Dear Editor:
The recent conviction of O.J. Simpson represents one of the most intriguing instances of legal and psychological puzzlements in history.
On the surface, it would appear that Simpson was justifiably sentenced to prison on the basis of his act of forcefully taking memorabilia in a criminal manner, and most observers would conclude that he deserved to be punished.
However, when most people voice their opinions of the case, they state that justice was finally served for he had, in the vast majority of most, escaped a murder sentence years ago because of the clever tactics of his legal team. For the past years, the feelings of virtually the entire nation were that he had escaped punishment for the deaths of two people so that it was almost impossible for most citizens to view this latest act with an open mind.
A judge and a jury believe that they viewed this case in an objective and open manner, and no one has a right to question their sincerity. It is reasonable to assume that these men and women made every effort to act on the basis of the evidence presented to them but who, among us, has the ability to exercise control over the subconscious, that area of preconceived feelings and is able to be free of that lower level of awareness.
Consequently, to collect 12 persons who were unaware of the previous Simpson case would have been remotely possible but very unlikely, and as a result, the latest trial of Simpson could develop into a psychological enigma never to be solved.
Howard Lawson