Mr. Washington; You are absolutely correct on all points raised to include your recognition of the metaphysics of “Christian ethics” which may also be referred to as “divine justice”( i.e. God’s justice )versus” human justice” ( i.e. the courts of the land ). Our courts sometime refer to our kind of justice as “a third party adversarial system” , but I believe, like Tolstoy, the believer in “divine justice”, inferred in his book titled ” Anna Karenina” that this system is overseen by a “supersedeus judge” ( i.e. God ) who gives the final judgement from which there isn’t an appeal ( i.e. the death sentence ). O.J. was not found guilty of committing the murders by a preponderance of the evidence presented in the court of man, and this conclusion was considered “justice”, but in the end, O.J., like Tolstoy’s Anna who threw herself beneath the wheels of a train, met death due to an incurable cancer.

The questions you raise about the O.J. Simpson case touch on some deeply complex issues regarding the physical and circumstantial aspects of the crime. The logistics of how one person could manage to control and fatally wound two others, especially under such frantic and high-stress conditions, are indeed perplexing and have been a point of debate and speculation.

As for the victims not being able to escape, various factors could have influenced this tragic outcome, including the element of surprise, physical constraints, or overwhelming fear.

Linking this case to Leo Tolstoy’s concept of “divine justice” from “Anna Karenina” introduces a philosophical layer to the discussion. Tolstoy often explored themes of morality and fate, and applying his ideas of divine justice to real-world events like this trial suggests a view that there might be unseen, metaphysical laws at play that influence human affairs and justice.