It is a case that has us baffled. Because of the endless whirling, disillusioning elements, it has probably been discussed more than any real-life murder case in history, with the exception of the assassination of JFK. We talk about it, we debate, we argue. And in the end of all our talk, most of us end up saying, "I just don't know."

I'm talking about California vs. O.J. Simpson, the case that has created images of spattered blood on socks, gloves, caps and on the white Bronco that hypnotized us as its wheels spun down a major California highway.

It's got all the evidence to perplex us. Clue's lead pipe in the hands of a promiscuous Miss Scarlet is like the mysterious manila envelope for the part-star, part enraged abuser. Hairs in caps and DNA tests match up against a witness who says four men in knit caps fled the scene. It is truly a spinning wheel of ever-changing events, more difficult to follow than the puck in a hockey game.

But we cannot forget, as we discuss the latest developments as casually as the weather forecast that this puzzle is more than a board game, and is based on a bloody, cruel act of real-life stabbings. Above all else, we desire that justice be done. The question is, will it?

Since I was a child I have wanted to become a lawyer . I would watch episodes of "Hill Street Blues" and "Equal Justice," imagining myself in front of a jury in my sharp suit and high heels, effectively arguing the cause of my wrongly accused client. My plan was to study, to work, to strive for the cause of justice.

But never in my dreams did I think that in the end of a trial, perhaps justice would not win out. As far as I believed, the truth was always realized because it was based on acutely studied, unchanging, strict laws. Though many shades of gray were painted within discussion, the final decision was based on undebatable laws written in clear black and white.

However, as a student of media law, I am beginning to question just how cut and dry the law is. I am understanding why a case like O.J.'s can prove so confusing.

The law is becoming less clear and sure and more complicated and contradictory.

"People have the misconception that the law is fixed," our professor tells us, "When really it is the most pliable thing in the world. It absolutely has to be in order to work for so many different cases."

Laws are not only created in the legislature, but in cases decided by the Supreme Court. With each new case, a new law can be created. When a decision is made, it is based on precedent, but precedent is opinion in itself -- the interpretation of former Supreme Court justices. x There is vagueness in the wording of laws well. O.J.'s lawyers have to establish a "reasonable doubt," but what exactly is that? Would it not be different for every person? Think of how different a decision could be if just one juror were replaced with someone of a different background and different sensitivities, or who may just be 'having a different kind of a day.

Thinking of the reliance a defendant has on who plays judge, jury or lawyer makes me have a "reasonable doubt" about my childhood ideas of our law system's security.

Did you ever watch "The People's Court" when a woman comes to the judge complaining that her next-door neighbor broke down her screen door and stomped on her dog's foot? She pulls out pictures of the dented door and a vet bill for the cast on her beagle's foreleg.

The defendant says that the woman's door has been dented since her 10-year-old son rode his bicycle into it two months earlier, and the dog has a balancing disorder which probably caused it to fall down the stairs. He produces a photograph of the lop-sided dog.

Judge Wapner is given two separate accounts, evidence on both sides, and as he leaves we say, "I think the woman's lying."

When he emerges from his sacred chambers, he sits high on the bench, and gives reasoning followed by a decision. What he says is truth, a test of whether we got it right. But did he do much more than go back into a room, look over the evidence that we have also seen, and say, "I think he's lying?"

Basically, he is a man with an opinion just like ours, though his opinion is more educated.

Picture this. You're 10 years old and your dad says you can't walk to the 7-Eleven with friends like you asked. You whine, "But why?" Your dad replies with that infamous response, "Because I said so."

When it is all said and done, our court system is founded on similar reasoning. Laws are created and people's lives are directly altered because a judge says so.

In the O.J. case, lawyers play upon the pliability of the law; they depend upon it. But don't expect it to be over too soon, because new views will be added with each day that the gavel's bang echoes through the courtroom.

Let's just hope that after all those ideas are flushed out, one remaining truth will be revealed, and that the idealism of a child proves more worthy than the the criticisms of a columnist.