Rose Bird on Simpson Verdict

Re “The Jury Did Its Job; Put Blame Where It Belongs,” by Rose Elizabeth Bird, Commentary, Oct. 6:

I was not surprised at Bird’s article. She strongly believed in her right to nullify the state law with respect to executions and now she apparently is supporting the Simpson case jury’s right to nullify the evidence and acquit a guilty man.

Some of the talk show comments go even further and have asserted that the killing of a white woman should not be such a big deal in view of the many black men who have been killed for just looking at white women. Whatever happened to the dreams of Martin Luther King Jr.? Johnnie Cochran and the jury not only trashed the Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles, but they also trashed the dreams of a colorblind society advanced by King. What does the future hold?

ERNEST E. JOHNSON

Los Angeles

*

* I believe Bird clearly and concisely covered all the post-verdict issues in a highly insightful way. You should print that impressive piece in bold type on the front page and let that be the end of the Simpson trial coverage.

CHARLES C. GABBERT

Coto de Caza

*

* Thank God our political system worked correctly to rid us of Bird. By her reasoning, Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti should have rationed prosecutorial spending on the Simpson trial, the detectives should have been prevented from searching the suspect’s home and the jury should be thanked for ignoring the evidence.

KEN ANDERSON

El Seguno

*

* The column by Bird enumerates the real issues in the Simpson trial. Everyone should pay close attention to her words.

Collective outrage at a panel of jurors who heard the real evidence instead of 60-second sound bites by a biased media with an agenda is counterproductive. Garcetti and Police Chief Willie Williams are encouraging collective denial by their refusal to re-investigate this case in an objective manner.

The bottom line is that the real issues have nothing at all to do with race. They concern the willingness of our society to manufacture external and irrelevant issues in order to conceal the cancer at the heart of our system: the continued misconduct and ineptitude of our Police Department and the acceptance of it by people who want the fast and convenient answer.

KAROLI KUNS

Woodland Hills

*

* Robert Kardashian should stop whining about the loss of his privacy and be grateful that he had attorney-client privilege to cower behind (Platform, Oct. 6). Otherwise, he would have had to explain to Marcia Clark and the people why the “innocent” Simpson felt the need to give his bag to his attorney upon returning from Chicago. And explain as well why he didn’t turn the contents over to the court along with the bag.

Rightly or wrongly, fairly or unfairly, Kardashian is a minor accomplice in the minds of many people. But for the attorney-client privilege he invoked, he might well have been a defendant as well.

BARBARA SCHRATWIESER

Studio City

*

* I dare say that 99% of those castigating the Simpson jury for taking only three hours to come to a verdict had their minds made up that he was guilty long before the testimony ended. If they could come to a decision so quickly, why are they surprised that the jury could also?

BURTON BACH

West Covina