Testifying against your comrades

By Ken Carroll

Editorial

Let me begin this by stating for the record, I believe O.J. Simpson is guilty of killing his ex-wife and her friend. I believe he beat the system and was given a gift by jurors that could never have been convinced he was guilty, even if they had been eye witnesses to the event.

However, in this hearing that he is involved with in Las Vegas, concerning the recovery of sports memorabilia, there are two things that I really object to. First, his guilt or innocence, in the murder case of his ex-wife should have nothing to do with the case in Las Vegas. Last night I heard Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reilly both say they thought OJ was getting his fair share of karma and deserved to go to jail for a long time. That is not what our justice system is about.

What if it was reversed and OJ had been convicted of using a gun to retrieve his own merchandise and sent to prison. Should he then be entitled to a “not guilty” verdict in the murder of his ex-wife? People, the past is the past, and it doesn’t matter if it is something you didn’t agree with . . . it is the past! Let it go and move on.

Now, the second thing about this new case is one of those things that I have been opposed with for years. And that is when a group of people commit a crime and they get caught, it is a race to testify against their comrades in exchange for amnesty, or at least a more lenient sentence.

As an example, four people plot together to holdup a liquor store. It goes bad, and some innocent person gets shot, and all of the criminals get caught. OK – the guy that actually did the shooting is the most guilty, in my eyes. However, the law doesn’t see it that way. Even the unarmed guy sitting in the car (the get-away-driver) is as guilty as the cold-blooded person that shot the clerk to death. They all are looking at murder in the commission of a crime offense.

In this case, I wouldn’t have a problem giving the driver a lighter sentence if he testified against the shooter. But let’s say, all of the perpetrators shot the clerk, and the driver was a standup guy and wouldn’t testify against his brothers in crime. However, two of the shooters are not as loyal, and they make a deal with the prosecutor to testify against the driver and one of the other shooters. Why should they get a lighter sentence, just because they ratted on their friends?

Well, OJ went to recover some of his stuff, and took along some friends. Now these friends are all agreeing to make a deal to prosecute OJ. People – the other guys are the ones that may or may not have had the alleged guns. Why should they be able to walk, and they testify against the man they were sucking up to because of his celebrity status? That’s all BULL. 
    They should receive the same sentence that OJ might get. Karma should not have anything to do with it, nor should these low-lifes that are ratting on their alleged friend. Judge OJ on the merits of this case, not what people think he should have got in his 1995 criminal trial for the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. The past is the past.