Full Case Discussion: If It Doesn't Fit, You Must Acquit

[Irlandesa]

Schwimmer is clearly playing Kardashian as a good guy though, whereas the truth is possibly that the guy may have been a co-conspirator after the fact (hiding the murder weapon according to Fred Goldman in a suitcase he allegedly took out of Nicole's house). We're talking about this in other topics, but it's basically supposedly the reason Shapiro added Kardashian to the legal team. Not for his non-existent criminal law skills, but so that Kardashian could assert attorney privilege and nobody would try and call him to testify.

I am seeing this speculation and it confuses me. Yes, making Rob the attorney could prevent him from being called to testify about things OJ told him. It doesn't protect him from being an accessory after the fact which he would be if he got rid of evidence. In fact, this is my L&O talking....wouldn't it invalidate any privilege?

And someone willing to do that would be willing to perjur himself.

[Kromm]

I am seeing this speculation and it confuses me. Yes, making Rob the attorney could prevent him from being called to testify about things OJ told him. It doesn't protect him from being an accessory after the fact which he would be if he got rid of evidence. In fact, this is my L&O talking....wouldn't it invalidate any privilege?

And someone willing to do that would be willing to perjur himself.

It's not that it would have been impossible to call him. It's that he'd be positioned so that a big deal would have to be made out of calling him--that it would have created a total shitstorm. And think about it. It's not like anyone at the time really was talking about Kardashian as relevant to the case itself. Putting him in the position of council would have sealed his role as not being a witness, basically just by association. You'd have to prove otherwise to the judge, I think.

And if Fred Goldman's speculation has any validity, Kardashian already did far worse than perjure himself--that would be small potatoes compared to (allegedly) carrying away and disposing of a murder weapon.

The idea/theory would basically be that people would be unlikely to look at Kardashian (and maybe that Kardashian himself would be less likely to freak out and leak anything) if he was right there as part of the team. He could in general assert attorney privilege and people wouldn't be asking him anything likely to lead to him saying something he shouldn't.

[Umbelina]

. If I copied and pasted correctly, this is the documentary "juror #5" about the civil trial.

Thank you for this.  I wish we'd had a juror from the criminal trial do something like this as well.  I'm riveted by her.

 

It's not that it would have been impossible to call him. It's that he'd be positioned so that a big deal would have to be made out of calling him--that it would have created a total shitstorm. And think about it. It's not like anyone at the time really was talking about Kardashian as relevant to the case itself. Putting him in the position of council would have sealed his role as not being a witness, basically just by association. You'd have to prove otherwise to the judge, I think.

<snip>

It's my memory that nearly EVERYONE was saying Kardashian hid the knife and bloody clothes.  Or AC.  Now I think OJ may have done what he did with Nicole's jewelry after beating her in '89.  Just dumped stuff in trashcans.  There is also that reported conversation with OC that the knife was in water and no one would every find it.

[hoosiermom]

UMBELINA: So glad I found it on YouTube and that you found it as compelling as I did.

[toodywoody]

Interesting to watch. So glad you posted it

How much blood was found in the Bronco?

Edited February 10, 2016 by toodywoody

[Epeolatrix]

Then for people to say OJ'S blood was planted, well that would mean Ron's and Nicole's was also and that someone would have to take three vials and not get them mixed up and plant them just right and without getting caught.

 

From what I've read, blood wasn't collected properly at the site, it was mishandled after collection, and there was a reasonable chance of cross-contamination. To get the blood of all three people onto a test swab could have been as simple as a tech not changing gloves or a damp sample being placed next to another sample.

 

[NB: I think he did it AND I think the State screwed up its own case. The Defense did what it was supposed to do: protect their client from the State. ]

[zoeysmom]

Neurochick, what I remember is that the Reverend Rosey Grier visited O.J. in jail, and because he was clergy, they were given complete privacy. During that convo, O.J. raised his voice and said...something. Something that probably, but not provably, included the word "wife". "Killed my wife"? "Didn't kill my wife"? We'll never know. There was a lot of speculation about what people nearby heard, or thought they heard, but as I said, anything said to clergy by a prisoner is inadmissible. Why Grier wasn't called to the stand? Don't know, but probably because he was not a witness except for this.

ETA: But I don't Grier had to make a point of it; that's just the way it is. Anything said by a prisoner to a minister, rabbi, priest, shaman, whathaveyou, is privileged. (Maybe it was "She made me do it!" But I remember thinking at the time that bystanders could convince themselves they'd heard just about anything.)

 

Here is the LA Times article regarding Grier:  http://articles.latimes.com/1994-12-10/news/mn-7302_1_simpson-case  The last thing the prosecution case needed was a jailhouse snitch or a correctional officer/deputy sheriff listening in on a privileged conversation.

Yeah, I am worried they're going to try to make him seem like the conscience of the case, when he doesn't seem to have been particularly heroic. But I guess we're only 1 episode in so who knows.

I think Kris Jenner and her Kardashian offspring may be over eulogizing Kardashian.  He was basically a creep.  He was the first to tell people OJ was his best friend.  Later in life when OJ was an absolute pariah he acted like he had a conscience.  He just didn't. 

[Hanahope]

California is one of the unique states that requires an attorney who doesn't want to pay the full "active license" fee to pay an "inactive license" fee.  Otherwise, if you don't pay the inactive license fee, if you ever want to activate your license again, you'd have to retake the bar exam.  With an inactive license, you don't have to do CLEs, or other requirements.  I don't know what the fee was back in the 80s-90s, but nowadays its about $125 a year, IIRC (frankly, I barely glance at my bar fee statement before I give it to my firm's accountant to pay).  I'm sure it was half that amount or so back then, so not much to keep one's name on the list and avoid having to go through that 3 day ordeal again.  Then if you want to activate, you just have to pay the full amount (I think about $500 or so more), and you probably have a certain amount of time to start taking your CLEs.

 

I'm sure Shapiro wanted Kardashian to reactivate his license since OJ knew him and may tell/have told him things that were best kept 'confidential' and keeps Kardashian from being a witness.  It is true that if Kardashian knowingly hid evidence of a crime, the privilege could be revoked under the crime-fraud exception. Its a pretty high standard to beat, but it is possible.

[toodywoody]

I'm looking at the picture of the estate in this thread and wondering how anyone bought the golf ball theories hitting the back of Kato's room. So was OJ in his neighbors yard hitting them over the shrubbery? Or was he hitting it from the chipping area and hitting it off his neighbors carport?

Edited February 10, 2016 by toodywoody

[StatisticalOutlier]

This is an interesting article about the case and where the prosecution went wrong.  Attorneys for OJ and even a juror's attorney and most importantly the original deputy DA who got sick on the eve of trial.  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html

 

That is a fabulous link.  Good old Frontline. 

[Umbelina]

zoeysmom, on 04 Feb 2016 - 5:25 PM, said:

    This is an interesting article about the case and where the prosecution went wrong.  Attorneys for OJ and even a juror's attorney and most importantly the original deputy DA who got sick on the eve of trial.  http://www.pbs.org/w...rosecution.html

 

That is a fabulous link.  Good old Frontline. 

It really is!  I'm riveted reading it. 

 

Larry King mispronouncing Kardashian's name, and interviewing Robert Shapiro, if you want to get a sense of him.  I'd bet $1000, which is a lot for me right now, that Travolta watched this interview.  He's captured the ego, the mannered speaking, just all of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRVAOKjcjQU

 

Kardashian inteview 

 

 

To me, he sounds a great deal like David Schwimmer.  Just to get a sense of these guys, more than for content of the interviews.  Kardashian does say that he asked OJ if he killed Nicole, OJ said no, and he believed him.  Of course this was after the verdict....

Edited February 10, 2016 by Umbelina

[Umbelina]

From the link above, this was very interesting.  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html

  (prosecutor)
William Hodgman

In terms of other things, there was a myth associated with the case, if you will, that somehow Gil Garcetti moved the case from the Santa Monica Judicial District or the West Judicial District downtown, and that was not the case. At the time, all long-cause cases in Los Angeles County were being tried on the very floor, in the very courthouse, here in downtown L.A. where the O.J. Simpson case was tried. Many, many cases, from Pomona to Long Beach to the Valley and elsewhere, which had a time estimate of three weeks or more all were being sent downtown, and unfortunately, it was a lot of murder cases, because the long-cause courtrooms could process those cases, try those cases faster. It was something that had been a subject of some dispute between my office and the courts.

 

So then you had some choice in deciding where the case would be tried?

Well, we had a choice. We could have very well filed the case in Santa Monica. And if we could have done something differently to avoid all the grief that flowed thereafter, it would have been smarter for our office to have filed the case in Santa Monica. And then, if the court wanted to move the case downtown or the defense wanted to move the case downtown, they could have brought their motion, and it would have been granted or denied, appealed or not. But by practically filing the case where we knew it was going to end up, it has generated a lot of controversy, and again, I think some of that controversy has been unfair to some people.

 

Because it gave the impression that the district attorney was choosing a venue where it would be guaranteed many black jurors?

Yeah, I think some people felt that that was pandering to the black community by having it here. It had nothing to do with that at all really. It was the practical awareness that the case was going to be tried here, so let's not beat around the bush. Let's get the case cued up, and let's get it going. …

 

So, THAT is why they moved the case downtown from Santa Monica, it would have ended up downtown anyway.  I've always wondered why that happened.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I wasn't a football fan, and even I knew who OJ was. I think part of the reason people "loved" him was that he seriously enjoyed the fame, and thus, ALWAYS gave autographs/interviews/handshakes/waves/hugs, just was very, very personable and accommodating to his fans. He had a squeaky clean image and that reputation of just being very nice, he never, hell, even when he was returning home after finding out Nicole was killed, turned away a fan who wanted an autograph. He was also the "nice guy" on the sport commentary shows. Since he lived in LA, that was especially true there.

I was the most casual type of football fan-I knew who my home team was, who I liked in other teams (Marino, Montana), and watched, without fail, The Super bowl. But even I knew who OJ was, mainly from the Hertz commercials. I never watched the Naked Gun movies, at all. And I knew he was a commentator. And he was attractive. Very attractive. Until the murders.

I even saw, on ET I think it was, how a movie he had been filming, where he was playing either a Navy guy, or Marine, who was an expert with knives. There was a still of him, holding a knife. Can't recall what type it was, but it was a pretty big knife. Suffice it to say, that movie was scrapped but quick, once the murders happened.

I remember, when I was interning at a radio station during that summer, there was a lot of talk-because of the amount of blood that was shed, and OJ barely being covered in it when the police initially questioned him, that some surmised, if he didn't do it, he had it done; hired someone to do it. The amount of rage that went into the killings? I disagreed. I guess it just went over some people's heads that maybe, he wore protective clothing or changed clothes by the time the cops got to him to explain why "all the blood" wasn't on him.

Edited February 11, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Umbelina]

That movie was Frogman, about a Navy Seal, and in it he hold a knife to a woman's throat.  Interestingly enough, Nicole had a phobia about frogs, was scared of them, even if they were decor. 

 

I always wonder if that's why she told everyone he would cut her to kill her, that he would kill her eventually, and that it would be with a knife or scissors.  Or if OJ just told her that?  Either way, she knew.

 

Reading that above link explains why the jury completely dismissed the domestic violence aspect of this case.  To them, a husband beating the shit out of a wife happened all the time, and didn't lead to murder. 

 

Wow.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Right! That was it!  Thanks Umbelina

 

I also remember how when all this exploded and the history of OJ's abuse came out--how they showed this one interview, after he had pled Nolo Contendre ("No Contest") to one of the 911 calls where he had been hitting her, how he thought of himself as a "nice, normal" guy and wouldn't go into detail about it. Talk about tone deaf.  And then all those "I'm responsible for" every mark on Nicole, but no, I didn't, not ever, hit her. I hurt her, yes, I'm responsible, yes, but NO, I never abused her, in his civil depositions. Riiiight.

[Shannon L.]

 

Reading that above link explains why the jury completely dismissed the domestic violence aspect of this case.  To them, a husband beating the shit out of a wife happened all the time, and didn't lead to murder.

That's why I was wondering what we knew about spousal abuse and the probability of it leading to murder back then.  It seems like by the mid-90s it should have been common knowledge, but the way they were talking in the that interview that was linked, maybe not.

[beavis93]

One of Darden's most effective moments in the entire trial was ...

 

That's like saying, one of Cam Newton's best plays in Sunday's Super Bowl was throwing an incompletion, because at least he didn't fumble the ball. Darden's side lost the case -- nothing he did can be considered "effective," at least not in the eyes of the jury.

[biakbiak]

That's like saying, one of Cam Newton's best plays in Sunday's Super Bowl was throwing an incompletion, because at least he didn't fumble the ball. Darden's side lost the case -- nothing he did can be considered "effective," at least not in the eyes of the jury.

That is not true, you can have good and effective moments and still lose. I have served on two jurys and each time both sides asked jurors to remain after the verdict and both sides asked where we thought their case was effective and where it wasnt.

[suomi]

From Schiller's book American Tragedy:

 

[Prosecutor] Goldberg then asked [Dr Henry] Lee about his most famous case. An airline pilot was convicted of killing his wife and using a wood chipper to scatter her body across a snow-covered riverbank. Lee had used DNA tests to identify the victim's remains and help convict the husband. Cross-contamination hadn't been a problem, even though tiny bits of the corpse were mixed in collecting buckets with deer bones and other riverbank debris.

 

"And despite that, sir, it was proper ... to attempt DNA technology on this evidence, is that correct?" Goldberg asked.

 

"That's correct," Lee said.

Sorry, but I just blank out every time I see or hear Fuhrman's name.  Anybody who said the "N" word as many times as he did, doesn't deserve to be heard at all IMO.  

 

Fortunately for OJ, and unfortunately for Ron and Nicole, the jury felt the same way.

[RemoteControlFreak]

I was the most casual type of football fan-I knew who my home team was, who I liked in other teams (Marino, Fontana), and watched, without fail, The Super bowl.  But even I knew who OJ was, mainly from the Hertz commercials. I never watched the Naked Gun movies, at all.  And I knew he was a commentator. And he was attractive. Very attractive. Until the murders.

Sure, he was known, but he wasn't universally adored the way some people have characterized him. He was a typical back-slapping retired athlete that moved on to bad acting in movies and corny advertisements.  We have such a worship of celebrity in this culture that when a celebrity like him was accused of a double murder, it actually served to elevate this celebrity.

[VanillaBeanne]

From Schiller's book American Tragedy:

[Prosecutor] Goldberg then asked [Dr Henry] Lee about his most famous case. An airline pilot was convicted of killing his wife and using a wood chipper to scatter her body across a snow-covered riverbank. Lee had used DNA tests to identify the victim's remains and help convict the husband. Cross-contamination hadn't been a problem, even though tiny bits of the corpse were mixed in collecting buckets with deer bones and other riverbank debris.

"And despite that, sir, it was proper ... to attempt DNA technology on this evidence, is that correct?" Goldberg asked.

"That's correct," Lee said.

Fortunately for OJ, and unfortunately for Ron and Nicole, the jury felt the same way.

What is the point of the Dr Lee article you quote. I assume that you are trying to make some point that cross-contamination has no impact on DNA identifications. I'm from CT and I remember that case dr Lee is referring to well. Wife went missing. Husband, with a history of domestic violence, suspected in killing her but no body found. State argued that he froze and chopped up his wife, ran her body thru a wood chipper and took the chopped up parts up and released the scattered chips over a lake. State has to first prove she's dead. Human remains was found on a wood chipper that the husband rented along with DNA from everything else in the forest and surrounding woods. Cross contamination was irrelevant here because small bits of her, identified with her DNA, should not be anywhere if she was still alive. The state was able to prove the poor lady was dead because the only way that bits of her tooth, hair and bone could be found was that she was dead.

In the OJ case, the state is trying to argue that OJ was present at the murder site because his DNA was found there and the victims DNA was found in OJs car and home. The state needs to prove that the only way that the DNA could have gotten there was if OJ was the killer. However, the defense was able to show that there was other ways the DNA could have gotten on there because sloppy police collection and handling could have caused blood to be commingled (like from evidence being put in the same bag, gloves not being changed in the lab when handling evidence, cops walking back and firth through crime scenes).

I think OJ did it but it really bothers me that the jury gets all the blame for the verdict. I think the blame should be first on lapd, second on prosecution, and third on jury. But I'll note that even with the slam dunk forensic evidence in the wood chipper case and white defendant, white victim and white-ish jury, the first trial was a mistrial. Took a second trial to convict. Jury's get it wrong sometimes but it doesn't mean they are racist.

Edited February 11, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[StatisticalOutlier]

William Hodgman's interview, defending the choice to file in Los Angeles from the get-go, and not in Santa Monica and letting the court move it to downtown L.A. if it wanted:

 

Because it gave the impression that the district attorney was choosing a venue where it would be guaranteed many black jurors?

Yeah, I think some people felt that that was pandering to the black community by having it here. It had nothing to do with that at all really. It was the practical awareness that the case was going to be tried here, so let's not beat around the bush. Let's get the case cued up, and let's get it going. …

 

I hate to rely on Alan Dershowitz because he's gotten on my last nerve recently for reasons I can't remember, but his speculation is:

 

[The prosecution] thought they were going to win, and they would rather win and convict a prominent black man by black jurors than by white jurors. They did not want a repeat of Simi Valley and Rodney King and white/black, black/white. They wanted a black jury to convict a prominent black man.

 

I can certainly understand this as a motivation, and actually agree with it, but Hodgman doesn't seem to want to admit it.  That's fine, but some people have opined that one problem with the prosecution is that they rushed to trial, so I find it interesting that Hodgman's justification for filing in Los Angeles County, to rebut assertions that it was based on getting a black jury, is that they wanted to "get the case cued up, and let's get it going."  Oops.  So if that IS his excuse, it turned out to be tactically wrong, too. 

Edited February 11, 2016 by StatisticalOutlier

[Mya Stone]

I'd just like to thank Umbelina for linking the time sink of depositions. Kato's was really enlightening, in particular.

I've fallen into a YouTube sinkhole now and I can't get up.

What's fascinating to me is that I spent so much time watching this trial at the age of 13, it's downright nostalgic. Yet it's VERY different revisiting it at 34. I have newfound empathy for Nicole (as a 34 year old mother of two children) and the Goldmans. Not that they weren't sympathetic before...but the empathy is new.

[LemonSoda]

I'd just like to thank Umbelina for linking the time sink of depositions. Kato's was really enlightening, in particular.

I've fallen into a YouTube sinkhole now and I can't get up.

What's fascinating to me is that I spent so much time watching this trial at the age of 13, it's downright nostalgic. Yet it's VERY different revisiting it at 34. I have newfound empathy for Nicole (as a 34 year old mother of two children) and the Goldmans. Not that they weren't sympathetic before...but the empathy is new.

I was 14 at the time and I'm feeling the same exact way. All of this newfound empathy I guess I wasn't emotionally equipped to have as a teen.

[Umbelina]

Sure, he was known, but he wasn't universally adored the way some people have characterized him. He was a typical back-slapping retired athlete that moved on to bad acting in movies and corny advertisements.  We have such a worship of celebrity in this culture that when a celebrity like him was accused of a double murder, it actually served to elevate this celebrity.

Let's just say he was one of the very few African American celebs back then, that crossed all boundaries, because of his charm, because he seemed like a super nice guy, who took great football stats and crossed over, to movies, to commercials, and to commenting on sports on major networks.

William Hodgman's interview, defending the choice to file in Los Angeles from the get-go, and not in Santa Monica and letting the court move it to downtown L.A. if it wanted:

 

 

I hate to rely on Alan Dershowitz because he's gotten on my last nerve recently for reasons I can't remember, but his speculation is:

 

 

I can certainly understand this as a motivation, and actually agree with it, but Hodgman doesn't seem to want to admit it.  That's fine, but some people have opined that one problem with the prosecution is that they rushed to trial, so I find it interesting that Hodgman's justification for filing in Los Angeles County, to rebut assertions that it was based on getting a black jury, is that they wanted to "get the case cued up, and let's get it going."  Oops.  So if that IS his excuse, it turned out to be tactically wrong, too. 

I do think that was part of it, but if you read Hodgman's whole thing, ALL big murder trials ended up downtown, probably because the facilities were larger, more able to handle it.  As he said, they were going to end up there anyway, so why delay it?  Although, delay in this case would have probably been good.  They should have gone before a grand jury first, that would have given them more time as well.

 

When the jury throws out domestic abuse as being "not relevant" and then believes evidence was planted?  It was over.  Dismissed jurors also told them that no one cared about the domestic abuse, and that juror (who were NOT supposed to discuss the case, obviously DID) kept saying "We'll do this for Rodney!"  (King.)  I think they also wanted Johnie Cochran to win, no matter who the client might have been.  Again, race.

I'd just like to thank Umbelina for linking the time sink of depositions. Kato's was really enlightening, in particular.

I've fallen into a YouTube sinkhole now and I can't get up.

What's fascinating to me is that I spent so much time watching this trial at the age of 13, it's downright nostalgic. Yet it's VERY different revisiting it at 34. I have newfound empathy for Nicole (as a 34 year old mother of two children) and the Goldmans. Not that they weren't sympathetic before...but the empathy is new.

Kato's and Al Cowlings together pretty much tell the tale.  All of them are good though.  I'm almost through the last of OJ's depositions, but flipped over to the actual civil trial in court stuff now...and wow.  What a difference a good judge makes.  Also, watching Juror # 5 was just...powerful.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Umbelina

[elzin]

Since his name had come up in several of the threads, here is a link to Dominick Dunne's Vanity Fair archives.

[MargotWendice]

White people were mad  that an attractive  white woman was murdered because we know for a fact if OJ had murdered his first wife who was black  people would not still be talknig about this twenty years later. This is even shown in the media like everytime a white women is raped , murdered or goes missing i have to here about it 24/7  yet ten black women could go missing in the smae time period nad will be lucky if they get a paragraph cough cogh Natalie  COUGHCOUGH

 

I respectfully disagree with this point, Yes, this case was about race but it was also about celebrity. I think the idea of OJ Simpson, the male equivalent to 'America's Sweetheart', murdering his wife--regardless of her race--would have been a big deal. Ironically I think OJ was more likely to have been convicted if he had killed a Black woman, and therefore we probably would not be talking about it so much 20+ years later.

I am not disagreeing with your other points, such as the fact that more attention is paid toward violence against White women, but this case is different in my opinion.

[Kromm]

I respectfully disagree with this point, Yes, this case was about race but it was also about celebrity. I think the idea of OJ Simpson, the male equivalent to 'America's Sweetheart', murdering his wife--regardless of her race--would have been a big deal. Ironically I think OJ was more likely to have been convicted if he had killed a Black woman, and therefore we probably would not be talking about it so much 20+ years later.

I am not disagreeing with your other points, such as the fact that more attention is paid toward violence against White women, but this case is different in my opinion.

Okay, but think on it. The black version of "America's Sweetheart" is someone a certain part of the population wants to see toppled from that position. Heck, that factor even exists with traditional "America's Sweethearts" (look at how eager people were to eventually turn on Julia Roberts, then Meg Ryan, then Reese Witherspoon, then Anne Hathaway, and now even a lot of them on Jennifer Lawrence). But anyway, take that tendency of us loving to discover and harp on the underbelly of our "Sweethearts" and add race into the mix on TOP of that tendency.

The very fact that America didn't really know squat about Nicole made it easier in a way for the disaffected (with OJ's fame) to latch onto her as someone they could care about. Oh that's not to get even close to saying they shouldn't have (or that they shouldn't have found the whole situation horrible and OJ the murderer a piece of scum), but I DO think it's valid to say that with where people's mind were at (and this aspect probably hasn't changed at all) the fact that it was a white woman killed by the black man who many likely felt some quiet deniable joy in bringing low, possibly inflamed those feelings even more.

[Fable]

Fred Goldman believes it's because Kardashian was a co-conspirator after the fact. Kardashian allegedly walked out of Nicole's house that day with a suitcase nobody ever saw again. If you think logically about what might have been in such a suitcase, "missing murder weapon" is the likely suspect.

 

I'm not sure this is really plausible.  Most certainly Nicole's home was an active crime scene, so I would find it hard to believe that Kardashian would even be allowed in there,  much less allowed to carry something out.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm reading all the threads, and what's that saying-the more things change, the more they remain the same? I'm seeing it here. Once again, Ron is forgotten in most of these discussions. One would think Nicole was the only murder victim.

 

I'm not discounting her death, but he was killed trying to help her.

[partofme]

Okay, but think on it. The black version of "America's Sweetheart" is someone a certain part of the population wants to see toppled from that position. Heck, that factor even exists with traditional "America's Sweethearts" (look at how eager people were to eventually turn on Julia Roberts, then Meg Ryan, then Reese Witherspoon, then Anne Hathaway, and now even a lot of them on Jennifer Lawrence). But anyway, take that tendency of us loving to discover and harp on the underbelly of our "Sweethearts" and add race into the mix on TOP of that tendency.The very fact that America didn't really know squat about Nicole made it easier in a way for the disaffected (with OJ's fame) to latch onto her as someone they could care about. Oh that's not to get even close to saying they shouldn't have (or that they shouldn't have found the whole situation horrible and OJ the murderer a piece of scum), but I DO think it's valid to say that with where people's mind were at (and this aspect probably hasn't changed at all) the fact that it was a white woman killed by the black man who many likely felt some quiet deniable joy in bringing low, possibly inflamed those feelings even more.

Okay, but think on it. The black version of "America's Sweetheart" is someone a certain part of the population wants to see toppled from that position. Heck, that factor even exists with traditional "America's Sweethearts" (look at how eager people were to eventually turn on Julia Roberts, then Meg Ryan, then Reese Witherspoon, then Anne Hathaway, and now even a lot of them on Jennifer Lawrence). But anyway, take that tendency of us loving to discover and harp on the underbelly of our "Sweethearts" and add race into the mix on TOP of that tendency.The very fact that America didn't really know squat about Nicole made it easier in a way for the disaffected (with OJ's fame) to latch onto her as someone they could care about. Oh that's not to get even close to saying they shouldn't have (or that they shouldn't have found the whole situation horrible and OJ the murderer a piece of scum), but I DO think it's valid to say that with where people's mind were at (and this aspect probably hasn't changed at all) the fact that it was a white woman killed by the black man who many likely felt some quiet deniable joy in bringing low, possibly inflamed those feelings even more.

I was a 20 year old white female at the time of the murders who had never heard of OJ Simpson, but it was Ron Goldman's murder, not Nicole's that really upset me both because it was random and because I hated the way the media ignored him when he too was a victim.

[RemoteControlFreak]

Let's just say he was one of the very few African American celebs back then, that crossed all boundaries, because of his charm, because he seemed like a super nice guy, who took great football stats and crossed over, to movies, to commercials, and to commenting on sports on major networks.

Well that certainly narrows the definition of fame. But just off the top of my head, what about Kareem Jabbar or Magic Johnson?

 

And what about Muhammad Ali?

 

I still contend that the recollection of the level of OJ Simpson's fame is subconsciously magnified because of the magnitude that his crimes, trial and punishment took on. And in the case of those who were not adults in the years when he was playing football, imagined based on the subsequent arc of his life.

Edited February 12, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[Umbelina]

M

 

Well that certainly narrows the definition of fame. But just off the top of my head, what about Kareem Jabbar or Magic Johnson?

 

And what about Muhammad Ali?

 

I still contend that the recollection of the level of OJ Simpson's fame is subconsciously magnified because of the magnitude that his crimes, trial and punishment took on. And in the case of those who were not adults in the years when he was playing football, imagined based on the subsequent arc of his life.

I agree, those are good examples.

 

I don't believe anyone with OJ's level of fame would have been shot during that Bronco chase, then, or today.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Umbelina

[RemoteControlFreak]

I'm not discounting her death, but he was killed trying to help her.

There really is no proof that Ron tried to help Nicole.  The generally accepted scenario provided by the coroner and crime scene investigators is that Simpson was hiding out in the bushes at Nicole's house and when Ron arrived to deliver her mother's glasses, Simpson jumped out and in an nanosecond knocked Nicole unconscious then quickly turned to Ron and stabbed him to death in 1-2 minutes, before returning to an unconscious Nicole and slicing her throat. Ron didn't have time to defend Nicole and there was no evidence (none of his blood or prints or DNA on her, for example) that he did.  He had all he could do to defend himself against the much larger and stronger Simpson

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns9.htm.

 

http://www.cnet.com/news/cnet-vault-oj-simpson-murder-computer-simulation/

 

While it's nice to believe that Ron died a hero, trying to save Nicole, the reality is that he didn't have a chance to run or to try to save anyone but himself. 

Edited February 12, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[RemoteControlFreak]

I don't believe anyone with OJ's level of fame would have been shot during that Bronco chase, then, or today.

It's not just his level of fame.  If he's shot, the DA  and police would never be able to prove that he was the killer.  There's a reason why high profile accused criminals are transported wearing body armor.  It's crucial to keep accused criminals alive. 

 

One thing is certain. The slow speed chase never would have happened were he not a celebrity.  An accused double murderer would never be allowed to voluntarily surrender, which led to the surreal chase.  He would have found the doors to his mansion broken down and he would have been dragged out in handcuffs.

Edited February 12, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[Mya Stone]

I'm reading all the threads, and what's that saying-the more things change, the more they remain the same? I'm seeing it here. Once again, Ron is forgotten in most of these discussions. One would think Nicole was the only murder victim.

I'm not discounting her death, but he was killed trying to help her.

Not to me. His is the death that I keep thinking about. Hers was horrible, and gory (and as a nursing student I couldn't help but look at the photos in a new light), but his was just...tragic. Truly the wrong place at the wrong time. I watched the special of the civil trial on A & E with the videos of him dancing and carefree, and I bawled. Something Fred said in one of his videos has been stuck in my head - that he will always only know the Ron who was 25, never the adult he would become.

As a mother to two young sons, that just...it completely freaking breaks my heart.

Also I get really annoyed hearing him described as her friend. I...don't think he was? At all?

[Umbelina]

They were casual friends, at least once he even drove her Ferrari home because she, and I think Faye, were too drunk to drive.  According to Faye's book (ugh) when Nicole called her a few minutes before her death, they were giggling because Faye and Nicole had been looking for a guy to be the third in the replay of a 3-some they had and apparently enjoyed.  Faye said Nicole had never been sexually attracted to Ron, but Ron had to her, and Nicole told Faye she'd decided to "try him out tonight" to see if he was any good sexually, and if he was, he'd be their next 3 some.

 

ETA

It kind of explains the candles...

Edited February 12, 2016 by Umbelina

[BooBear]

Also, does anyone know Clark's record/reputation before this trial? She must have been somewhat competent to be assigned to such a high-profile case. Based on the trailer for this show, the way it seems like they might be portraying it was that she was overwhelmed by the publicity and maybe assumed too quickly that a conviction would be a slam dunk.

 

I believe she was a rising star. She had a strong record of conviction including prosecuting the killer of Rebecca Shaffer. Probably a reason they picked her was that she had some experience with "fame".

[rho]

Not to me. His is the death that I keep thinking about. Hers was horrible, and gory (and as a nursing student I couldn't help but look at the photos in a new light), but his was just...tragic. Truly the wrong place at the wrong time. I watched the special of the civil trial on A & E with the videos of him dancing and carefree, and I bawled. Something Fred said in one of his videos has been stuck in my head - that he will always only know the Ron who was 25, never the adult he would become.

As a mother to two young sons, that just...it completely freaking breaks my heart.

Also I get really annoyed hearing him described as her friend. I...don't think he was? At all?

 

This is my biggest problem with the show too. I know only two episodes have aired so far, but I find it upsetting that his name has only been mentioned maybe once (meanwhile, the K-word gets its own cheer). I was a kid when it happened and totally removed from the case but it wasn't until a few days ago that I realized Ron Goldman was just shy of 26. I don't know why but I pictured him much older and come to find out, I've lived longer than he ever did. It's really horrible what happened to him.

 

I don't know if they were friends but from all accounts Nicole was a frequent patron of his restaurant. LA is surprisingly a small world and I have my favorite servers at certain places who I might run into outside of work, or even make plans with. They were obviously close enough that he was willing to come over and personally return a pair of glasses. Whatever the case, it is really a tragic occurrence that he was there at the wrong time entirely.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Yes, I'm not denying that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time; that he was there, not for the sole purpose to "run in and save Nicole like a hero" but to return her mother's glasses.  And he walked right in on Nicole's murder.

 

But like I also stated in another thread, or it might have been here, that after watching Autopsy and the way the forensic pathologist explained how his murder could have happened, I'm more inclined to believe it, based on where one of Ron's wound was, and how it could have gotten there. After all, when conducting autopsies, that's what MEs do...because they weren't actually there and witnessed it.

 

And it was his father, Fred Goldman, who made sure that Ron wasn't completely forgotten. Ron was as just as much of a victim as Nicole. That was my point.

[Umbelina]

One of the witnesses said they heard a male voice saying "Hey Hey Hey!" so OJ may have been scaring her or beating her when Ron arrived, either way, if he had time to say that, maybe he had time to run instead of engage.  There seem to be two plausible versions of what may have happened.  I think it's very possible Ron did try to save her (the defensive wounds.)

[chlban]

I kind of agree.

Although I don't think he planted any evidence, and might have been billed as a solid detective - he still embodied the casually racist mentality of the LAPD during that time, and had no idea how the "N" word debacle would shape people's thoughts regarding his humanity and character.

He doesn't deserve to be heard and I would never buy

one of his books. I think he is a POS. But I still don't believe OJ was framed

[starri]

They were casual friends, at least once he even drove her Ferrari home because she, and I think Faye, were too drunk to drive.  According to Faye's book (ugh) when Nicole called her a few minutes before her death, they were giggling because Faye and Nicole had been looking for a guy to be the third in the replay of a 3-some they had and apparently enjoyed.  Faye said Nicole had never been sexually attracted to Ron, but Ron had to her, and Nicole told Faye she'd decided to "try him out tonight" to see if he was any good sexually, and if he was, he'd be their next 3 some.

 

ETA

It kind of explains the candles...

I am not doing to go anywhere near that book, but I thought I remember Faye intimating elsewhere that Ron was gay.

[Umbelina]

I don't think so, he had a girlfriend, that excerpt was somewhere and I read it.  I haven't read all of Faye's book either, but excerpts were, and ARE everywhere.  It's kind of hard to miss.  We were discussing the RHBH related people in a thread in that forum, that's probably where I read it.  http://forums.previously.tv/topic/37499-players-in-the-people-v-oj-simpson-kathryn-faye-and-various-others/page-8#entry1936360

 

Marcus Allen's wife is a new HW there, Faye's back this year again as "friend of" so they got into it a bit.  Reportedly (by several people now that I've read the depositions,) not just Faye, Marcus and Nicole had a fairly long running affair, before and after his marriage, when OJ was out of town.  Marcus is of course OJ's friend.  Kathryn and Marcus even got married at OJ's house. Some speculate that relationship is what sent OJ over the edge.  Faye said in her book that Kathryn was the type of wife who looked the other way.  Kathryn and Marcus were solidly behind OJ, and even mentioned in his suicide letter I believe.  Hell, I just posted it, I should have read it.  Anyway, they are in some of his first statements.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Umbelina

[RemoteControlFreak]

One of the witnesses said they heard a male voice saying "Hey Hey Hey!" so OJ may have been scaring her or beating her when Ron arrived, either way, if he had time to say that, maybe he had time to run instead of engage.  There seem to be two plausible versions of what may have happened.  I think it's very possible Ron did try to save her (the defensive wounds.)

The defensive wounds were from Ron trying to keep OJ from killing him. There is zero forensic evidence to show that Ron had any chance to intervene in OJ's attack on Nicole or even escape the killing zone before OJ killed him.

 

Ron was, by most accounts, a wonderful young man.  He died senselessly at the hands of a monster.  It is not necessary to manufacture facts that he gallantly tried to save Nicole in order for his life to have meaning. I know this is the story that Kim Goldman is telling.  It's not true but I understand that it's human nature to somehow make a senseless death have greater value so one can believe that he didn't die in vain.  

 

We see this all the time during senseless tragedy.  It seems like every time there is a crazy mass shooting, the media is quick to jump to a story about someone who died valiantly while trying to save others, even in the face of no evidence that such a thing happened.  This is a very common human reaction.. The reality here is that while Ron's life had tremendous value, his murder had none, except maybe to expose the fact that brutal killers can masquerade for years as nice guys and that our cult of celebrity mixed with racial conflict can trump justice.

Edited February 12, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[Umbelina]

I think it came from that Autopsy show linked somewhere in this forum, the expert walked through it.

 

Again, no idea which was true, but that theory seemed plausible as well. 

[elzin]

I think we'll get more of Ron as a person when the trial really starts and we see (presumably) the Goldmans and Browns more. At the time, we didn't know much about him other than what we've seen on the show. He became more real through the prosecution's case and seeing his father.

[Callaphera]

I do think that was part of it, but if you read Hodgman's whole thing, ALL big murder trials ended up downtown, probably because the facilities were larger, more able to handle it.  As he said, they were going to end up there anyway, so why delay it?  Although, delay in this case would have probably been good.  They should have gone before a grand jury first, that would have given them more time as well.

 

I'm not sure I agree, though I'm probably not as well versed as others in the O.J. Simpson case. This is only a recent interest of mine.

 

I've fallen down the rabbit hole of books based on this case (why have I never read them before?!) and after finishing the book the show is based on, I started in on the Vincent Bugliosi book. I'm not very far in but last night I got to the part where he talks about the case being tried in L.A. rather than Santa Monica and had a bit of a chuckle at all the excuses Garcetti was giving for why the trial was moved and how Bugliosi shut down each and every one of them with either his own knowledge or a simple phone call to clear up details. "There was an earthquake that damaged the building!" Yes but it was repaired and could have been used anyway, not an issue. "There's more room in L.A. for the media outside!" Yes but there's plenty of room in Santa Monica and they can deal. "There would have been a riot if a mostly white jury convicted him in Santa Monica!"/"It would have more impact if a mostly black jury convicted him!" Yes but there seemed to be a general agreement that there were no whispers of a riot and there probably wouldn't have been and I'm not really sold on the second point. "The grand jury takes place in L.A. and then you can't kick it back down to Santa Monica!"/"The defense would just file a motion for the court case to happen in L.A.!" Yes but Bugliosi goes to the trouble of naming only a handful of cases (including a murder case that went from the grand jury back to Van Nuys) that the prosecution could have brought up where that didn't happen and the case goes back to its original filing district, so it would have ultimately been up to the judge and may have actually stayed in Santa Monica. There's no guarantee that a judge would have sided with the defense on that. "The rooms in L.A. are bigger!" Yes but the room it took place in was small and there were rooms of the exact same size in Santa Monica. "L.A. court building has metal detectors at the door!" Yes but so did Santa Monica. According to Bugliosi and at least one other retired former judge, the case should have stayed in Santa Monica, whether it was a big murder trial or not. There was no reason for it to be moved and with some research on the prosecution's part, there's a chance that it never would have been moved.

 

Granted, this is only one person's opinion in a book, so who knows? He claims to have talked to Garcetti himself about it and others, both involved and not involved with the case. I love this book already as much as I loved Helter Skelter. And I don't even know if I would trust what came out of Garcetti's mouth about it, or anyone else involved in the case because it all seems like one giant clusterfuck on their side of it. And that sucks because that was a major mis-step on behalf of the prosecution and there doesn't seem to be a concrete "This is why..." answer for it. 

 

(An aside, the Bugliosi book was very well named because his rage is evident on every page and while I liked the first book by Toobin, this one is far more interesting to me, even if he doesn't delve into every specific detail of the case. I imagine there's far more books out there that attempt to.)

Edited February 12, 2016 by Callaphera

[beavis93]

Well that certainly narrows the definition of fame. But just off the top of my head, what about Kareem Jabbar or Magic Johnson?

 

And what about Muhammad Ali?

 

I still contend that the recollection of the level of OJ Simpson's fame is subconsciously magnified because of the magnitude that his crimes, trial and punishment took on. And in the case of those who were not adults in the years when he was playing football, imagined based on the subsequent arc of his life.

 

It seems you are undermining your own point by equating OJ with Kareem, Magic or Ali. All of these men are incredibly famous and massively popular decades after they last competed (you can argue Kareem was never hugely popular, though he certainly is recognizable). Same with Michael Jordan, or Shaq. Or Michael Strahan if you insist on sticking with football. Joe DiMaggio, if you're old enough. Does this mean that every single person "worships" these guys? Of course not, but they are about as popular, recognizable, admired and "loved" as anyone ever will get, and OJ was among them.

 

Don't discount his name -- OJ -- which is immediately recognizable and unforgettable, "Simpson" is entirely superfluous. When you don't need to use a last name -- Madonna, Beyonce, Kanye, Lebron, Shaq, Adele, Whitney, OPRAH!!, Magic, OJ -- you are pretty f-ing famous, respected, and admired by a large majority of the population. Until they think you've killed two people, of course.

[RemoteControlFreak]

It seems you are undermining your own point by equating OJ with Kareem, Magic or Ali. All of these men are incredibly famous and massively popular decades after they last competed (you can argue Kareem was never hugely popular, though he certainly is recognizable). Same with Michael Jordan, or Shaq. Or Michael Strahan if you insist on sticking with football. Joe DiMaggio, if you're old enough. Does this mean that every single person "worships" these guys? Of course not, but they are about as popular, recognizable, admired and "loved" as anyone ever will get, and OJ was among them.

 

Don't discount his name -- OJ -- which is immediately recognizable and unforgettable, "Simpson" is entirely superfluous. When you don't need to use a last name -- Madonna, Beyonce, Kanye, Lebron, Shaq, Adele, Whitney, OPRAH!!, Magic, OJ -- you are pretty f-ing famous, respected, and admired by a large majority of the population. Until they think you've killed two people, of course.

No. I was answering another poster's statement that OJ may have been the most famous retired African-American athlete at that time who crossed over into movies, commentating and commercials and that he had the highest profile.

 

Jabbar, Johnson and especially Ali had a presence and profile that were at least as prominent, IMHO.

I think we'll get more of Ron as a person when the trial really starts and we see (presumably) the Goldmans and Browns more. At the time, we didn't know much about him other than what we've seen on the show. He became more real through the prosecution's case and seeing his father.

Huh?  This thread i the full case discussion. We know everything there is to know about Ron Goldman.  The miniseries isn't going to reveal anything that isn't already known.  There's nothing new shown in the first two episodes, other than the made-up scene with the Kardashian children chanting their name.

Edited February 12, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak