The second trial of O.J. Simpson, double
jeopardy I would say, is making clear what actually transpired at
Nicole's house on the fateful night. Perhaps it will be adjudged
culturally valuable for that reason.
O.J. was compulsively
attracted to Nicole. This will probably be due to a need in him for
approval from the white community, which must be seen as a
lifelong psychological requirement induced, probably in high school
or earlier. This need was fulfilled for most of his life through
football, and once gained provided a need for constant reinforcement,
due to the feeling by him that it was only
provisional.
Nicole is harder to analyze because of the effort
emanating from victimology that she and Goldman be protected from
attack. Victimology is the ideological position that it is unfair for
women to be blamed for conflicts with men when they end up as the
targets of male violence. This may have some rationale in the sense
of a community governed by law and in which the law must
ultimately be the source of judgment. Laws are too shallow to expect
them to encompass the actual facts of a complex event such as this.
Murder, being defined as the taking of another's life, especially
against their will and certainly for personal gain, does not fully
encompass the events under consideration here. If O.J. killed Nicole
and Ron Goldman, the position to be taken here, it cannot be
considered to be murder for personal gain. Too much will be lost by
O.J. for that to be significant. He loses the endorsement of the white
community and possibly his family, particularly his children. He
probably loses his economic viability. He could have lost his freedom
and/or life. He retains only his manhood, but this will prove, in his
eyes, a worthy trade.
There is an ideological component of
great significance. This was a crime induced by feminist ideology.
There is a racial component also. Racial stereotypes are called into
play that will inevitably obscure the facts in the eyes of many.
Fuhrman probably altered the evidence in an arrogant attempt to
impose his version of reality on the courts.
Nicole, had a
need to dominate men. This need, in violation of normal femininity
which is inherently passive, must have been a part of her early
childhood, but was magnified and refined by the feminist movement,
in a state of constant debate during all of her adult life. We don't
have to resort to complexes to explain what transpired but, as in all
human lives they were operating. Nicole certainly had a powerful
father complex, which supplied the emotional source of energy
fueling her actions in pursuit of dominance over males. O.J. certainly
had a shadow complex (shadow is the term used by Jungians to
identify the mostly repressed set of inclinations embodied by a
particular human that are proscribed by the culture) emanating from
the racial conflict that he represented. (See my Theory of Complexes.) He was paid
a great deal to emulate the liberal notion of the acceptable American
black man. This is a sort of prostitution and he had to feel himself
something of a sellout to his race.
Over a period of years
Nicole and O.J. entered into a dominance conflict. O.J. required
passive submission by the women in his life as a demonstration to
him of his manhood. Nicole required the submission of the men in
her life as a demonstration of her power which she used to convince
herself of her own worthiness. Both used sex to gratify themselves
and to reinforce these fantasies regarding the attributes of their
personas (the Jungian definition of persona is the ideal self concept).
Additionally, Nicole used sex in an attempt to subjugate O.J., which
had the effect of denigrating his manhood. The survival of his
persona demanded her failure in this effort. As is the usual case in
such conflicts escalation came into play. She, due to constant failure
in her efforts used more and more blatant dramas to demonstrate
her contempt for him. Ultimately going so far as to copulate with
acquaintances when she knew him to be observing her. For his part,
when these dramas were enacted, he found he had to impose his will
on her through physical strength to retain his belief in his
manhood.
A reconstruction of the crucial night would have
gone something like this: O.J. having some time on his hands before
he had to prepare for his trip decided to go to Nicole's to clear up
some unfinished business. Perhaps he was checking to see if she was
acting inappropriately once again, by conducting a sexual drama in
the home of his children. She apparently wasn't and came out of the
house to talk to him. The discussion developed into verbal abuse, at
which time Mr. Goldman arrived, ostensibly to return Nicole's glasses,
but probably to pursue his agenda, which was to gain sexual favors
and participate in her agenda which he understood to be to demean
O.J.
Goldman's arrival signaled to O.J. that he was about to be
victimized once again and rage engulfed him. He pulled his knife and
intimidated Goldman into passivity, while Nicole enjoyed the play,
and no doubt egged him on, not actually believing that he could be
pushed beyond his commitment to middle class white values. To her
great surprise he turned on her and killed or wounded her, which
galvanized Goldman into action in a futile effort to restrain O.J. O.J.
then killed or wounded him and, seeing things had gone so far, went
on to finish them both off, cutting their throats in the hope that the
killings would be assigned to drug criminals. He then returned to
Rockingham, placing the bloody clothes into the plastic clothes
hanger. He later disposed of them at the airport.
So, what is
the fair verdict here? Justifiable homicide in self defense. O.J. could
not have survived the destruction of his manhood by Nicole.
Goldman was an accessory to Nicole's effort to deprive O.J. It is also
possible to conclude that this was a suicide in which Nicole used O.J.
to accomplish her goal. In this case we would have to conclude that
Nicole knew she was going to lose her fight with O.J. and chose this
method to gain final victory even though it cost her life. And that
she used Goldman to achieve her goal.
The final convincing
evidence is the Bruno Maldi shoeprints and the unlikelihood of
doctored photos. The blood evidence is all questionable due to the
intervention of Fuhrman. The glove was certainly a plant and
probably the socks also.
So, what can we learn from this
event? That the use of the law by feminism to achieve final
dominance for females over males is doomed to failure. Males are
physically stronger which leads to basic rights and responsibilities
that cannot be overcome by societal wishes. This is not to say that
we cannot and will not have a feminist culture. We can and will. But
feminism doesn't include female dominance over
males.