do in the age of 24/7 information. Of course, these scenarios are strictly hypothetical:

Scenario 1: Imagine you decided to tour the country as a publicity stunt an opportunity to explore the nation’s rich historical sites. A reporter comes up to you and asks something like…oh, I don’t know…”What have you learned from your trip?”. In your response, you provide a mangled and improperly framed reference to an important story from American history (For fun, let’s say Paul Revere’s famous ride).  It’s probably not the best idea to go on national TV shortly afterwards refusing to see the error of your ways. Even if some historians think you may have serendipitously stumbled on to something, you should probably stop pretending that you possess some highly sophisticated and more deeply learned account of history that most Americans – with the exception, perhaps, of scholars – don’t have. Instead, it would probably be cleaner if you simply declare “I made a mistake. I was caught off guard, did a little flubbing and might’ve been off on a couple of key points. Oh, and I certainly don’t endorse my supporters trying to edit a Wikipedia entry as an effort to validate my incorrect view of things.”

Problem solved.

While it’s true some people would still attack you for nobly admitting your mistake, wouldn’t you feel a little better by telling the truth?

Scenario 2: You find yourself on Twitter flirting with young people connecting with your constituents. Though married and apparently expecting a child, pictures of your private parts are sent to one of your followers. Once the story breaks, you immediately go into damage control, launching a furious campaign to prove your innocence. You claim your account is hacked. You hire a lawyer to investigate said hacking. You make an appearance on national TV. But after all sorts of evidence surfaces proving the contrary, you change your story. You admit the genitalia in the photos does, in fact, belong to you.

The story was embarassing enough. But couldn’t additional embarassment from being caught in a bold face lie have been avoided in the first place? Wouldn’t it have been a little more admirable to admit: “Yes, I flirted online and things got a little out of control. Though I’m not the first person to ever commit and offense of this nature, I recognize the wrongness of it all. I apologize to my wife and to my constituents.”?

Again, problem solved.

Of course there are plenty more examples I could use. I mean, focusing on the gaffes/lies from people like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Joe Biden – for instance – would give me enough to write a book. So this post isn’t solely about Palin and Weiner.

That notwithstanding, need I remind you, people: we are dealing with a new day in age here. We find ourselves in a time where our words and actions are not so easily deleted once released to the world. Any attempts we make to sanitize the truth will usually get defeated by the truth itself. That’s why I think it’s important – and indeed, healthy – to simply own up to you mistakes. Doing so will initially sting of embarassment, but it will eventually nullify the ability of others to publicly shame you; especially if you acknowledge your wrongness in a spirit of humility. But defending a lie until the very end can (and usually does) carry with it long-term disadvantages.

At the very least, avoid posting pictures of your penis on the Internet and don’t ramble on cluelessly about American history. From there, it should be smooth sailing.

– ACL

Inside the Sistine Chapel

Nothing too socially or politically charged at the moment. I just wanted to share this cool site with you. It’s a 360 degree panoramic view of the Sistine Chapel. Check it out and be amazed.

H/T to my big sister Kim for the link.

– ACL