The Trial of the Century?

O. J. Simpson and journalistic exaggeration

On 3 October 1995 Orenthal James Simpson (9 July 1947 - 10 April 2024) was acquitted of the double homicide of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. It has been a year since O. J. died. The day after his death, Jesse Watters of Fox News referred to the Simpson proceeding as many have done, as the trial of the century. So to refer to it ought to offend anyone with a modicum of historical sense and a concern for the English language. It is on a par with Tom Brokaw's silly reference to the World War II generation of Americans as the "greatest generation." Really Tom? Were they greater than the Founders? Only someone in the grip of presentism could offer such a foolish judgment.

Here is an example of what I am opposing:

We always hear phrases like "Fight of the Century" and "Trial of the Century" . . . well, this really was the Trial of the Century. A Pro Football Hall of Fame running back might or might not have killed his wife and one of her male friends. All evidence pointed to him. No other suspects. No alibi. A disturbing history of domestic abuse. A motive. Blood splattered everywhere, including back at the suspect's house.

Nonsense! This is irresponsible journalism of Brokavian proportions. If the Simpson double homicide trial was the Trial of the Century, what then were the following?

• Sacco-Vanzetti (1921)

• Leopold-Loeb (1924)

• Scopes "Monkey" Trial (1925)

• Nuremberg Trials (1945-49)

• Alger Hiss (1949-50)

• Ethel and Julius Rosenberg (1951)

• Adolf Eichmann (1961)

• Clinton Impeachment (1999)

Most of the above were far more significant than the Simpson trial. Who was Simpson? A guy who was uncommonly good at chasing a piece of pigskin around a field who one night gave vent to his murderous rage in a brutal double homicide. Yes, he was found not guilty. That finding settles the matter in the eyes of the law. But to be found not guilty is not the same as to be not guilty. Few believe him to be innocent.

One thing significant about that trial was that it exposed the tribalism among so many blacks, their incapacity to abstract from their grievances and racial identity and evaluate evidence rationally and objectively. This tribalism was again on clear display in the Trayvon Martin case. Except for a few black conservatives, black commentators on the case displayed a depressing level of delusional thinking. Yes, you are delusional if you think there is a meaningful comparison between the Emmett Till case (1955) and the Martin-Zimmerman altercation. Either that or you are mendacious.

Related: