Isabella15
-
Posts
46 -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Isabella15
-
-
...
The prosecution claims that Simpson got rid of the knife and clothes at the airport, which is plausible enough. But getting gathering up all the tarp material out of the Bronco, then getting rid of it would have probably involved a fair amount of time, blood transfer, and probably been quite noisy and noticeable. He would have had to have done that before he leaped over the wall, so then where would have put it? If he was carrying balled up tarp, that would have been pretty noticeable.
I think OJ had help cleaning up the Bronco, and getting rid of evidence connecting him to the murders. He had time to call someone and tell them he needed help, and that the Bronco was parked outside the gate. He was a fastidious guy, so he may have had seat covers on the car that were removed if they got blood on them. He could have had something over his clothes, or a change of clothes in his car.
Who did he call? Because Al Cowlings took the Fifth in the civil trial for certain key periods of time, a lot of people think he was the one who helped OJ clean up. But there was definitely time to get help with car and house cleanup, between the time that the murders happened, and the time that the cops showed up at Rockingham.
That part of the story would be difficult to confirm, unless somebody confessed or was seen. If Al Cowlings had been prosecuted for helping OJ run for the border, and for the Bronco chase, maybe something would have come out. But he wasn't.
We also don't know who helped OJ make the arrangements for the boat waiting to take him to the Bahamas, or wherever he was planning to go. Because the LAPD gave OJ preferential treatment, and allowed him to turn himself in, they gave him time to make plans for his getaway. The talk of suicide came after he knew he wasn't going to make it to Mexico.
Still, the finale episode wrapped up the criminal trial very well, I thought. This was an ambitious project and they got a lot of things right, especially ending with the pictures of Ron and Nicole.
-
1
-
-
Throwing something into the mix here: new to me but this is a show called 'Crime Time' hosted by Alison Weiner. Guest is Jim Clemente, writer/producer on 'Criminal Minds' tv show, and retired FBI profiler.
Topic is: 'People vs OJ Simpson: Legal Mistakes and Planted Evidence.' (Posted March 17, 2016)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tred-I6XLK0
Edited to add: Good discussion of many things we've talked about here, but a few new ones: Clemente talked about colleague who worked on the 'Frogman' show and taught Simpson and the other actors, how to do the silent kill from behind. He says OJ asked how you could not get injured in a fight like that, and the instructor said, If you wear a heavy wetsuit, you won't get bruised and bloodied.
There may be a follow up show with Clemente and Carl Douglas which would be interesting. Especially for people like me who will be going into withdrawal after this show is over.
-
1
-
-
Just a quick comment: I've read Toobin's book a couple of times, but sadly donated it on my last big move, so I don't have it now to refresh my memory. But if I recall correctly, the police who interacted with OJ leading up to this incident, as well as their initial demeanor until taking him into custody, had pretty much acted like gushing fanboys; to them, he was a sports idol, a tv/movie celebrity, and I think that was the dominant filter through which they viewed him. I don't see much motive to frame him (OJ specifically) on their part.
I think this is accurate. In fact, it's corroborated by Simpson himself. http://simpson.walraven.org/oj_depo1.html
BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q: As of June 17, Mr. Simpson, did you have any information that caused you to believe that you were being framed or set up by the LAPD?
A (Simpson) : No.
About the domestic violence calls, LAPD was called 9 times to Simpson's house for beating Nicole. OJ said he was told that Fuhrman was one of the cops who had responded to a call and OJ confirmed that he was not arrested by Fuhrman at that time. The only arrest was in 1989 by Detective John Edwards. In this 1995 article in the LA Times, OJ's friendly relationship with LAPD is described in some detail. http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-02/news/mn-27324_1_nicole-simpson
Even when Edwards arrested OJ in '89, the cop allowed Simpson to go back into the house to get dressed. At which point, OJ jumped into his car and fled the scene. He was later arrested.
