First of all, I really hope this doesn't offend anyone. I am seeking a serious and reasoned discussion on this matter. Also, I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, advocating one bit that OJ was justified in murdering Nicole.

I ask several SERIOUS questions regarding why OJ might have killed her, the media coverage, the trial, and the trial's outcome. I'm not indicating at all that I know the answers to my questions. What I find most interesting is that my questions weren't explored then by the media or the officials involved. I welcome any discussion.

What is also important here is that I see this whole episode much differently now than I did back then. I have a brother who went through a divorce and has been utterly destroyed. I certainly contemplate my own destruction should my own utterly failed relationship turn into divorce. Also, I've grown to more fully appreciate how one's ancestral and living experiences form a person's world-view and that may be quite different than my own.

As background, at the time of the murder and during the trial the vast majority of my colleagues were African-American - I am white. When the verdict of the trial was read my workplace went up in a storm of celebration of like I never witnessed before or since. I'll never forget it. WHY DID THEY REACT THIS WAY? I really loved the people I worked with but on this we were clearly on completely separate planets. This experience left me wanting for answers and I think recently I've been able to start putting together the pieces.

At the same time I knew nothing about marriage, divorce, alimony, child custody, etc. I had no idea OJ was paying his ex $24,000 per month in support. I had no idea how I might feel if I was separated from my kids - I didn't have any kids at the time. I watched a lot of the coverage, and, maybe I missed it, but I don't recall the idea that a man could be pushed to the brink due to absurd support payments and being marginalized in his children's lives as being a possible motive for the killing. All we heard about was "jealous" rage and that was the prosecution's argument.

Isn't it possible that OJ killed her because of the support payments and his "non-custodial" status? Did OJ feel "enslaved" to his ex? Is there any evidence at all that he was jealous of Nicole's lovers? More importantly, why are ridiculous support arrangements and father/child separation NEVER discussed in the media as a reason for domestic violence cases like this? We often hear that men like OJ are "jealous" and "controlling", etc. - they merely have character flaws. I'm sure OJ's love life was just fine back then. Why did the prosecution rely on the jealous rage motive? The guy lost a ton of time with his kids and was paying $24,000 per month in support - ouch.

As for race... Did my co-worker's ancestral history allow them to see this case from a totally different point of view? Did they appreciate and understand more about this case than what was being discussed in the media? Did they see OJ as a slave to his white ex? Did Darden ask OJ to try on the glove knowing it wouldn't fit? Did at least some of the jurors "nullify" the evidence as some of my coworkers might have?

As for us as men... Are we just supposed to "man-up" and pay "support" at whatever insane level a judge might order without complaining? Are we just supposed to be willing to "sacrifice" when a judge awards most of our assets to our exes and her lawyers? Should we just "be a man" and forget about the time lost with our children when a separation occurs? Why aren't more men warning their sons about the perils of marriage? This has been going on for a long time - why no action? Are we still human - even in many men's eyes? Have we been dehumanized to the point where a man's life destroyed in divorce is a joke in a bad sitcom? (OK I know the answer to this is yes thanks to a recent post in MensRights).

As for women's groups... They've worked tirelessly in the last century enslaving men to women through a variety of "support" mechanisms, up to and including "imputed income" which is surely a state-sponsored form of bondage, servitude, or slavery. And to separate children from their fathers through custodial parenting. All of which we know leads to some men "snapping" under the stress. Why do women's groups hide from this possibility and invent "jealous rages" where there are none? And for that matter why does the media do the same thing? And even prosecutors who are supposedly trying to win a murder conviction? Why not just be honest and say some men snap due to the weight of our "family" court system?

Thanks in advance for any reasoned comments!