Abuse, Race and Simpson Case

Re “Motive to Hit Is Not a Motive to Murder,” by Alan Dershowitz, Commentary, Jan. 15:

Nice try, Mr. Dershowitz. True, spousal abuse neither proves nor predicts murder but the question is: Do men who violently assault their wives murder them at greater rates than men who do not abuse their wives? Dershowitz skirts this important question.

Besides, some admissible evidence concerns itself with character. We can all agree that the man who threatens to murder his wife, then physically and violently assaults her, has an especially different character than a man who does not. That difference seems extremely relevant to the criminal charge.

JENNIFER FLOWERS

Laguna Beach

Dershowitz should look to spousal abuse that leads to estrangement, loss of control and jealous rage only for motive.

For evidence, he should look to DNA matching.

HARLEY RISTAD

Los Angeles

Re “Lawyers Bitterly Debate Race in Simpson Case,” Jan. 14:

In my opinion, the only professionalism exhibited by Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher Darden was his declination to comment following the Jan. 13 hearing in California vs. Simpson. I trust he will use his silent time to digest the lessons so generously and eloquently provided by Simpson attorney Johnnie Cochran during the court session.

The so-called “race card” was played by Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti when he assigned Darden to the prosecution team. In the courtroom, Darden made Garcetti proud.

I am an African American woman. Darden did not make me proud. In fact, Mr. Darden, shame on you!

HARRIET J. BLACKMAN

Los Angeles

I am a 41-year-old black woman and I know that racism is alive in America. However, I am tired of black people hollering racism when it does not apply, as is the case in the O.J. Simpson trial. It’s very obvious to me that the defense team has clearly tried to make this a race issue to divert attention from the real truth and the facts of the murder. This should be a trial about the evidence linking Simpson to the murders, not whether an officer ever used the “N-word.”

The “N-word” is used every day by many blacks, but when a white person uses it, it creates tremendous anger and hostility. So Darden is absolutely correct. If the jury is allowed to know that Detective Mark Furhman might have used the “N-word,” then the blacks on the jury will take it personally and possibly not focus in on the facts and the evidence of the murders.

I wish that we as black people would stop jumping on the bandwagon hollering racism every time a black person gets in trouble. We must take responsibility for our actions, learn to be objective and recognize that right is right and wrong is wrong regardless of a person’s color. We should wait until all the evidence is presented before we judge a person’s innocence or guilt. Those who say Simpson is innocent are just as wrong as those who say he is guilty. Let’s reserve our opinion until the conclusion of the trial. And if the evidence shows that Simpson is guilty, then he should be punished regardless of his race or celebrity status.

CHERYL E. COOK

Los Angeles

When the major story on the trial of Simpson is the bickering between his two prominent attorneys (Jan. 16), one begins to wonder if this is just another defense ploy setting the stage for an appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel.

TERRIE TENGELSEN

Los Angeles