That said, it's understandable that the public would have trouble believing that a likable celebrity had committed such a violent, bloody crime. But a lot of Simpson's close friends and associates didn't have a problem believing OJ was guilty. Here's just one example of many: Fred Levinson is the director who did the Hertz airport commercials that made OJ a standout celebrity pitchman:
At 0:29 Levinson says, "I knew he did it, there's no question." (He also says that he told OJ to leave his girlfriends alone, but OJ hit on all of them. And Levinson said OJ used him as a beard when they went to basketball games-- he told Nicole the girls were there with Levinson.)
In my opinion, It's just not credible that OJ was suitable for framing. He knew big Hollywood players, he had ties to the NFL, he had corporate sponsors, he had friends at LAPD. He had lawyers, connections, and money. It's not surprising that Nicole said he would get away with killing her.
-
9
-
-
I think the truth of RK lies somewhere in the middle. I remember watching him during the trial, he was on camera a lot, because of where he sat. Now, this is only my impression, but I watched a man who seemed, too many times, to be thinking "how in hell did I get here?" and "OMG the jury looks like it's buying this shit." and certainly bemused and uncomfortable, deer caught in the headlights. I dunno, almost like when I saw RK, I thought he felt as I did about the evidence presented, and the way things were handled. It was a "which of these things is not like the others?" feeling, and not just his shock at the verdict.
Only two more episodes and I realize how much I'm going to miss the great posts and commentary from all of you expert analysts! I saw that there's an ESPN series on OJ coming up (this summer I think) that uses actual footage to tell his life story. I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of the people posting here, about that one too. This trial was important for a lot of reasons-- and it at least brought to light good discussions.
Wish Dominick was here to chat with you, Umbelina! That would be pretty great.
-
2
-
-
As to the question of why no one else's blood was found, why is it required of an attacker that they bleed? I've never understood that reasoning.
As for the question of how the blood got in the Bronco, the miraculous investigator who saw the drop of blood on the door despite it being very dark, and that blood goes black in the dark, may have taken blood from the scene and wiped the seat. And then, after collecting blood from the defendant, added it to the sample.
My bigger question is why wasn't there more blood? Winston Wolf must have been Simpson's clean up guy. Given the bloodiness of the crime scene, there should have been blood everywhere, especially given the short time Simpson was dealing with.
These are interesting questions I think. I know many people here can answer but since I'm not a lawyer, I wondered if I can respond, maybe like a juror might do if deliberating. So, Q: why is it significant that no one else's blood was found? Is it required that an attacker bleed?
A: It turns out that this particular attacker, the one who killed Ron and Nicole, did bleed. Next to large bloody shoeprints there were blood drops on the left side. And the drops continued along with the prints away from the scene. It wasn't the victims who were walking away while bleeding, was it? Had to be the killer. One set of shoeprints only at the scene. One killer unless the accomplice was levitating.
Q: Blood on the outside and inside of the Bronco? Could somebody take it from the scene and wipe the seat? And later add OJ's blood after it was collected?
A: The Bronco was found on the scene when the cops showed up. At that time, nobody knew where OJ was. If somebody had taken blood from the scene, with the bright idea, 'Hey let's go to OJ's house and wipe this blood everywhere!', it was pretty stupid. OJ could have been at dinner with friends. Or in Alaska. Or on a movie set. And they couldn't mix OJ's blood in with it because they didn't have OJ's blood. They didn't get it till he returned the next day.
Q: Why wasn't there more blood ? (on the Bronco, at OJ's house)
A: Why was there ANY blood on the Bronco? Why was Ron's blood there, or anywhere connected with OJ? (lots of other people have said this already, I'm just repeating it because it's a good point. )
If you stand behind someone and stab them, the blood goes away from the victim, who is shielding your body from spatter. The victims bled out, downwards onto the ground. That blood cannot fly up on its own and jump on the killer.
The clothes, gloves and shoes probably did have some blood on them. When Jill Shively saw OJ driving away from the scene, she didn't say what he was wearing, if she noticed that. He may have removed some of the clothes he was wearing, so as not to get blood on his car seats.
Anyway, I hope some of the expert commenters will address these things. It wouldn't be unusual for a jury to ask and wonder about this stuff. Actually I think David Schwimmer/Bob Kardashian addressed a lot of similar questions during the episode. With a horrified look on his face as he realized the answer.
-
8
-
-
One thing I really liked about this episode was the "two-jury" story structure: the saga of the official, impaneled jury, and then the story of the card-playing buddies who visited OJ in jail--the defacto jury of his peers . At least that's how I saw it. By the end, Kardashian is voicing the doubts of the rest of the absent friends- how do you explain the blood? But OJ doesn't really have an answer for that.
And the nuance of having Kardashian, a member of the defense team, ask that question is also very nice, i.e. RK and the defense team knows the evidence wasn't planted, the DNA is really OJ's, and there's no evidence that anybody else was at the crime scene. Because you can add blood to a scene, but it's pretty tough to make it disappear. Especially from a messy, bloody scene like that. And nobody else's blood showed up there. Nobody else's hair or shoeprints either.
When Barbara Walters asked Kardashian (in the second interview) if he thought the LAPD had framed OJ and planted evidence, he answered, (paraphrasing) 'I have doubts, the blood evidence has given me doubts about whether OJ did it. Some of the LAPD may have planted stuff, but not all of them.' And Kardashian eventually broke off contact with OJ. Never spoke to him again, even when RK was on his deathbed.
The impaneled jury, of course, voted not guilty, but everybody in OJ's world, those he viewed as his peers, thought he did it. They wanted nothing to do with him. OJ may not have been locked up, but he was certainly locked out.
-
14
-
-
A lot of this testimony is on the April 26 deposition. http://simpson.walraven.org/ac_depo3.html
He asserts privilege though about any conversions with his lawyers, and anything that could be used against him in the aiding and abetting (etc) charges. I'm trying to remember if they ever directly asked him if he had seen or disposed of the knife. A word search for "knife" in his testimony doesn't bring it up unless I missed it.
This one is from May 15th. http://simpson.walraven.org/ac_depo4.html
Umbelina--wow, thank you!!! For all of the great sources and analysis. Curiouser and curiouser, isn't it. But it sounds like they're sure he had help getting rid of the shoes, clothes and maybe the knife that night. It makes sense for Simpson to ask somebody to dispose of at least some of the evidence for him that night--someone he trusted absolutely not to talk. AC sure fits that role.
As you've said before, he probably tossed the knife into the trash himself at LAX, after wiping it clean of course. The shoes and clothes would be bulky and noticeable being thrown away, but the knife wouldn't. Thanks again for all of this!
-
Interesting to note that in the civil trial AC offered to testify about anything and everything, including that, but only if, on the advice of his lawyers, the state of California would grant him immunity from the possible charges he faced, all the stuff Darden assembled on the show, for his aiding and abetting by driving the Bronco.
Yes, Verrrrrry interesting! It was pretty shocking to see AC break down crying at the picture of Nicole during the deposition. Emotional reaction would be expected, yes, but he had to stop and take a break at that point, he was so upset.
I don't know much else about his testimony--and I really should go look it up at those links you provided a while back. But it sounds like they didn't ask him if he disposed of the knife or murder weapons for OJ?
-
Do many people think he really brought a knife on a plane? The idea is outrageous. But the 90s were before people became paranoid about explosives in airport garbage cans. Literally it was just a janitorial staff coming along collecting trash, perhaps plucking the occasional treasure out for themselves, but most of it just going to the local municipal dump. Of course this assumes that OJs sycophants didn't simply dispose of the knife for him, or that it didn't simply get tossed out his Bronco and sat by the side of the road unfound.
There was a lot of speculation about why Al Cowlings took the Fifth regarding his own activities right after the time of the murders-- a lot of people figured that OJ had called AC after the murders and told him to go to his house and retrieve & dispose of the knife, and possibly other evidence. Regarding events of the day, AC and Kato probably didn't tell everything they knew when they testified, to say the least.
-
Well, the show address Cochran's domestic violence with his first wife, but so far, not his infidelity with his mistress, who also had a child by him, and much later sued for palimony and they settled out of court. I wonder if they will touch on that as well? Probably not.
http://mistressmanifesto.blogspot.com/2015/10/patricia-sikora-mistress-of-trial.html
Much more at link of course, *from the book his first wife Barbara wrote, strangely the two women, his first wife and his long term mistress later became friends.
Well, that site had information that you don't see everyday. Johnnie and OJ had some things in common, it seems. The site describes the book as 'devastating, depressing, and myth-shattering'. Can't disagree with that. I vaguely remember hearing there was another woman, but didn't know this level of detail about Johnnie. Will be interested to see if the show includes it.
In particular, I think Cochran asking his wife to lie to the press is quite relevant to what went on during the trial, especially the defense claims that they were only interested in finding the truth. Because JC didn't seem to have any problems at all with mendacious behavior: as evidenced by how he conducted his private life. (And it makes the defense attacks on Nicole's behavior and character even more odious. )
Quotes from the site:
"Patricia was Johnnie's long term mistress for much of the time he was married to Barbara. While Johnnie kept both women all tied up with manipulative lies that had them both guessing and unable to make a break with him, he still had affairs with other women."
"Eventually, the day came that J.C. asked Barbara to lie to reporters that they'd had a great marriage, that he was a great guy. That day came when he became an O.J. Simpson case lawyer....
What the American Public did not know was that in Johnnie Cochran. Simpson had hired a man who battered his own wife a few times, and who could be verbally abusive to her."
-
psychoticstate, on 17 Mar 2016 - 1:58 PM, said:
BTW, Sterling K. Brown IS awesome and for those who wonder if the real Chris Darden had as much charisma as Brown is putting forth, I would say yes. I mentioned in another thread that I met Darden at a book signing when his book was released. While I thought he was nice looking on the tv, I found him much more attractive in person. He has a very commanding, yet gentle, presence, if that makes sense. He came across friendly, kind and very sexy, in my opinion.
Just adding a personal opinion for what it's worth (approx 2 one-cent coins): I went to a couple of talks that Chris Darden did for local writer's groups. (maybe 5+ years ago). Outstanding presentations. It was clear he still felt very strongly about the Simpson outcome and had been deeply affected by it. He thought the defense threw ethics out the window because they wanted to win at any cost. He did have the strongest criticisms for Judge Ito, from his rulings to his courtroom behavior to his starry-eyed worship of Hollywood celebs. (And I think he said it was Ito who told OJ to put on latex gloves for the demonstration. )
He was very patient with all of our questions, and spoke in detail, without notes, on the Simpson trial. When asked about Fuhrman, Darden simply said he was a very good, meticulous detective, and he had no doubts at all about the quality of his work. A couple of people mentioned that he seemed exactly the same in person as he appeared on TV. Darden laughed and said, I don't know if that's good or bad! Everyone was very taken with him. It's not often when the first descriptors about a lawyer are integrity and sincerity, but that was my impression of Chris Darden. (And I agree that Sterling Brown is doing a wonderful job. Maybe there should be an Ensemble Acting Award. )
(Moved this to its correct location now...)
Pallas, Ms Blue Jay, Eolivet and 4 others like this
-
3
-
-
BTW, Sterling K. Brown IS awesome and for those who wonder if the real Chris Darden had as much charisma as Brown is putting forth, I would say yes. I mentioned in another thread that I met Darden at a book signing when his book was released. While I thought he was nice looking on the tv, I found him much more attractive in person. He has a very commanding, yet gentle, presence, if that makes sense. He came across friendly, kind and very sexy, in my opinion.
Just adding a personal opinion for what it's worth (approx 2 one-cent coins): I went to a couple of talks that Chris Darden did for local writer's groups. (maybe 5+ years ago). Outstanding presentations. It was clear he still felt very strongly about the Simpson outcome and had been deeply affected by it. He thought the defense threw ethics out the window because they wanted to win at any cost. He did have the strongest criticisms for Judge Ito, from his rulings to his courtroom behavior to his starry-eyed worship of Hollywood celebs. (And I think he said it was Ito who told OJ to put on latex gloves for the demonstration.)
He was very patient with all of our questions, and spoke in detail, without notes, on the Simpson trial. When asked about Fuhrman, Darden simply said he was a very good, meticulous detective, and he had no doubts at all about the quality of his work. A couple of people mentioned that he seemed exactly the same in person as he appeared on TV. Darden laughed and said, I don't know if that's good or bad! Everyone was very taken with him. It's not often when the first descriptors about a lawyer are integrity and sincerity, but that was my impression of Chris Darden. (And I agree that Sterling Brown is doing a wonderful job. Maybe there should be an Ensemble Acting Award. )
-
16
-
-
Perhaps there wasn't any.
There was definitely abuse toward Marguerite (see @ 2:10) but that and the violence toward Nicole was kept out of the news thanks to OJ's lawyers, and OJ got slaps on the wrist thanks to celebrity-loving judges like the one below. LAPD knew too, of course, but OJ had a great relationship with LAPD, he did appearances and benefits for them.
Keeping OJ's Wife-Beating Quiet:
How local KCBS-LA news team missed the story in 1989 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkuTrjawxIA
-
3
-
-
I know the theory has been floated that Ron and Nicole were involved and she was expecting more than just a delivery of her mother's glasses but I tend to think not. First, Ron had made plans to meet friends around the time he was dropping off the glasses. If he planned a romantic encounter with Nicole, I doubt he would be planning to go out with friends. Second, while Mark Fuhrman claimed somewhere they had evidence Ron and Nicole were involved, I believe Marcia Clark on this one. She denies it and was in Nicole's condo the morning after the murders. She says that Nicole's bed was messy and unmade, as well as the bedroom. Generally if you are expecting a guest that will be in there, you would probably make the bed and straighten up the room. And although I generally don't trust Faye Resnick, she says nothing was going on with Ron and Nicole, other than friendship, and I tend to believe that.
I think Nicole was involved with Marcus. I think if she expected anyone that night, it was him. Simpson was insanely jealous of Marcus by all accounts. Losing Nicole completely and finally, and potentially to Marcus, as well as Paula's break up with him earlier that day would have sent him over the edge.
As far as the 20 year friend and DD, it's possible the 20 year friend was an entertainment friend of DD's who got information from someone else (i.e., Marcus) that was at the crime scene.
I think if Nicole had lived, she would have rented out the Bundy condo and moved to Malibu. Once she got there, she would have been surrounded with an entirely different group of people. I think she would have moved away (physically and emotionally) from Faye and Kris.
Interesting-- so many questions and so many of the key players, i.e. Marcia, Fuhrman, etc. with different information-- and all of them convinced they have the right story. This forum has developed so many knowledgeable and thoughtful people, I wish we could discuss at length in person! Or call in our questions to Dominick Dunne, who sadly persists in being unavailable. One thing we do know is that his heart was with the victims in this case. And he took no prisoners in his belief that any trash-talking of victims is inexcusable. The person who murdered them is the person at fault.
I had not heard that Ron made plans with other friends the (fateful) night he was returning the glasses. And I wasn't sure that Nicole was still involved with Marcus Allen--so those are things I need to catch up on. I'm pretty sure that there's testimony that OJ had seen Ron driving Nicole's car in Brentwood, I think from one of the LAPD. And Ron was such a sweet guy, she may have been discovering what a healthy, non-abusive relationship would be like. I hope so.
I think your thoughts on the move to Malibu are excellent. Emotional and physical distance, and healthy adult relationships for perhaps the first time in Nicole's life. And out of the controlling orbit of her ex-husband, with his powerful, well-connected friends. Many women in abusive marriages don't survive that escape to freedom.
-
3
-
-
Yeah, but Nicole's house was full of lit candles...maybe it was Marcus sneaking over again, and she was waiting for him. I wish I knew what time that flight of his left, and if he arranged an earlier flight.
Marcus and OJ were still friends, still played golf, talked frequently, after OJ found out.
Were you thinking the call was from someone that was going to drop by to visit Nicole that night? I think we know that since Ron went home after work to shower and change before going to Nicole's to drop off the glasses, she wasn't expecting anyone else that night, so the candles were for their date. And we know that OJ was furious that he had seen Ron driving Nicole's Ferrari around Brentwood, so he knew they were friends.
I thought the call from someone at the crime scene was someone OJ had called on for help after the murders. Harvey Levin said he was sure that OJ had help at some point afterwards. A 20 year friend of OJ that Dominick knew and trusted? Since DD wasn't much involved with sports, I figured it would be somebody from the industry.
-
Which 20 year friend could it be that got a call from someone at the crime scene BEFORE the police were called, and who made that call?
Dominick said it was a man he knew and trusted-- I don't know if Marcus Allen fits that description? But it could be somebody from DD's show business connections-- maybe Fred Levinson, who created the Hertz ads for Simpson. He was interviewed for the recent A & E 'OJ The Hidden Tapes' and said why he thought OJ did it:
http://www.aetv.com/shows/oj-speaks-the-hidden-tapes/season-1/episode-1/fred-levinson-interview
In another interview (maybe for the Aphrodite Jones OJ show?) Levinson said that when you went to OJ's to play cards, you couldn't leave unless he said so. That he was very controlling of the people around him.
Fred Levinson on creating the Hertz campaign: http://www.dga.org/Craft/VisualHistory/Interviews/Fred-Levinson.aspx
Or it might be Don Ohlmeyer, NBC west coast President, but I don't know if OJ would ask him for favors like that. Ohlmeyer got OJ cast in the Frogmen pilot, where a stuntman taught Simpson how to do a silent kill from behind by slitting the person's throat. But Ohlmeyer visited OJ in jail and supported his innocence-- I don't know if he'd have done that knowing for sure Simpson was guilty. Huge risk for a guy running a network.
And I'm not sure that OJ's long-term friends like Mike Gilbert and Norman Pardo, or even AC or Ron Shipp, were people that Dominick would have connected with. But who knows.
-
IMO Ito makes it pretty clear that he released Juror Florio-Bunten for lying when he was asking her questions about communicating w/another juror when he forbade them to talk. IMO he's kind of dismissive about the letter about a book. (I can't link but it's the link with all the civil depositions. The section says juror transcripts and it has her name Bunten there. Click that link and about 1/2 way down the page, he questions juror #353/Bunten.)
There has been a lot of confusion about the Florio-Bunten issue. She wasn't the only one dismissed, there were a lot of jurors being removed as the trial went on. That particlular partof the transcript is only part of the story I think. (The defense had JoEllan Demetrius, their jury consultant, sitting in the courtroom watching the jury during the whole trial. Since that's not typical, speculation swirled around what she was watching for. ) There were also sheriff's deputies dismissed and a jury strike, among other issues.
In any case, Francine Florio-Bunten did get her records unsealed and that's when it was discovered that jury tampering had probably occurred in connection with her dismissal. Judge Ito's handling of this and other jury problems was strongly criticized. (None of the other parties could participate in those issues.)
Here's one story that ran locally as Florio-Bunten fought to clear her name : http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-24/news/mn-16722_1_judge-ito
A clip from the article:
"...Reeves said specifically that his client wanted the transcripts of her meetings with Superior Court Judge Lance A. Ito and any related documents unsealed so she could find out whether she had been targeted for ouster and the reasons for her dismissal. At a news conference after Ito agreed to release the materials, Florio-Bunten said "I'm kind of excited."
She said she is eager to learn who wrote a "mysterious letter" to the judge alleging that she and her husband, a construction worker, were negotiating a book deal. Florio-Bunten has vigorously denied that charge since she was kicked off the panel and reiterated that position Friday.
"I had no idea of writing a book or making money off the justice system," she said. In fact, she said she called such a possibility "heinous and horrible."
Florio-Bunten said that before dismissing her, Ito had held up a note, allegedly sent to him anonymously, saying she was exploring a book deal. She said she told Ito the allegations were untrue.
Florio-Bunten acknowledged that Ito told her he "didn't believe in my candor." But she said she was not clear as to why. She said the judge's comment appeared to stem from an incident where another juror (Ferron Chavarria, who was subsequently dismissed) tried to pass her a note during one of the judge's jury investigations.
But she said she never received the note and only learned of its contents when Ito showed it to her. "It said something to the effect, 'Tell the judge about a juror writing a book.' "
The article also mentions that Florio-Bunten understood DNA evidence and why it was so persuasive. Dominick Dunne wrote and talked about this incident in many interviews, feeling it was another example of Judge Ito's entire mishandling of the trial, as well as the defense's plan to 'win at any cost'.
-
3
-
-
I have always felt that the jurors were trying to prove their verdict was made based on the evidence presented (or not presented) and had nothing to do with racial motivation, suggestions of police conspiracy and threats of riots. No matter what the prosecution presented, or did not present, they were not going to convict. I think that's evident when you consider that they deliberated for all of two hours (per Toobin's book.) That is not a group of people who were legitimately considering six months' worth of evidence and witnesses.
Yes, I agree-- trying to justify their verdict to the world at large, because the whole world was shocked and appalled by the outcome. I don't think the jurors realized that until later, isolated as they were.
Most of those jurors were never going to convict no matter what was proven, but a lot of trial-watchers thought there would be a hung jury for sure. I think that was the hope prosecutors were clinging to as things got worse and worse. And it may well have worked out that way. But then something happened.....
...Francine Florio-Bunten was kicked off the jury. Dominick Dunne thought this was the end of the last hope for (eventual) conviction. For any mystery lovers out there, this is the little-known event that still hasn't been talked about much. The circumstances are still very suspicious and have never been explained. See what you think.
FORMER OJ JUROR SAYS SHE WAS THE VICTIM OF JURY TAMPERING
http://edition.cnn.com/US/9604/01/simpson_juror/index.html
The letter that caused the juror to be dismissed was widely considered to be a fraud. But it was never investigated. That juror would have caused the jury to hang.
"...Most believe Judge Ito could have discerned possible fraud if he had investigated the letter carefully. But he didn't.
"Judge Lance Ito had ordered both the defense and the prosecution to refrain from investigating any issues having to do with the jurors, and so it was Judge Ito's responsibility to investigate that letter," Darden said. Florio-Bunten already had been dismissed from the jury when the controversy over the letter was raised. (She denied the accusations. )
Florio-Bunten, 35, said she is glad people are beginning to believe her but disappointed that she was thrown off the jury before she could make a difference in the trial's outcome. She said she considered Simpson guilty when she was thrown off the jury and would have fought to convince the other jurors to convict.
"It probably would have been a hung jury," she said. "I don't think I'd be able to see it any other way."
-
3
-
-
The juror that made that statement should be ashamed. If I felt that way, after acquitting a defendant, I would never admit it publicly. Unless of course you're going to follow that up with "If we had been given all the evidence or if we had been presented with "x", we may have voted to convict."
I think both of the jurors made statements like that at different times, or at least they tried to waffle around the reasons for their verdict. In the show, they reviewed the evidence that was not presented, like the Jill Shively incident (she identified OJ driving away from the crime scene at the time of the murders) and the Bronco chase, i.e. run for the border, with cash, disguise, passport, and reservation for a boat to sail away in.
The jurors said, maybe that excluded evidence would have changed their minds but they weren't sure. I couldn't really figure out what the jurors were trying to communicate here. And the jurors also say they 'wish they could have given closure to the families.' Puzzling and sad.
-
1
-
-
Discovery Channel Special: The Case of OJ Simpson (Date unknown)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MYGnCXkzjQ
People involved with the trial review and comment on the evidence, includes William Hodgman, Tom Lange, Vince Bugliosi, and two jurors from the criminal trial.
Also includes a stunning statement from one of the jurors: (starts at 5:45) "...In all likelihood, he probably got away with murder..."
-
2
-
-
"A Current Affair"--Analysis of the Crime Scenes: aired within 36 hours of the murders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OtBkANQwI
Just posting this as a novelty item-- interesting to see how the case was viewed immediately after the homicides happened. Marcus Joseph does an analysis of both scenes, very brief but they had a lot of information about the evidence already.
-
1
-
-
Can someone tell me what shoes the detective took home?
They were tennis shoes that LAPD took from Simpson's house (with the search warrant) to compare shoe size with the prints found at the crime scene. There's actually footage of Tom Lange carrying the shoes in this news clip : at around 1:05:
Police Search Bundy Drive and Simpson Home: June 14, 1994
-
3
-
-
In this production, my sense is that Cochran was like the lead actor and other people were the writers and directors. I mentioned in a previous post the December 1994 memo Bailey wrote (it's summarized in Toobin's book, page 220) outlining exactly, in four points, the eventual defense strategy, which he said Cochran's job would be to translate into what he called the "Downtown dialect," for the blacks on the jury. Bailey's handling of witnesses himself in this trial was of variable quality, and Marcia Clark showed him up a few times in confrontations, but Simpson got his money's worth from Bailey's experience. He knew far more about trying murder cases than Cochran did.
Similarly, the line "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" was given to Cochran by Gerald Uelmen.
So it's like asking if a movie would have won Oscars or been a big box-office hit if someone else had been cast in the lead role. Maybe not.
(Simon, this is not at all meant to challenge your post, but since I've heard a different version, just wanted to throw this out for discussion: and yes, I'm getting way too obsessed with this show and this case ).
Regarding Bailey's memo on p. 220:
So here's the thing, Toobin's book is great but I'm not sure it's 100% accurate, and I think giving Bailey credit for that memo, was a way for him to needle Shapiro. Toobin and Shapiro were already on bad terms because Toobin leaked more of the Fuhrman info than he had agreed to do. And of course, Shapiro and Bailey were also feuding, so Bailey didn't mind shafting Shapiro either.
It's been reported that the strategy was laid out almost immediately after OJ was booked. Harvey Levin was a local LA reporter and covered the Simpson case wall to wall. Please see the clip below for his account of how the strategy developed.
Of course by the end of the trial, Shapiro was distancing himself from the rest of the Team. He didn't want to play the race card at all, for one thing. And he had been getting booed at Lakers games, and his Beverly Hills and Hollywood clientele thought Simpson was guilty as hell and were not speaking to Shapiro for helping Simpson beat the rap. So none of the Team felt inclined to say positive things about Shapiro.
In any case, Here's the video clip (and no, I'm not a TMZ fan but Harvey knows all the players and knows the Simpson case firsthand. If anybody has the inside stuff, it's him.)
Harvey Levin interviews Shapiro the day after he got the Simpson case:
-
1
-
-
I couldn't remember about the shoes/ prints either-- as Umbelina said above, the photos of OJ in the Bruno Magli shoes hadn't been found yet, so they could not directly link Simpson to the bloody prints at the scene, yet. They could only use testimony about the prints in the criminal trial, that the prints were Simpson's shoe size, and indicated only one killer.
But it was still effective -- William Bodziak, the FBI expert. was a good witness and the defense couldn't damage his testimony. He was the one who tracked down that they were Magli shoes. He also was positive that only one set of prints was at the scene: Henry Lee had implied there were two or more sets i.e. killers, at the scene.
I had also forgotten there were shoe prints on Nicole's dress, and on her back. Horrible.
Simpson's Shoe Size Fits Bloody Crime Scene Prints
Simpson Expert's Theory Disputed
FBI Shoeprint Expert William Bodziak Testimony OJ Criminal Trial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft106OAc9wo
(near the end they include analysis from Court TV )
-
1
-
Houdini And Doyle - General Discussion
in Houdini And Doyle
I've seen the first two episodes now, and I'm pretty much hooked although I don't know why exactly. The crimes have been pretty interesting on their own, even without the distraction of having the star icons Houdini and Doyle in the picture. Maybe because they aren't really much like their real-life counterparts, which is fine by me. That's a pretty high standard to reach anyway.
And Houdini keeps using modern expressions and Americanisms for some reason. Maybe that was explained someplace. It's strange and startling, because nobody acts surprised and everybody understands what he means, even when he says, "Garbage in, Garbage out".
This show is nothing like I expected or wanted it to be, but it's fun, and the stories and pacing have been pretty good so far. It's good-spirited entertainment (hah) even though Doyle hasn't been able to turn up any evidence of the afterlife-- not even close. I get the feeling the show runners fell under the shadow and the spell of BBC's Sherlock. Which is not a bad influence. I'm sticking around to see how this develops, and my fingers are crossed that some ghosts will pop in soon and spook the handcuffs off Houdini. We'll see.