American Crime Story in the Media

[helenamonster]

This show is rated TV-MA, there's no way they could get away with airing any episodes before 10pm, rerun or not.

Edited March 6, 2016 by helenamonster

[BW Manilowe]

Marcia Clark says, if the OJ trial happened today they'd have probably ended up with a hung jury.

https://mobile.twitter.com/NBCNews/status/706579803453984769?p=v

Dateline NBC will be discussing the OJ trial tonight. It airs at 9PM Eastern/8PM Central, of course on NBC.

I know this doesn't have to do with the miniseries, specifically, but I thought I'd share since it deals with the reason for the miniseries.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm watching Dateline and I am just frickin' rolling my eyes at the script Lester Holt is saying before the show starts. Like how "we" will learn things we "never knew" blach, blah. They show clips from the civil trial deposition.  Yeah. IF you didn't watch the A&E secret tapes and the civil deposition tapes, you didn't know. Or if you didn't see the news about these tapes back in 1996, when they were revealed.

 

But, yeah, I'm wataching to see what new sleazy take take the show will show since FX is airing the mini-series.

 

Borrrring. Just a recap of stuff we already know!

Edited March 7, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[FuriousStyles]

Im watching the Dateline special too. Had no idea about a witness who saw OJ tossing stuff into trash cans at the airport. No surprise Marcia decided not to put him on the stand.

The juror from the trial was interesting and very honest. He said when the jury took their initial vote it was 10 not guilty and 2 for guilty and he was happy because it meant he was close to finally going home. Said the 2 guilty voters didnt try to persuade the others and the dna evidence never even came up in their decision. The guy doing the interview had the funniest look on his face like "you've got to be shittin' me?"

Interviews from most of the major players...Marcia Clark, Fred and Kim Goldman, Denise Brown, Kris Jenner, Kato Kailin, Bob Costas (talked about the sports angle from that day and his relationship with OJ; he actually visited him in jail before the trial started) Det. Lange, etc. Most of it really was just a rehashing of things already reported and dissected on other shows/specials.

My only complaint is the other black guy on the defense team. Douglas I think his name is? I dont know if he's trying his best Johnnie Cochran impression, but he's just too theatrical for me.

It amazes me that the lawyer the Goldmans hired for the civil case had never litigated a case involving murder or anything similar to what he was attempting. I know the burden in a civil case is much lower than in criminal but he did a masterful job on OJ. Makes me wonder what would have happened if he was part of the criminal trial.

Edited March 7, 2016 by FuriousStyles

[GHScorpiosRule]

Yeah, what Juror number 6 had to say...I have no words. And it's funny; not ha ha funny, but the juror who was on Oprah after the trial, stated that they wanted to know more about the blood evidence and that Clark didn't do a good job explaining it. I would have liked to know just what evidence did they focus on, if not the DNA?

Oh and I was rolling my eyes when Denise said she knew OJ had killed Nicole right after they got the call about her death. Because she was one of the first ones to defend him publicly.

And one more thing: in this special, Carl Douglas really came off as a drama queen, with the way he raised his voice and did whatever it was he was doing with his eyes. Too theatrical. He was much more subdued in the Autopsy special.

Regarding Petrocelli: in the civil deposition special, it was revealed he was quite inexperienced when he took on the Goldmans as clients l. I would say he acquitted himself very well. I would really like to shake his hand.

Edited March 7, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[7isBlue]

Regarding Petrocelli: in the civil deposition special, it was revealed he was quite inexperienced when he took on the Goldmans as clients l. I would say he acquitted himself very well. I would really like to shake his hand.

Daniel Petrocelli did a great job. I was fascinated by his strategy in questioning Simpson, during depositions and the trial, of asking questions in a non-linear fashion to trip him up and frustrate his ability to respond with his well-honed lies. His book is great, too.

[hoosiermom]

I posted in the full case discussion thread about another couple of the jurors making outrageous statements about the trial and the evidence. Don't know how to move it here.

Edited March 7, 2016 by hoosiermom

[smiley13]

Oh and I was rolling my eyes when Denise said she knew OJ had killed Nicole right after they got the call about her death. Because she was one of the first ones to defend him publicly.

Speaking of Denise, why was she at her parents house when the Mother got the call?  If she was Nicole's older sister, was she a thirty something year old woman living at home with her parents?

[psychoticstate]

smiley, I think Denise was living with her parents at the time because she was going or had just gone through a divorce.

 

Daniel Petrocelli is a testament to good attorneys everywhere and a real honor to his profession.  He handled the civil case perfectly - - no dramatics, no famewhoring, just represented his client and let Simpson sink himself.  I too would like to shake his hand.

 

While I appreciate the juror's relative honesty, I am still floored - - FLOORED - - that he stated that while he didn't believe Simpson was innocent, he couldn't vote to convict him because there wasn't enough evidence.  WTF????  WTF????  Not enough evidence?  There was nothing BUT evidence!  All that was missing was a videotape of  Simpson committing the crimes.

[FuriousStyles]

Another thing about Pertocelli, he was willing to take the case pro bono. The Goldmans ended up receiving a lot of donations, something like $300,000. So I guess Petrocelli's expenses were mitigated somewhat, but still, the gesture alone speaks volumes to the type of person he seems to be.

[psychoticstate]

I get great joy out of the fact that Daniel Petrocelli is now living in Brentwood while Simpson's murdering ass is hopefully rotting in prison in Nevada. 

[MargotWendice]

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-a-knife-can-tell-us-about-the-o-j-simpson-case

I found this story by Toobin in the New Yorker interesting, even though we know now that the knife was definitely not significant. How could I not have known the murder weapon was believed to be from Nicole's own kitchen? I might need to head over to the case discussion thread...

[Umbelina]

Yeah, we did discuss that in the case thread, it's basically just one theory/story, could be true, doubt it.

 

In one story, Nicole came out carrying the knife, which enraged OJ, so he took it from her and killed her.

 

I think the whole thing was premeditated, but we will probably never know, unless OJ decides to come clean.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Umbelina

[ennui]

I don't believe it was premeditated. Too sloppy. 

[Umbelina]

Sloppy yes, but premeditated too.  He was setting up an alibi with Kato, no question there. 

[toodywoody]

This case had more evidence than most cases that got people thrown in jail. The DNA evidence alone is enough now days. And what else did Clark have to tell them about the blood evidence? Maybe if one of them could think outside what Cochran was shoveling they could have said, well hmmmm what Cochran said is just a bunch of bs. And weren't they watching OJ and his pretend struggle with the gloves. I understand DNA was new but come on. You have his blood, Nicole's, and Ron's. And the prints from high dollar ugly ass shoes. The cut on his hand that wasn't just a little cut that bleeds a little and then scabs over. And his blood all in the Bronco and the blood trail from it. You had the gloves, the domestic abuse, the fucking phone recordings were you can hear him in the background and then you have him showing his anger to Darden when he sat on his bench at his house. And so much more. Someone, anyone, can we get a complete list of the evidence that the jurors got in the criminal case?

[psychoticstate]

I don't believe it was premeditated. Too sloppy. 

It was only sloppy because Ron unexpectedly showed up. Look at how Nicole was attacked - - stealthily and quickly.  She didn't have time to cry out - - no one heard her.  She was knocked down and taken out very fast.  The attack against Ron, on the other hand, was very frantic, less organized and far more precise.  I would even go so far as to say it was a panicked type of attack . . . which led Simpson to leave a lot of evidence behind and take some with him. 

This case had more evidence than most cases that got people thrown in jail. The DNA evidence alone is enough now days. And what else did Clark have to tell them about the blood evidence? Maybe if one of them could think outside what Cochran was shoveling they could have said, well hmmmm what Cochran said is just a bunch of bs. And weren't they watching OJ and his pretend struggle with the gloves. I understand DNA was new but come on. You have his blood, Nicole's, and Ron's. And the prints from high dollar ugly ass shoes. The cut on his hand that wasn't just a little cut that bleeds a little and then scabs over. And his blood all in the Bronco and the blood trail from it. You had the gloves, the domestic abuse, the fucking phone recordings were you can hear him in the background and then you have him showing his anger to Darden when he sat on his bench at his house. And so much more. Someone, anyone, can we get a complete list of the evidence that the jurors got in the criminal case?

 

True.  But these jurors did not want to convict.  They simply would not hear anything that went against the crap the defense was shoveling.

 

If we break it down now, who else had motive to kill Nicole?  Just in the LA area?  And out of that group, who had a contentious relationship with her?  Who did she fear would kill her?  Out of that group, who had no alibi when the murders were being committed? From that remaining group, who was spotting speeding away from Bundy Drive?  From that group, who had a deep cut on their finger that occurred at the same time?  And a cut on their left hand?  And who had Nicole's blood in their vehicle, on their driveway and in their home?  And who had Ron's blood in their vehicle, on their driveway and in their home?  And who left their blood on the sidewalk and gate by the bodies of Ron and Nicole? 

 

The answer is no one but O.J. Simpson.

[toodywoody]

Exactly. They can cry police planted evidence but no they couldn't have planted all the blood, the cut on his hand, the expensive ass shoe prints, etc., etc., etc.

[jaync]

And one more thing: in this special, Carl Douglas really came off as a drama queen, with the way he raised his voice and did whatever it was he was doing with his eyes. Too theatrical.

Yeah, he was acting pretty extra. And, I get Cochran was his mentor, but the shrine was OTT.

[Asp Burger]

If we break it down now, who else had motive to kill Nicole?  Just in the LA area?  And out of that group, who had a contentious relationship with her?  Who did she fear would kill her?  Out of that group, who had no alibi when the murders were being committed? From that remaining group, who was spotting speeding away from Bundy Drive?  From that group, who had a deep cut on their finger that occurred at the same time?  And a cut on their left hand?  And who had Nicole's blood in their vehicle, on their driveway and in their home?  And who had Ron's blood in their vehicle, on their driveway and in their home?  And who left their blood on the sidewalk and gate by the bodies of Ron and Nicole?

 

I want psychoticstate making the closing argument if someone ever kills me! 

 

Add also the hair and fiber evidence. Fibers matching the interior of the Bronco at the crime scene, and hair consistent with Simpson's within the knit cap and on Ron's shirt.  

Edited March 9, 2016 by Asp Burger

[Umbelina]

But it wasn’t a surprise that Chris was going to ask him to try the gloves on, right?

That was our big fight. It was his witness. Whoever got the witness up controlled the testimony. I can weigh in with my opinion, but I can't stop him. We went to sidebar and the judge suggested that Simpson try on the glove. And I objected, on the record. I said, "No! No! It's not a proper experiment. The latex will screw up the fit." And Chris said, "Yeah, I want to do it." And then we step aside and had the biggest fight we've ever had about ten feet away from the court reporter. I said some very unlovely things about what a stupid idea that was. And he said, "But if we don't do it, the defense will do it." And I said, "Let them! Let them.” Then we’d be able to say, of course it doesn’t work, Simpson doesn't want it to work, and the gloves have been affected by all the other things I already mentioned. But Chris didn’t feel that way.

But you know what? I really wish people could stop hammering on this glove thing. Chris is a great lawyer. He's a smart guy. He did a great job. That was kind of a visually impressive mistake. But there were so many days where he was on it and fantastic and smart. I don't want all the good work he did to be so overshadowed by one day.

 

When you look at the footage, Simpson is so obviously mugging. He had the time of his life.

Yes, exactly. And by the way you're wearing the gloves of the person who murdered your wife, and you're mugging?

 

Oh, that gave me the creeps right now.

It is very creepy. I was feeling that way myself when I was sitting there watching him, thinking Dude, how can you be smiling? How can you be doing this? It was stomach-turning, really.

 

This latest interview with Marcia Clark is just so good.  I highly recommend reading this one.  THANK you to the poster who found it first.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/marcia-clark-people-v-oj-simpson-episode-six.html

 

You mentioned you admire Ryan Murphy for tackling sexism in the show. Were you conscious of the sexism around you at the time or did it only sink in later?

Obviously I was aware that the media was giving me a bad time about my appearance. They slammed my hair, my makeup, and I didn’t care. Because what I cared about was that jury. And so what was hugely upsetting to me was the sexist treatment I got from the judge. That was happening on a daily basis, and nothing could be worse for a lawyer than to be undermined in front of the jury by a judge because the jury takes their cue. To the extent that the judge treats you like an idiot, the jury says, She's an idiot. And he treated me like a second-class citizen.

 

He didn't treat Chris that way?

Nope. He didn’t dare. He was very sensitive to the race issue that was constantly swirling around the courtroom. The other part is that Chris is a man! But he felt very comfortable kicking me around the courtroom, and that was the upsetting part. It's not that I'm taking it personally. What is this jury seeing? That was the upsetting thing. And it was so apparent that Tammy Bruce, who was then president of the National Organization [for] Women, went in to talk to him about it. And she told him she was worried about the jury, too. Lance, the judge, did not believe it. He didn't believe her. So she put together video clips showing the way he was talking to me and the way he was treating me differently from all the men. He copped to it, and for a few weeks things were actually kind of nice for me.

 

[Umbelina]

http://www.vulture.com/2016/02/sterling-k-brown-christopher-darden-people-v-oj-simpson.html

The People v. O.J. Simpson’s Sterling K. Brown on the ‘N-Word’ Scene and Playing the Trial’s Most Polarizing Lawyer

 

The role of Chris Darden might be the toughest one because he is such a conflicted man. He was caught between what his community was telling him versus what he felt in his heart regarding the case. How did you go about personifying that inner conflict?
First things first: I read Jeffrey Toobin’s book, The People v. O.J. Simpson: The Run of His Life. And that’s sort of an overview on which our show is based. And then I was able to get a hand on Christopher Darden’s book, In Contempt, which wasn’t easy to find. It wasn’t in circulation. But a friend of mine who knew I had just recently booked the role was at her mom’s house, and her mom had the book and graciously passed it along to me so I could highlight it until my heart was content.

 

I know you’ve tried to reach him and he didn’t respond, right?
That’s right. I’m curious to see what happens. I’ve had a couple people reach out to me on Twitter, a former associate of his in law took a picture of herself and said, "Sterling K. Brown, I’m here with your doppelgänger. Your twin! #ChristopherDarden." And she’s taken an actual picture with Darden recently! And I said, "Please tell him I said hello." And then his daughter actually tweeted me and said, "You look a lot like my dad." And this was his daughter who was 16 years old at the time of the trial. She actually wrote a blog talking about her experience of the show and what it was like to live through that, live through her father getting death threats and her family being threatened as well. And then seeing us portray it. So I know that there are people that are close to him who have been watching. As to whether or not that means he’s watching himself, I’m not sure. But I hope he sees something that he can admire in the portrayal that rings true for him. And maybe one day we’ll get a chance to sit down and break bread.

 

Just...WOW.  This is such a good interview!

We talked about how angry you were when you did the N-word scene, that you actually felt angry yourself. Were there other feelings of Chris Darden's that you ended up living with temporarily that were difficult for you?
You know I can answer that like this, and this is a very interesting experience that happened to me just yesterday. I was in Philadelphia doing a re-shoot on the M. Night Shyamalan film that I shot at the end of 2015, called Split. I was down in the hotel restaurant and I heard a group of people talking about The People v. O.J. Simpson. I got a chance to be a fly on the wall. It was a group of black folks talking about the show and they were talking about how they enjoyed it and how they learned all these things about [Robert Shapiro] and [Robert Kardashian]. And then they said something like, "Who's that c*** n****? That c*** n**** for the prosecution? Darden, Darden, right?" You know, it hit me that there are people who may still feel very much that this man was a race traitor or a sellout or an Uncle Tom or a c***, if you will. My heart broke a little bit because I realized Christopher Darden and Marcia Clark were trying to speak up for Ron Goldman and for Nicole Brown Simpson. Johnnie Cochran had the whole black community trumpeting him and lifting him up. Christopher Darden never really had anybody speak up for him and the level of empathy that I've gained for this man and the ordeal that he had to go through and the fact that he endured it to the end, that he didn't shirk his responsibility to the prosecutor, that he saw it through in the face of death threats and hate mail — my level of compassion for him is infinite. And it hurts my heart when I hear things about him that make him seem like he's a one-dimensional man, that don't give him the credit for the wholeness of who he is and what he did during that trial.  I care about him and that people see him for the 360 degrees of humanity that he is on this planet. I hope that watching the show may possibly change people's minds who felt a certain way about him 20 years ago.

 

 

Chris Darden’s Daughter Gives Her Thoughts on The People vs. O.J. Simpson Series

http://www.cocoafly.com/2016/02/chris-dardens-daughter-gives-her.html

 

Someone commented on my Facebook page that they looked at the lawyers and witnesses as characters and didn’t think about their families. It’s crazy to me how during that time, the real trial was like a reality TV series to Americans. My father, Marcia Clark and Simpson's lawyers were real people. Whether you think O.J. did it or not, two people were brutally killed. Nicole Brown’s kids lost their mother. Ron Goldman’s family lost a son and brother. I completely understand why the families of the victims aren't watching this series.  

Those of us with ties to the key players had to deal with the media and craziness too.  My father got death threats. I was a teenager and concerned for his safety. Like I said, I wish such an experience on no one. I can't imagine if we had to deal with the trial in the age of Twitter and Facebook!

It’s definitely an interesting series, especially during these racially charged times. I will be watching.

 

More of her blogs here:

http://www.cocoafly.com/

The Darden Dilemma, N-Word and Racial Backlash Against Chris Darden’s Daughter:
Episode 5 The People Vs. O.J. Simpson
 

There’s the Darden Dilemma and there’s what I call Darden Daughter Dilemma. That’s when the backlash your father received from his involvement in a high -profile case, spills into your own life. You know, guilty by association. A few years after Johnnie Cochran died, I interviewed for a position at a black newspaper in Los Angeles. When I walked into their headquarters, there were photos of Cochran on the wall. I rarely told people about my father and I damn sure wasn’t going to say anything then. I interviewed with a panel of black journalists. The interview was going well. They were impressed with my personality and USC education, interning at Time in Europe, covering the 7/7 bombings in London, my clips, etc. When I say it went well, we laughed during the interview. Then an African man on the panel noticed my last name and asked if I was related to Christopher Darden.\

 

I could lie and say “no” but they’re journalists. They would eventually figure me out. Or I’ll be honest since they got to know me for me. I chose the truth. Instantly, all of their smiles disappeared, with the exception of the African man. The room got quiet and they ended the interview. The African man kindly escorted me out. I followed up with the newspaper to see if they were still interested in me. They didn’t return my calls or emails.

 

I'm still reading her blogs and they are really enlightening.  Here is just one other quote, out of many, many good bits of information.
 

My grandpa is a retired Army veteran from Texas who grew up in the segregated South. He jumped out of planes for sport, before it became a cool thing to do. And he raised nine kids. Grandpa don’t play. The paparazzi learned Grandpa don’t play when they came snooping around my grandparents.

 

There’s a scene at the end where Grandpa tells my father to “stay the hell away from this” case. That’s pretty true. My grandfather told my dad not to take the  O.J. case. He thought they wouldn’t win with O.J.’s star power and racial tensions at that time. He was right.

Contrary to what you saw in the show, my father was in LA during the Bronco chase, not the Bay Area.

 

The miniseries gets it right about my father’s views on O.J. He was a fan of O.J. as an athlete. He also said that O.J. hardly gave back to the black community once he became famous. O.J. grew up in the projects in San Francisco. My father grew up about 30 minutes away in a tough, Richmond neighborhood. Two black men from similar neighborhoods who made it out, going against each other. It was deep.

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Umbelina

[Isabella15]

"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. 

[smiley13]

"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. 

That was interesting.  They referred to her only as Nicole Simpson.  When did they all start adding the "Brown" in the middle?

[Umbelina]

http://www.people.com/article/oj-simpson-knife-likely-not-murder-weapon-trial

Still testing the knife.  The statement is pretty ambiguous though.  "probably not"

According to an LAPD spokesperson, the knife reportedly found on a property formerly owned by O.J. Simpson likely isn't connected to the 1994 murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.

"We can't say for sure that it is or it isn't; it appears that it isn't," Officer Ricardo Hernandez of the LAPD Media Relations Office tells PEOPLE.

Hernandez says that the knife is still being tested by the LAPD forensics team. "More tests are going to have to be conducted before we can determine if that was the weapon used," he says.

 

Meanwhile OJ's manager is saying he knows who killed them and why, but he won't say.

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/oj-simpsons-ex-manager-claims-he-knows-who-killed-nicole-brown-simpson-w166647

“I know who did it and I knοw why they did it,” Pardo told KNX 1070 Newsradio on Tuesday, March 8. “I just can’t disclose it right now.”

 

AND, this statement from OJ about the knife they found.  Just...WOW.

 

And in an interview with People, Pardo said that with regard to the knife O.J. “isn’t losing any sleep over it.” In fact, Pardo says that The Juice reportedly laughed when he heard about it, saying, according to sources, “I’m not stupid, I flew to Chicago that night. That’s all I’m going to say.”

 

[psychoticstate]

I want psychoticstate making the closing argument if someone ever kills me! 

 

Add also the hair and fiber evidence. Fibers matching the interior of the Bronco at the crime scene, and hair consistent with Simpson's within the knit cap and on Ron's shirt.  

 

Awww, thanks Asp Burger!

 

And yes, I didn't even add the hair and fiber evidence to my "closing argument."  After all, the knit cap had hairs that matched Simpson.  On Simpson's clothing were fibers that matched Ron's shirt.  Who else but Simpson could possibly be the killer?

 

 

http://www.people.com/article/oj-simpson-knife-likely-not-murder-weapon-trial

Still testing the knife.  The statement is pretty ambiguous though.  "probably not"

Meanwhile OJ's manager is saying he knows who killed them and why, but he won't say.

http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/oj-simpsons-ex-manager-claims-he-knows-who-killed-nicole-brown-simpson-w166647

AND, this statement from OJ about the knife they found.  Just...WOW.

 

Thank you Umbelina for all the links.  Really good, informative reading. 

 

Simpson's manager is a moron.  Sure, he knows who killed Ron and Nicole.  So do we, so do we.

 

But honestly, he just can't disclose it right now?  Why not?  Because it's Thursday?  Because it's March?  Because nearly 22 years since the murder just isn't enough time?   He needs to take a few seats.

 

The quote attributed to Simpson does not surprise me.  The man is a first class narcissist.  That quote sounds like what my friend told me (that he got away with murder and the bitch deserved it.)  He knows he can't be touched.  That quote is him basically admitting he got rid of the knife en route to Chicago. I'm sure he probably dumped it in one of the many trash cans at LAX. 

 

But to laugh?  Just proves the man has zero conscience and zero soul.

[helenamonster]

I still think they should have gotten in touch with Tina Fey to borrow the wig she used to play Clark on Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.

 

[Umbelina]

 

About Rosa Lopez's testimony.

 

Wow it was even worse, and the jury never heard it.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Umbelina

[Umbelina]

 

I forgot they made a movie in 1995.  Actually, I probably knew about it, but just could not watch it.  So, when looking for the Rosa Lopez coverage I happened to find this one.

[psychoticstate]

I read The Run of His Life way back when it was initially published but recently gave it a listen thru Audible. 

 

That jury would never have convicted, no matter what evidence they heard.  The book reported that juror #6 was the last juror to file out of the jury box after the verdict was read.  He looked at the defense and defendant before exiting and gave them a Black Power salute.  A female juror, after retiring back into the jury room after the verdict was read, said " We have to look out for our own." 

 

That to me not only says the verdict was racially motivated but also this particular jury would never have convicted this particular defendant in no way, shape or form.

 

Interestingly, the book also reports that at least one juror informed a sheriff's deputy what the verdict was the night before it was announced.  That deputy reportedly informed the verdict to a deputy guarding Simpson at the jail, who then informed Simpson.  So if this is correct, Simpson knew he was a free man the night before the clerk read the verdict. 

[Umbelina]

Wow, I'm watching that OJ movie from 1995 now, and it's a completely different take on this story.  They are showing the domestic violence, his life as a kid...

 

It's so different, but the OJ is more believable, much more.

[mojoween]

Just to back up for a minute, it's become clear to me that I am quite suremy husband won't be mad if I run away with Sterling Brown.

I can't believe he heard someone actually say those two words, out loud, in 2016. I am amazed how fucking wretched people are every day.

[Isabella15]

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..."  

[Simon Boccanegra]

But to laugh?  Just proves the man has zero conscience and zero soul.

 

The discussion in the "Juice Is Loose" thread here of Simpson's interview with Chris Myers on Up Close, post civil case, led me to the old story linked below. First, there's an ironic mention of Cuba Gooding, Jr., long before the current FX series was a gleam in anyone's eye. But second, re: zero soul, if you want to read something chilling, check out the last couple paragraphs. 

 

http://www.eonline.com/news/35796/o-j-gives-live-up-close-espn-interview

Edited March 11, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Sarahsmile416]

The discussion in the "Juice Is Loose" thread here of Simpson's interview with Chris Myers on Up Close, post civil case, led me to the old story linked below. First, there's an ironic mention of Cuba Gooding, Jr., long before the current FX series was a gleam in anyone's eye. But second, re: zero soul, if you want to read something chilling, check out the last couple paragraphs.

http://www.eonline.com/news/35796/o-j-gives-live-up-close-espn-interview

Ugh thanks for the link to that. The quote about Ron Goldman "I don't know him, people die every day" is just beyond disgusting

[7isBlue]

Chris Darden's daughter wrote an Op-Ed in the L.A. Times:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0313-darden-daughter-oj-trial-20160310-story.html

She sounds very well-adjusted and thoughtful.

[Umbelina]

She's a blogger, I posted a link to her blog.  She's commenting on every episode, and they are worth reading.  http://www.cocoafly.com/

 

Yes, she seems like an intelligent and kind young woman.

[psychoticstate]

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..."  

 

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."

 

 

Ugh thanks for the link to that. The quote about Ron Goldman "I don't know him, people die every day" is just beyond disgusting

 

Simpson is such a narcissistic POS it makes my blood boil. 

 

Because I'm clearly a glutton for punishment, I began listening to the audio version of "If I Did It."  Now I know the narrator is not Simpson but he sounds so much like him, it very nearly pains me to listen.  But the words ARE Simpson's and it's galling to listen to him blame Nicole for freaking everything.  Simpson wasn't the violent one, Nicole was.  Simpson didn't stalk Nicole, she stalked him.  Simpson wasn't using drugs, Nicole was.  Simpson didn't have an affair, NIcole did.  Simpson was trying to be a good friend and dad, Nicole was whoring around town.  Simpson didn't want to get back with Nicole, she was hounding him to get back together.  Simpson was the rational, mature adult, Nicole was the fuck up.  Poor Simpson was just a good guy who had to deal with problematic, irrational and impulsive Nicole.

 

And the real kicker?  "I don't hold  grudges."  So says the alleged double murderer who nearly decapitated his ex-wife.

[Isabella15]

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.

[psychoticstate]

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.

[Isabella15]

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."

Edited March 11, 2016 by Isabella15

[starri]

But if they'd ended up with a hung jury, would they have been able to justify putting on a second trial?  Would they have been able to find jurors that were completely unaware of all the evidence presented at trial?

[biakbiak]

If they had a hung jury there is no way in hell they wouldn't have retried it.

[psychoticstate]

I absolutely believe that Florio-Bunten's removal from the jury ensured the acquittal.  And I also think there was some sort of jury tampering going on. 

 

I think by televising the trial Ito definitely made it impossible for any future jury, if needed, to be fair and unbiased. 

 

That said, I think they would have attempted to retry it if a hung jury had resulted.  Two people were brutally murdered in a case drenched in physical evidence.  It was about as open and shut as you could get.  The state would have had to deal with Fred Goldman, who would have rightfully been outraged. (Not saying Nicole's family would not have been also but the Goldmans were more present during the trial.)  

 

If a retrial had happened, it's possible that enough time would have passed to allow the NE to find the photos of Simpson in the Bruno Maglis and perhaps people like Jill Shively and the airport witness would have been called to testify and others may have not been as fearful as they were in 1994-1995.  The prosecution made have had enough time to adequately put together an argument that would blow the police corruption/conspiracy suggestion out of the water.  Maybe they would have chosen to move the case to Santa Monica.  Who knows? 

[starri]

If they had a hung jury there is no way in hell they wouldn't have retried it.

The whole trial apparently cost LA Country about $9 million.  In a city that polarized, particularly when Gil Garcetti was up for re-election (and he barely won as it was), I'm not 100% sure he would have been so eager to cut another check that large.

[CeeBeeGee]

It amazes me that the lawyer the Goldmans hired for the civil case had never litigated a case involving murder or anything similar to what he was attempting. I know the burden in a civil case is much lower than in criminal but he did a masterful job on OJ. Makes me wonder what would have happened if he was part of the criminal trial.

 

He was a terrific novice but we should remember he had a huge advantage in that OJ had to testify. All Petrocelli had to do (which he did masterfully) was to push the buttons of the arrogant, violent, narcissistic psychopath and watch him melt down. The stupid look of shock as he was presented with picture after picture after picture of him wearing the BM shoes--after his firm denials that he even owned them--must've warmed the hearts of the Goldmans.

 

Not that it would've mattered in the criminal trial even if he had testified. The jury would've found a way to believe his story. Thank God they had a better jury for the civil trial.

 

Someone mentioned the Juror No. 5 documentary--well worth watching. It's on YouTube, I believe.

[psychoticstate]

He was a terrific novice but we should remember he had a huge advantage in that OJ had to testify. All Petrocelli had to do (which he did masterfully) was to push the buttons of the arrogant, violent, narcissistic psychopath and watch him melt down. The stupid look of shock as he was presented with picture after picture after picture of him wearing the BM shoes--after his firm denials that he even owned them--must've warmed the hearts of the Goldmans.

 

Not that it would've mattered in the criminal trial even if he had testified. The jury would've found a way to believe his story. Thank God they had a better jury for the civil trial.

 

Someone mentioned the Juror No. 5 documentary--well worth watching. It's on YouTube, I believe.

 

Not only that but the burden is different in civil cases.  Preponderance of the evidence is very different than reasonable doubt.  And you need a majority, not all jurors, to vote to find the defendant liable.  

 

I'm sorry to say that I also think witnesses might have been hesitant to testify or speak of certain things in the criminal trial, where Simpson faced incarceration, versus the civil trial where the punishment was financial.

 

Regardless, Daniel Petrocelli did a great job, they had a judge that did not tolerate nonsense nor care about starfucking and famewhoring and a jury that didn't care what color anyone's skin was or assume the LAPD had some grand plan to screw over O.J. Simpson.

[Umbelina]

If they had a hung jury there is no way in hell they wouldn't have retried it.

Really?

 

I tend to disagree with that.  psychoticstate stated most of my reasons, but in addition to that, I think it was shortly after the trial The Enquirer found those photos of OJ in the shoes.  My only question is whether of not they would retry it out of OJ's neighborhood, or just put the trial where it belonged in the first place, Santa Monica.  At the very least, I really doubt they would have that many black female jurors on the case, and I'm not even sure they'd allow Marcia Clark to be head prosecutor, even though, up until OJ, I don't think she'd ever lost a murder case.

 

ETA

Dominick Dunne also wrote about the dismissed juror, or at least mentioned her as another of Ito's mistakes here.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1996/06/dunne199606

 

Trial fame fades fast for some. Judge Lance Ito, who was for almost a year the most famous judge in the United States, as well as the inspiration for the Dancing Itos on Jay Leno’s Tonight Show, had practically faded from sight—without ever making any public comment on the Simpson case—when he was rudely thrust back into the news in most unfavorable circumstances. The anonymity he had sought was not to be his. He took a shellacking from prosecutor Christopher Darden both in his book, In Contempt, and in an interview with Barbara Walters on 20/20. Darden said that Johnnie Cochran had run the courtroom, not Judge Ito. Then 60 Minutes did a report on jury tampering in the Simpson trial, and Judge Ito got it again, for dismissing juror Francine Florio-Bunten—who believed Simpson to be guilty and who would have hung the jury—without any investigation whatsoever after he received what I believe to have been an obviously fraudulent anonymous letter which made accusations about Florio-Bunten and her husband. On the heels of that, a guilty verdict pronounced on former Lincoln Savings and Loan boss Charles Keating in a state court in 1991—Ito’s biggest case before Simpson—was overturned on appeal because of an error Ito had made in his instructions to the jury. Keating remains in prison on federal convictions.

 

This is after the trial, so it's also talking about the Menendez brothers, but read all the way to the bottom when he talks about Robert Kardashian, and holy cow, check out RK's new babe at the time in this photo.  Much more at link of course.

 

I said, “I’ve seen you on Hard Copy a couple of times when you and [writer Larry] Schiller were with Simpson when he was making his video.”

Kardashian looked me straight in the eye, touched my arm, and said, “Not anymore, Dominick. I’ve pulled away.”

“Really?”

“Really.”

Later I heard that Kardashian and Simpson were no longer speaking. What I had known prior to this accidental meeting was that Kardashian was the secret partner of Larry Schiller on his book about the case, which was actually being written by James Wilwerth of Time magazine, who covered the trial. The deal under discussion is that Kardashian will get a substantial portion of Schiller’s fee but receive no credit. Someone I know who works for one of the tabloid papers told me that many of the Simpson stories that appeared after the verdict had been sold to them by Schiller and Kardashian.

 

ETA

One more, I'd forgotten how interesting DD's columns were!  I completely forgot this one and it's in that same link.  Now I think I'll go back and read all of them again.  For those who were offended at DD at that fancy dinner party?  He got a lot of information at those, which is a big reason why he attended. 

 

 

H.R.H. Princess Margaret, on a recent visit to Los Angeles to raise funds for the British Museum, told me at a party that she thought the whole Simpson case was “such a bore,” but I don’t find it at all boring. I see it as a morality tale that is still playing itself out, like a Russian novel set in Los Angeles, with 1,000 characters and 1,000 subplots. It’s my dream that one day all the pieces of this story will come out. There are so many people in this town who know things—bits and pieces of the puzzle—who won’t come forward. People tell me, “I don’t want to get involved,” or “I’m scared,” or “I’ll tell you after the civil case is over.” A man I know and trust, a friend of Simpson’s for over 20 years, says he’s dying to tell me, but can’t, the name of the person who called him from the crime scene on the night of the murders, before the police arrived.

 

“You knew about the murders before the police?” I asked.

“Yeah,” he replied.

 

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?

Edited March 12, 2016 by Umbelina

[Tdoc72]

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.)

Edited March 13, 2016 by Tdoc72

[Isabella15]

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'.