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

[Umbelina]

I'm not sure, I think the police knew when they entered her house and saw the family photos, but I'm not sure when there was an official ID or who did it.

 

http://www.courierpostonline.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/11/timeline-of-june-121994-murders-of-nicole-brown-simpson-and-ron-goldman/10328983/

 

Timeline.

[Simon Boccanegra]

So far, the part of Daniel Petrocelli's book about the civil case that I have found most fascinating is a chapter called "Mock Trial: The Question of Race" beginning on page 325.  

 

DecisionQuest, the group that Marcia Clark had not wanted to listen to prior to the criminal phase, organized the experiment. Petrocelli presented the plaintiff's case, essentially making the strongest arguments from the criminal prosecution plus presenting new evidence, such as the photo of Simpson wearing the "ugly-ass" Bruno Magli shoes he had denied ever owning. He also dealt with the defense's planting/contamination arguments. By the time he was finished, 86 percent of the mock jurors voted to "convict," well past the 75 percent threshold.  

 

Another lawyer, Edward Medvene, then gave a defense argument. He argued that Simpson would have had more marks on his body if he had been in a protracted struggle; that too much of the evidence had been found by Fuhrman, a racist cop; that the Bruno Magli shoes photo was fraudulent and originally appeared in the dubious National Enquirer; that Detective Vannatter was running around with a vial of Simpson's blood that should have been booked; that the LAPD testing lab was a "cesspool of contamination"; and that Nicole was a "reckless" young woman who was involved with numerous men and doing "all kinds of wild things."  

 

Then they played a 15-minute monologue from Simpson's I Want To Tell You video for the mock jurors.  

 

The lawyers watched through two-way mirrors as the mock jury discussed what they had seen and heard. Per Petrocelli: "It was painful and sobering. Although there were only three black jurors in the room, they dominated the discussion. They were fervent, angry, zealous. To the blacks, this was not the case of determining who murdered Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson on June 12, 1994; this case was about what happened after June 12, it was about the LAPD and its investigation. Deeper still, it was about paying back the LAPD, the legal system, and society in general, for years of mistreatment. They overwhelmed, even intimidated, the other jurors who were arguing to make a decision based on the physical evidence. [...] To the white, Hispanic, and Asian jurors the case against Simpson did not have the same meaning or the same stakes. They were arguing logic while the blacks were aroused by passion. Reasoned advocacy versus a visceral rage over two hundred years of victimization and oppression. Which do you think will carry the day?" 

 

He said that the less educated black jurors, in particular the women, were the most vocal. "While other jurors would not put aside their individual reasoning and agree, after several hours they got tired and couldn't keep up. They had no stomach to combat such heated intensity, the case didn't mean that much to them."

 

When the question was framed in terms of, setting aside the legalities, do you think Simpson did it, 10 of 15 hands went up...including one of the most vocal pro-Simpson (black) jurors.  

 

A silver lining for Petrocelli et al.: When Simpson was shown on tape speaking on his behalf, it hurt rather than helped him. He was perceived as looking as though he didn't care, looking coached, looking like an actor. One woman said that "Simpson's lawyer" (who, of course, was not; Medvene was playing the mock Cochran/Baker figure) had made so many good points for him, which Simpson had then messed up. Even the black jurors found Simpson unconvincing.  

 

The jurors found interesting the information that almost 20 other officers, of various races, were on the Bundy scene before Fuhrman arrived. However, one pro-Simpson juror said that even if it could be demonstrated that there were only 300 pairs of shoes in the world like those Bruno Maglis, she would consider the possibility that someone stole Simpson's shoes and wore them in commission of the murders.  

 

So, the mock trial was a clear loss for the plaintiffs' side. After Medvene's defense argument and the deliberations, they were way back below the threshold required to find Simpson liable in the wrongful deaths.    

 

There was more; they also did an all-black focus group, but I will stop summarizing here. Petrocelli and company at least listened to Don ("Well, that's wonderful anecdotal information, but...") Vinson and DecisionQuest and went in with their eyes open, unlike Marcia Clark, who was so focused on her prior good experiences with black female jurors. Hers was one of the major mistakes they did not repeat.  

Edited April 2, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[smiley13]

As I am watching the real trial footage on Esquire, they just showed the trying on of the gloves.  The gloves did not fit completely on his hands for whatever reason.  I am sure watching this made a huge impact on the jurors.

 

I have seen it referenced about the show Simpson allegedly put on while trying on the gloves.  Seeing it again, it did not seem to be a performance.

[Rustybones]

Anyone who's ever owned leather gloves knows they can shrink with age, weather, etc. 

[Simon Boccanegra]

I personally thought once they were on and he was holding up his hands, they looked as though they fit even so. Of course, he was trying them on over latex gloves. The clincher to me was the ease with which he slipped them off. Anyone who has ever tried to squeeze into something too small knows that getting it off is just as laborious.  

Edited April 3, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[RemoteControlFreak]

As I am watching the real trial footage on Esquire, they just showed the trying on of the gloves.  The gloves did not fit completely on his hands for whatever reason.  I am sure watching this made a huge impact on the jurors.

 

I have seen it referenced about the show Simpson allegedly put on while trying on the gloves.  Seeing it again, it did not seem to be a performance.

I'm watching it too, and they look like they do fit.

 

They're designed to fit tightly and the leather is very thin. As the Bloomingdales buyer testified, one can pick up a needle with them on, so they're designed to be skin-tight and thin.

 

Simpson play-acted like they didn't fit and refused to put his hands completely into the gloves, pretending to pull and tug on them and pretending that his hands wouldn't go in. But you can see all the extra room in this photo.

 

 

Then stupid Christoper Darden accepted Simpson and his attorney's claim that they didn't fit as fact and turned to the Isotoner exec and said, "so why didn't they fit?"  And that pretty much sealed Simpson's acquittal.

Edited April 3, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[Quiet1ne]

Anyone who's ever owned leather gloves knows they can shrink with age, weather etc. 

How many of the jurors ever owned or even worn a pair of gloves?  Most Angelinos never have a need form them, have no idea how certain fabrics are supposed to fit or what factors effect the fit. This is a part of the country where a not insignificant portion of the adult population doesn't own long pants.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Quiet1ne

[smiley13]

The gloves looked bulky, not thin.  And with the latex gloves hanging out from underneath them. they look to me like they did not fit.

[Rustybones]

I remembered that Marcia was tough on Kato, but wow!  Why did she treat him like a hostile wiitness?  The poor guy may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but I believe he was as honest as he could be.  Some of the questions from her were confusing and her tone didn't help him to relax and think about what she was asking.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Well, I think Nicole would know her husband's hands pretty well, and what she purchased for him was a matter of record. But Simpson should have tried on the new pair the company provided, without the latex gloves underneath them, and he certainly should not have been in charge of the experiment. A bailiff should have done it.  

 

Clark just couldn't stand Kato Kaelin, because he tended to meander and hem and haw. She literally treated him like a dog, per an anecdote in Petrocelli's book. She was interviewing him, and they were on opposite sides of a table, and when he gave an answer that she found satisfactory, she would flip him a pretzel, like "Good boy." 

[smiley13]

Yes, while watching the footage of Clark practically harassing Kato, she was just as rude and hostile as I remembered.  It clearly showed why she was so easy to dislike.  From what was aired, it seemed like he was trying to answer as clearly as he could but she was doing her best to twist things around on him.

[TexasGal]

I've always thought it must be incredibly difficult to give testimony in a trial like that one, where pretty much every question was challenged. I'm an attorney, I do transactional work but the couple times I've had to attend depositions with clients it's been hard for me to keep track (which is a little different because no one rules on the objections, but I digress) and those were much lower stress. Kato really didn't seem like the brightest bulb but he was clearly intimidated by Marcia Clark and then with all the cross talk AND how everything was revisited multiple times, I feel for the guy.

[RemoteControlFreak]

The gloves looked bulky, not thin.  And with the latex gloves hanging out from underneath them. they look to me like they did not fit.

Right.  And looks are deceiving. It's very hard to tell whether a glove is thin or thick just from looking at them on someone else's hands.  I believe the testimony of the Bloomingdales and Isotoner employees that they are thin.  

 

The latex liners are more of the illusion that they don't fit.  It creates the illusion that the leather gloves must be too small because they're not as long as long as they latex liners. In reality, they're not as long because they're not pulled on all the way and because the liners come down almost to Simpson's shirt cuffs.

Edited April 3, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[MsJamieDornan]

 

Today. 4:47 pm

 

Yes, while watching the footage of Clark practically harassing Kato, she was just as rude and hostile as I remembered.  It clearly showed why she was so easy to dislike.  From what was aired, it seemed like he was trying to answer as clearly as he could but she was doing her best to twist things around on him

I've always wondered what people think Kato is not telling? Several people, Harvey Levin, Dominick Dunne and others are sure that Kato knows more than he told in court. Not that he was lying, but he knows more. Any ideas what he they think he was holding back?

[Umbelina]

I don't think he held anything back during his Civil Trial deposition.  Honestly, I think he was scared, and he does ramble, he wasn't handled properly as a witness during the criminal trial.  I know he was also scared, the OJ crowd kind of came down on him at the house.

 

http://simpson.walraven.org/

 

Near the bottom of the page, he testified for 3 days.  Earlier in this thread I posted diagrams of OJ's house, which are helpful to have up when reading as he describes that day and evening. 

 

ETA when he is allowed to gather his thoughts, and yes, to ramble a bit, he's very clear.  If nothing else, read about how weird OJ was with him all day, and how extremely weird he was when Kato invited himself to go with to pick up fast food.  He was on edge all night, and on the phone talking about that, when the thumps happened.  He asked his friend if there was an earthquake, and then was so scared/nervous she told him to get out of there and come stay with her.

Edited April 4, 2016 by Umbelina

[Rustybones]

While watching the trial on Esquire yesterday, I was surprised at how small and crowded that courtroom really was.  There had to be larger rooms available for such a high profile case that would go on for months.  When the defense spoke to the jury they were right in front of the prosecution table.  I hadn't remembered that Cochran actually brought OJ up in front of the jury to basically show them he could barely walk, suffering from both rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis.  When that happened, the prosecution was actually pushed back out of the way for OJ and the guard,  Also for opening arguments I noticed Kardashian was seated in the first row of spectators and not at the defense table.  Later they somehow made room for him with the other lawyers.

[Mittengirl]

I remember watching Clark question Kato during the trial and she did treat him badly. He seemed to be someone who needed time to process his thoughts before speaking and she simply didn't allow for that. Couple that with the constant objections and the questions being rephrased and repeated and it is no wonder he rambled, he didn't get quite what she was asking. I can understand why he was frustrating to her, but she should have handled him better, because I think he came off as someone who was trying his best to answer her honestly. Many times her questions seemed either repetitive or circular and Kato didn't seem to get what she was trying to ask, or why his previous answers weren't satisfactory. I can easily see the jurors feeling negatively towards her during that testimony.

Did Kato continue living at Rockingham during the whole trial? I think I would have tried to get the hell out, especially if Simpson's family thought his testimony was/would be unfavorable to OJ.

[Crs97]

We watched about an hour of her questioning Kato, and now I am amazed that she won any trials, much less 19 of 20.  She treated him badly and got so focused on trying to have a gotcha moment for someone who seemed to be trying to answer truthfully.  It was like watching someone kick a puppy.  For instance, she made a huge deal about his saying OJ wasn't angry and then saying later he was upset.  She acted like he was caught in a whopper of a lie when anyone could understand what he was trying to say.  Kato even said, "There is a huge range to 'upset'" but she talked over him.  I couldn't figure out why she was trying to hang him out to dry when his testimony was pretty neutral.  Then she railed about his having an attorney and maybe wanting to write a book . . . what a hypocrite considering Darden and she wrote books.  Of course Kato had an attorney.  Anyone in that situation would have been stupid not to hire one.  I really cannot stand when Hollywood plays the "you only need an attorney if you are guilty" card; I am furious that a real attorney was going down that same path.

 

I thought Kato moved out quickly and lived with another friend, which cemented his media reputation as permanent house-guest, sofa crasher.

[BBDi]

I think Kato kind of waffled over the course of the criminal trial and seemed unwilling to be firm on items where had been much firmer during his deposition. He did tend to ramble and probably seemed a bit too suggestible when cross-examined by the defense. I can think of many reasons he would have felt intimidated or hesitant during the trial.

But not only did it make Marcia look like a puppy-kicker, it must really have looked bad to the jury - a la "even their own star witness won't say what they want him to."

That was another tactical error.

[smiley13]

Her treatment of Kato was yet another one of Marcia's blunders IMO.  If I had been on the jury, I would have had a very unfavorable opinion of her.

 Then she railed about his having an attorney and maybe wanting to write a book . . . what a hypocrite considering Darden and she wrote books.  Of course Kato had an attorney.  Anyone in that situation would have been stupid not to hire one.  I really cannot stand when Hollywood plays the "you only need an attorney if you are guilty" card; I am furious that a real attorney was going down that same path.

Yes, good ole Marcia was a hypocrite.

[starri]

Maybe I'm being kinder to Clark than I should, but I wonder if her post-trial career trajectory was shaped at least in part by how ubiquitous and unflattering the trial coverage had been.  It seems like it would have basically destroyed her ability to be a successful prosecutor, because pretty much any courtroom she stepped into would know who she was.  I don't believe she ever tried another case, and she left the DA's office two year after the acquittal.

 

Vincent Bugliosi basically followed the same path, except that he made two unsuccessful runs for DA and practiced as a defense attorney, before becoming a writer and media figure.  And he actually won the case.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I've always wondered what made Bugliosi make the change to defense attorney. I did watch the two movies where Richard Crenna portrayed Bugliosi. I still miss him. But I like that CNN Films' series about the decades, reached out to him, so I get to see him when they were doing The Sixties and The Seventies.

 

I miss that man SO much.

[Rustybones]

Has anyone here given any thought or done any research on the idea that OJ's son Jason could have been responsible for the murders?

[SinInTheCamp]

I've always wondered what made Bugliosi make the change to defense attorney. I did watch the two movies where Richard Crenna portrayed Bugliosi. I still miss him. But I like that CNN Films' series about the decades, reached out to him, so I get to see him when they were doing The Sixties and The Seventies.

 

I miss that man SO much.

Probably the fact that he could make much more money as a high-profile defense attorney than as a prosecutor working for the DA's office.

As a teenager, I idolized Bugliosi and wanted to be a prosecutor just like him (I had no idea at the time that he had long since moved on). All of these years later, I've continued to admire what he stood for throughout his lifetime. I've heard that people tend to grow more conservatively close-minded as they age, but I've been the opposite--I grew up in a conservative family, went into law enforcement, and since then am as far left as one can be (I think). Bugliosi similarly became more open-minded as he aged. He went into the opposite end of the spectrum in his law practice by defending accused murderers, he wrote a book questioning the existence of God called Divinity of Doubt, and he advocated for a compassionate release for Susan Atkins prior to her death.

I have his book on the OJ trial and still reread it every once in a while. With the exception of his sometimes militant tone, I agree with its contents wholeheartedly (he lays out the way he would have prosecuted the case). At the time of the trial, I personally thought OJ should have been convicted, but looking back now with the hindsight that comes from many years of emotional and physical distance, I realize that none of the branches of law enforcement were ever working for us, the citizens of L.A.'s most neglected districts. We were being terrorized by law enforcement (and then told it was for our own good), beaten, and then ignored when one of our own were murdered. OJ was a rich man, but he was also culturally abject as an African American (and he himself didn't even realize it!). The only ones who latched onto his racial abjection were those who experienced otherness on a daily basis. He became a symbol for them of the possibility of a POC taking on that longtime nemesis. None of us knew back then that OJ had divorced himself from his roots. And it's not like there were many choices; precious few POC had the power to represent a challenge to the establishment.

This is all beyond the scope of Bugliosi's book, of course, but I would love to know what he would have thought of this series and would like to believe that his cultural philosophies would have continued to evolve, as mine have. I so appreciate that this show has consistently pointed out the nuances of this historical case.

[psychoticstate]

Has anyone here given any thought or done any research on the idea that OJ's son Jason could have been responsible for the murders?

 

This has been somewhat discussed in the media thread, I think.  William Dear wrote a book based on that theory.

 

I personally don't subscribe to it for a variety of reasons, the most vital of which is that I don't believe Simpson would set himself up to take the fall for a son that he seemed pretty disdainful of.    FWIW, Dear's timeline doesn't work and suggesting Jason as the killer doesn't explain how Simpson's blood was the crime scene, the cut on his finger, Ron's blood and Nicole's blood in the Bronco, fibers from Ron's shirt being in the Bronco, hairs matching Simpson in the knit cap, etc.

[RemoteControlFreak]

Has anyone here given any thought or done any research on the idea that OJ's son Jason could have been responsible for the murders?

This is apparently the theory behind Martin Sheen's "Hard Evidence: OJ is Innocent" upcoming TV series.  Marcia Clark was on the Today Show today and slammed the theory has having no evidence to back it up and unfair to Jason because his only defense against this accusation is to say, "I didn't do it. My dad did."  

 

http://www.today.com/news/marcia-clark-today-show-oj-innocent-documentary-nonsense-t84381

 

And yes, there is zero evidence that Jason committed the crime.  There's really no evidence that points to anyone other than OJ  Simpson.

[Umbelina]

There are websites devoted to this theory (and some of them had the best diagrams, so I ended up on a few.)  The main problems were they state a "fact" and go from there, the "fact" is often very easily disproved, not a matter of opinion, but of an actual fact.  They do this quite a bit to make it all fit together, and when basic premises are wrong, it's hard to give the follow up any credence. 

 

For just one example, several say that Nicole changed restaurants that night without even bothering to notify Jason.  He testifies in the civil trial that she called him, apologized, explained why, and that yes, he was disappointed because he wanted to show off his chef skills, but he understood why.  This is supposedly the reason he went into a rage and murdered the woman he was very, very fond of for years, someone he hung out with even after she split from OJ, because he liked her so much.

 

As far as the meds he was on for his "rage" thing, I have no idea what is really true there, but he testifies that he has epilepsy, and takes Depakote to control those seizures. 

 

There are many pro-Jason did it, and debunking sites that no, he didn't out there.  I've read a few. 

 

Now had Jason written a suicide note, threatened to kill himself, and taken off with his best friend with a disguise, thousands of dollars, and his passport or apologized and praised the police for being good guys?  I might consider it. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Umbelina

[smiley13]

There is really some fascinating stuff out there about how many people connected to Mezzaluna died in suspicious manners. 

 

And that Ron and Nicole were more than casual friends.  

[Astra]

Cochran actually brought OJ up in front of the jury to basically show them he could barely walk, suffering from both rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. 

Sorry if this was already brought up, but I didn't see this mentioned in the glove discussion. There was a popular theory that he was instructed on the day of trying on the gloves to not take his medication, allowing his joints to swell. This would also result in the ill fitting.

[DangerousMinds]

It was OJ's DNA, not Jason's.

[Spartan Girl]

I think last night's episode illustrated that at the end of the day, there weren't any winners in this case.  Certainly not the victims and their families.  But not even Cochran really won, because despite his emotional viewing of President Clinton addressing the police/race relations problem, we all know today that it didn't really change a damn thing.  This wasn't some great step in advocacy for African Americans; it was a rich, celebrity murderer getting away with the crime who just happened to be African American.

 

And arguably, OJ, though he got away with it, didn't really win.  His image was tarnished and his friends shunned him.  All his greatness was (and still is) in his own mind.  

[Mittengirl]

I never thought about it until now, but did none of the jurors have school aged children? Because I can't imagine separating a parent and child for that long.

[Umbelina]

Small kids or not, that whole thing must have be awful for most of the jurors. 

 

Think about it, it would be like leaving today for that hotel, and not being able to come home until December or January.  That should never have happened.  No TV, no computer, no phone, stuck with the same faces during all of your off time, I mean even close friends can get annoying if they never ever leave.

 

Very cruel for them.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Umbelina

[Inquisitionist]

From Marcia Clark's post-finale thoughts about the series:

What is your most vivid memory of the day of the verdict?
One thing they didn't show, which is too bad, was the fact that we knew. First of all, they were wrong about [the jury deliberation being] four hours. It was two hours. They announced their verdict two hours after going back to the jury room. So, really, there was no deliberation. Also, what they didn't show you is that during those two hours they asked for the “readback” of the limo driver, Alan Park. They wanted the court reporter to read his testimony.

Now, he was one of those witnesses that the defense could not shake. They could not lay a hand on him. He was straight, honest, true. Johnnie really didn't try. And so, I argued to the jury: If you believe Alan Park's testimony, and you have no reason not to, and you believe his testimony that he drove up to Rockingham and he did not see the Bronco, that he parked in the driveway and could not reach Simpson, that some period of time later, he finally saw a figure that was the size of Simpson outside coming from around the side of the house where the glove was dropped, and walk in through the front door. And that he then went inside the house. And then finally he answers the limo driver's call. If you believe that testimony, then you must believe Simpson committed these murders because everything falls from that moment. If you believe all of that, then you know Simpson had no alibi, then you know Simpson was out of the house, then you know he was exactly where the glove was dropped. So you understand that all of that is true, and the defense never could touch that testimony. It stood there as true. If you believe that, then you must believe he committed these murders.

 

So when they asked for his testimony to be read back, the judge said, "I can read into it as well as anybody, if they're asking for this testimony it's got to be good for the prosecution.” I wasn’t there, it was told to me, but when I first heard that, I thought, That's true! For a moment, the night before, I believed that. But then I was with Shari Lewis, who was on our team, and she said, "Marcia, that jury got to a verdict within two hours. It can't possibly be guilty. Look who's on your jury." We knew how many people were against us. We could have produced a videotape and they wouldn't have voted guilty. And so I came back down to earth and realized, Shari, of course you're right. By the time I was walking into court, I was well aware of what was going to happen. It was still hard — it was one of those things: I can't believe they really did it. I can't believe they really did it. But I knew they did it. And then I found out why they had the readback. And it was one of the most ridiculous things.
 

Uh-oh. I’m afraid to ask.
Here it is! I think no clearer picture could ever be painted of the fact that a jury will believe only what they want to believe than this. They asked for his testimony to be read back because he stated that when he pulled up to the driveway he noticed two cars in the driveway. And when Johnnie was cross-examining him Johnnie laughed and said, "Well, of course, that's not true, Arnelle was not home yet.” Alan Park was remembering the photos taken by the police after the fact. I asked him about that and he said, "Yeah that's true so there might have only been one car.” It wasn't really important to me how many cars were in the driveway. It wasn't important to anyone. But the jury said, Oh see. He said there were two cars in the driveway, so we can't trust anything he says. And if there could ever be a more clear illustration of the fact that a jury will buy exactly and only what they want to buy, that has to be it.

 

[vibeology]

I think last night's episode illustrated that at the end of the day, there weren't any winners in this case.  Certainly not the victims and their families.  But not even Cochran really won, because despite his emotional viewing of President Clinton addressing the police/race relations problem, we all know today that it didn't really change a damn thing.   

 

Barry Scheck maybe? He went into this more to change how DNA evidence was dealt with by police forces across the country and to point out how bad lab procedures ran rampant in the LAPD.  Many people believe that this case changed, dramatically, the way police departments across the country deal with evidence collection, testing and storage. Things aren't perfect but this trial did shift things dramatically. Plus, the celebrity from this case helped Scheck with the Innocence Project. He's probably the only person whose career got better because of his involvement in this case and achieved a portion of what he set out to do when he joined the Dream Team.

 

But yeah, being involved in something so messy as this pretty much drained everyone and while some of them have sound success after the fact, no one is a winner here.

[ganesh]

Two hours! That's insane!

[deerstalker]

Here it is! I think no clearer picture could ever be painted of the fact that a jury will believe only what they want to believe than this. They asked for his testimony to be read back because he stated that when he pulled up to the driveway he noticed two cars in the driveway. And when Johnnie was cross-examining him Johnnie laughed and said, "Well, of course, that's not true, Arnelle was not home yet.” Alan Park was remembering the photos taken by the police after the fact. I asked him about that and he said, "Yeah that's true so there might have only been one car.” It wasn't really important to me how many cars were in the driveway. It wasn't important to anyone. But the jury said, Oh see. He said there were two cars in the driveway, so we can't trust anything he says. And if there could ever be a more clear illustration of the fact that a jury will buy exactly and only what they want to buy, that has to be it.

 

 

I think this is where Marcia Clark is delusional.  If you are hinging your entire case on the eyewitness testimony of the limo driver, and saying your entire theory of the case flows from there, asking the jury to put a man in jail potentially for the rest of his life, then that eyewitness better damn well be correct in his recollections.  If he can't remember the small number of cars in the driveway, and is instead relying on police evidence, and parroting back incorrect information, how is your entire theory of the case not then blown?  It was an unforced error on the prosecution's part, one of many.  If you are going to coach your witness, make sure you are coaching them with the right information.  But at that point, why would a jury trust his testimony.  This wasn't a small thing, it was pretty much everything, because you staked the entire theory of your case on his testimony in your pitch to the jury.

[BBDi]

I think this is where Marcia Clark is delusional. If you are hinging your entire case on the eyewitness testimony of the limo driver, and saying your entire theory of the case flows from there, asking the jury to put a man in jail potentially for the rest of his life, then that eyewitness better damn well be correct in his recollections. If he can't remember the small number of cars in the driveway, and is instead relying on police evidence, and parroting back incorrect information, how is your entire theory of the case not then blown? It was an unforced error on the prosecution's part, one of many. If you are going to coach your witness, make sure you are coaching them with the right information. But at that point, why would a jury trust his testimony. This wasn't a small thing, it was pretty much everything, because you staked the entire theory of your case on his testimony in your pitch to the jury.

Because there was corroboration of much his statement based on calling his dispatcher or supervisor (or whatever) about when he arrived, how he got no response when he first rang the bell and called to ask for advice, I believe more than once.

He was there to pick up OJ the star, not OJ the murderer. He had no reason to be suspicious, he was approaching the situation as an unbiased person who was probably just trying to his job and get his customer to the airport on time, and trying to make sure he wasn't fucking up somehow.

His testimony intersected with Kato's as well and supports the fact that there was concern that OJ wasn't there and that someone or something had been moving about the property around this time.

[deerstalker]

Are there links or verified sources for this information?

For starters, there was the Rampart Scandal: 

The LAPD Rampart scandal refers to widespread corruption in the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) anti-gang unit of the Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart Division in the late 1990s. More than 70 police officers either assigned to or associated with the Rampart CRASH unit were implicated in some form of misconduct, making it one of the most widespread cases of documented police misconduct in United States history, responsible for a long list of offenses including unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of false evidence, frameups, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and the covering up of evidence of these activities.[1][2]

 

The New Rampart Police Station

The Rampart investigation, based mainly on statements of CRASH officer Rafael Pérez, also known as Ray Lopez, an admitted corrupt policeman, initially implicated over 70 officers of wrongdoing. Of those officers, enough evidence was found to bring 58 before an internal administrative board. However, only 24 were actually found to have committed any wrongdoing, with 12 given suspensions of various lengths, 7 forced into resignation or retirement, and 5 terminated.[3] As a result of the probe into falsified evidence and police perjury, 106 prior criminal convictions were overturned.[4] The Rampart scandal resulted in more than 140 civil lawsuits against the city of Los Angeles, costing the city an estimated $125 million in settlements.[5]

Partly as a result of the scandal, Mayor James K. Hahn did not rehire Police Chief Bernard Parks in 2001. Both the scandal and the de facto firing of Parks are believed to have precipitated Hahn's defeat by Antonio Villaraigosa in the 2005 mayoral election.[6]

As of 2014, the full extent of Rampart corruption is not known, and several rape, murder and robbery investigations involving Rampart officers remain unsolved.[7][8]

 

 

These are some thoughts on the early decades of the LAPD:  https://www.laprogressive.com/the-racist-legacy-of-the-lapd/

...Parker recruited Marines and Army personnel after tours of duty and he recruited Southern white males who had a certain racial view of the world, then he put them on the streets of Los Angeles. The mentality was pervasive and abusive, and corrupt to its very core. Police beat black and Latino residents, assaulted their women, and governed by fear and intimidation in the same way they did in the South.

South Central and East L.A. became known for where blacks and Latinos lived, not because they wanted to, but because of de facto segregation (separation by social norms and residential patterns) that was desired by the “city fathers” and enforced by the Chief of Police, kept minorities “in their place” (geographical boundaries). Parker was “their man” and his racially distorted views of blacks didn’t allow for promotions in the department and did enforce a culture that was as discriminating within as it was without. “To protect and serve” only applied to white people; Parker didn’t have a problem saying that so long as blacks and Latinos stayed “in their place,” they would be served too. Most of the time, they were served up.

 

[deerstalker]

Because there was corroboration of much his statement based on calling his dispatcher or supervisor (or whatever) about when he arrived, how he got no response when he first rang the bell and called to ask for advice, I believe more than once.

He was there to pick up OJ the star, not OJ the murderer. He had no reason to be suspicious, he was approaching the situation as an unbiased person who was probably just trying to his job and get his customer to the airport on time, and trying to make sure he wasn't fucking up somehow.

His testimony intersected with Kato's as well and supports the fact that there was concern that OJ wasn't there and that someone or something had been moving about the property around this time.

 

 

Simpson did not deny that he did not answer the door initially after the limo driver got there.  His contention was that he was asleep.  So everyone agrees that that the door/phone was not answered.  The major area of disagreement was whether the Bronco was there or not. The limo driver had parked at the other entrance, but had made two passes around the other entrance, and he claimed that he two cars, but not the Bronco.  But he was, in the end, not testifying from memory, but from photographs of the scene supplied to him by police.  And while Clarke could handwave the error on the number of cars as "no big deal", if you are asking the jury to rely on this person's testimony to send a man to jail, his memory of the events that night should not be so easy to discredit. If you can't remember something as simple as how many cars were parked out there, well, the question would inevitably arise, what else are you misremembering?  Especially since the usefullness of your testimony hinges on whether a car was parked out there or not. It was a dumb thing for the prosecution to allow to happen, yet so typical.

[psychoticstate]

I think this is where Marcia Clark is delusional.  If you are hinging your entire case on the eyewitness testimony of the limo driver, and saying your entire theory of the case flows from there, asking the jury to put a man in jail potentially for the rest of his life, then that eyewitness better damn well be correct in his recollections.  If he can't remember the small number of cars in the driveway, and is instead relying on police evidence, and parroting back incorrect information, how is your entire theory of the case not then blown?  It was an unforced error on the prosecution's part, one of many.  If you are going to coach your witness, make sure you are coaching them with the right information.  But at that point, why would a jury trust his testimony.  This wasn't a small thing, it was pretty much everything, because you staked the entire theory of your case on his testimony in your pitch to the jury.

 

 

Because there was corroboration of much his statement based on calling his dispatcher or supervisor (or whatever) about when he arrived, how he got no response when he first rang the bell and called to ask for advice, I believe more than once.

He was there to pick up OJ the star, not OJ the murderer. He had no reason to be suspicious, he was approaching the situation as an unbiased person who was probably just trying to his job and get his customer to the airport on time, and trying to make sure he wasn't fucking up somehow.

His testimony intersected with Kato's as well and supports the fact that there was concern that OJ wasn't there and that someone or something had been moving about the property around this time.

 

 

I don't believe that Clark and Darden were hinging their case solely on Alan Park.  Park had no dog in the fight, so to speak.  He was there, doing his job.  He had no reason to lie or embellish for anyone.  The meat and potatoes of his testimony was important.  The Bronco was not there when he arrived and when he left, after seeing who he took to be Simpson running into the house and after getting no response from the gate, the Bronco was there when he left.  That's hugely important.  How many cars were in the driveway itself wasn't nearly as important.  Those cars weren't in dispute.  (It's also interesting that it was noted that Simpson normally parked the Bronco in the driveway and never on the street -- most residents did not park on the street, which is another reason why the Bronco would be so noticeable.  I think Simpson planned on returning the Bronco to the driveway but Park made that impossible.) 

 

Regardless, if anyone is going to disregard Park's testimony in its entirety because he believed there were 2 cars in the driveway instead of 1, what about Simpson's own interview with the LAPD?   He was all over the place.  He couldn't tell the detectives what time he returned home from the dance recital, when he got flowers, the last time he was in the Bronco, when he got the cut, how he got the cut, etc.  THAT is damning testimony in my book. 

[Apprentice79]

For starters, there was the Rampart Scandal: 

 

These are some thoughts on the early decades of the LAPD:  https://www.laprogressive.com/the-racist-legacy-of-the-lapd/

Thank you for posting this...I hope some people will realize that Black people are not paranoid and stupid when it comes to the police...We have had legitimate grievances against them over the years..

[psychoticstate]

Simpson did not deny that he did not answer the door initially after the limo driver got there.  His contention was that he was asleep.  So everyone agrees that that the door/phone was not answered.  The major area of disagreement was whether the Bronco was there or not. The limo driver had parked at the other entrance, but had made two passes around the other entrance, and he claimed that he two cars, but not the Bronco.  But he was, in the end, not testifying from memory, but from photographs of the scene supplied to him by police.  And while Clarke could handwave the error on the number of cars as "no big deal", if you are asking the jury to rely on this person's testimony to send a man to jail, his memory of the events that night should not be so easy to discredit. If you can't remember something as simple as how many cars were parked out there, well, the question would inevitably arise, what else are you misremembering?  Especially since the usefullness of your testimony hinges on whether a car was parked out there or not. It was a dumb thing for the prosecution to allow to happen, yet so typical.

 

If you believe Simpson, sure he was sleeping.  Or showering.  Or chipping golf balls.  Or maybe returning from killing his ex-wife and Ron Goldman.   Regardless, Park noticed the absence of the Bronco on the street and then it's reappearance which is a bit different than how many cars were parked in the driveway.  Cars parked on the street (Ashford, I think) was apparently not the norm as the street was used as a route to access Sunset.   He had no specific reason to note the cars in the driveway but would obviously note a previously empty street with a now-parked Bronco on it.  So I believe him.

[Asp Burger]

Didn't Alan Park have to look at the walkway (near where the Bronco was parked when they left) in order to see the street number? So, yeah, he wouldn't have missed that. It wasn't there when he arrived. Simpson was on his way back home.  

[Finnegan]

I don't believe that Clark and Darden were hinging their case solely on Alan Park. Park had no dog in the fight, so to speak. He was there, doing his job. He had no reason to lie or embellish for anyone. The meat and potatoes of his testimony was important.

I don't think Park needed to be lying in order for his testimony to be questionable. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable...he could have just been mistaken or misremembering.

Now the inconsistencies in *Simpson's* account of the night? Those are more incriminating for sure.

[Umbelina]

The thing about Park though was, not only was he a professional limo driver, that limo was a stretch limo, and Simpson's driveway wasn't designed to handle those (which I learned during Simpson's video after the trial.)  It took some maneuvering, and had to be sticking out in the street when that gate wasn't opened, because no one answered the bell for so long.

 

He wasn't able to pull it in at all until Kato, who was investigating the loud thumps on his wall came out and saw the limo, and let him in, asking first if there had been an earthquake, and then if the driver had a flashlight (so he could see in that narrow passageway along the side of the house.)

 

So yes, because of the size of that limo, he would have noticed the Bronco parked right next to the driveway, and Park was out there for a LONG time.  Now exiting the driveway, of course he would have noticed, because he was backing up, and obviously didn't want to hit any cars.  He didn't know the Bronco was OJ's but he knew it wasn't there when he arrived, and was when he was backing out.  That's something a professional driver WOULD make note of.  "Clear exit" when he arrived, "avoid the car" when he left.

 

ETA

Since he wasn't going to drive through the circular driveway though, he needn't pay much attention to what car(s) were parked inside.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Umbelina

[psychoticstate]

I don't think Park needed to be lying in order for his testimony to be questionable. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable...he could have just been mistaken or misremembering.

Now the inconsistencies in *Simpson's* account of the night? Those are more incriminating for sure.

 

Oh absolutely.  But I wouldn't consider his testimony questionable solely based on the driveway cars.   As an example, I drive by a certain complex every evening on the way home from work.  I see it, I know it's there.  I can even tell you exactly what color the buildings are.  One of my co-workers asked me the name of the complex and I had absolutely no idea.  I see it every single day but I couldn't say for sure.  Does that mean I don't drive by it?  Or that there are two complexes there and not one?  No, it's just normal human behavior to not necessarily note every single detail during something routine.  Now if I was driving by and there was crime scene tape out and/or police cars, fire trucks, emergency vehicles, etc., I guarantee you I would remember the name of that complex.

 

Park did tell Marcia Clark that he was remembering the number of cars in the driveway based on a picture or video. But as far as eyewitnesses go, I think Park was a good one.  (FWIW, I think Clark made a mistake in not calling Jill Shively to the stand to testify that she had seen Simpson racing away from Bundy at the time of the murders.  Yes, Shively sold her story to a tabloid but it does support that Simpson and his Bronco were not at Rockingham at the time Simpson said he was and not there when Park arrived and waited.) 

[RemoteControlFreak]

Small kids or not, that whole thing must have be awful for most of the jurors. 

 

Think about it, it would be like leaving today for that hotel, and not being able to come home until December or January.  That should never have happened.  No TV, no computer, no phone, stuck with the same faces during all of your off time, I mean even close friends can get annoying if they never ever leave.

 

Very cruel for them.

Yes, the long sequestration was a hardship.  But anyone who was called for jury duty to the Simpson trial and wanted to get out of it, could.  There were people actually lying to get on that jury.   No one was there against their will.  

[Umbelina]

Yes, but when I drive into a strange driveway, I DO notice if there are cars around, and if I was a professional driver and in a limo the size of a bus, I damn sure would pay attention both pulling in, and then backing out.  In addition, he was out there quite a while, before Kato came out, plenty of time to look around.  He also helped load OJ's suitcases, again, any driver of a boat like that would check clearances visually, since there were fences blocking the view.

Yes, the long sequestration was a hardship.  But anyone who was called for jury duty to the Simpson trial and wanted to get out of it, could.  There were people actually lying to get on that jury.   No one was there against their will.  

Wanting to do it or not, they expected this thing to be over in less than two months, not eight or nine, and they had no idea they would be treated like that in sequester.  They even showed that on the series, looking forward to watching endless TV, swimming in the pool, room service, all of those things that really were forbidden.  Phone calls listened to, just all of it had to be much harder than they expected it would be.

 

I mean, freedom is a pretty important thing, and they had none.  I was thinking about that last night when I was craving nachos and couldn't sleep.  No biggie, I'll go make some, with my favorite salsa too, or turn on the TV for a while, check on line to see if any friends are awake to call, etc.  I have much more sympathy for the jury now than I did then, and I'm very very glad they included them in the show.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Umbelina

[RemoteControlFreak]

I think last night's episode illustrated that at the end of the day, there weren't any winners in this case.  Certainly not the victims and their families.  But not even Cochran really won, because despite his emotional viewing of President Clinton addressing the police/race relations problem, we all know today that it didn't really change a damn thing.  This wasn't some great step in advocacy for African Americans; it was a rich, celebrity murderer getting away with the crime who just happened to be African American.

No one, not Clinton, not Cochran, claimed that this would be any step in advocacy for African Americans.

 

Clinton was talking about more dialogue between the races in light of the fact that there was such a stark divide between how most blacks viewed the verdict and how most whites viewed it. And we do have a greater dialogue.  I don't think the Simpson case had any role in creating that dialogue, but we do have it. 

 

Cochran viewed it as a victory because racism in the LAPD was exposed. Simpson was probably the first American to get away with murder because he was black, instead of being convicted because he was black.  The goal was not for black people to continue to get away with murder nor was it for black people to get more justice in criminal proceedings.

 

This case had nothing to do with advocacy for African Americans.  It had to do with exposing racism in the LAPD, and centuries of institutionalized racism in America,  and then using racism to benefit a wealthy African American celebrity to the extent that he got away with murder.

Edited April 7, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak