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

[Umbelina]

Something that's always bothered me....why would OJ wear an expensive (and rare) pair of shoes + expensive leather gloves to kill his wife.

Did he plan on doing it quickly and cleanly, then race back to his house to catch the limo driver? I think they never found the rest of the clothes he was wearing? Probably had on a nice blazer and a Calvin Klein shirt or something....really dressing up for the occasion and all. Smh.

If everything is to be believed he was smart in some areas and just really dumb in others. He left so much evidence at the crime scene itself (shoe prints, the ski cap, glove) then evidence at his own house (blood dripping everywhere and the other glove) and car (Nicole and Ron's blood) but then tried to establish 2 different alibis (Kato McDonald's run and trip to Chicago), got rid of the murder weapon (assuming whatever the LAPD have today isnt it) and tossed a bunch of other stuff in a trash can at the airport and not just some regular dumpster around the city somewhere.

I know Shapiro made up some theory about how OJ was at Nicole's to slash her tires and Nicole surprised him and he killed her in a rage. But did the prosecution ever establish whether he expressly went over there to kill her (premeditation) or maybe he was there to talk or see his kids before he left on his trip or for some other purpose and then got angry and just decided to kill her on the spot?

He was wearing some kind of dark track suit type thing, I think it was a gift from a commercial shoot he'd done for a company.  He normally didn't wear things like that.  As for the shoes?  Who knows?  Dark shoes, maybe quiet, and if he really did think they were "ugly ass shoes" why not use them, since he was going to toss them anyway? 

 

Yeah, I definitely think Nicole's murder was premeditated, he spent a lot of time setting up that alibi with Kato, who fucked up his timeline by deciding to go with OJ for a burger, prompted by how uncommonly friendly OJ was being earlier.  The tension in that car ride to McDonalds is something Kato conveyed very very well during civil testimony, also taking the Bentley was really unusual for OJ, makes me wonder what might have been in the Bronco. 

 

ETA, about the velour track suit thing, he actually TOOK it from a commercial shoot, never returned it, even though he said he did, the prop mistress there testified she never got it back.  OJ said he never owned anything like that.

Edited March 8, 2016 by Umbelina

[toodywoody]

They were looking for sound bites, Cochran found one. So they ignored the rest, or blamed the cops for the ridiculous idea of framing OJ. Yeah, then how were his shoe prints at the sight before they ever visited his house, where, by the way, the shoes were gone? Anyway, I agree, frustration from beginning to end. It was over when they moved the case downtown.

And those shoes weren't something the detectives could go out and find without knowing what kind of shoes they were. So they went and bought 'those ugly ass shoes' from a high dollar store at 4 in the morning and again before OJ was even back from Chicago. And then to doctor some photos with him in them. Sorry but the blood evidence always convinced me. The shoe print in the Bronco and at rhe crime scene clinched it for me. How would the detectives know those shoes specifically and why wouldn't they have been regular shoes instead of dressy shoes.

I just think OJ was so full of himself that he thought he had all his bases covered.

Also if I had been on that jury I would not have flipped. I would have told the others, no he is guilty and I'm not switching it. So you people tall amongst yourselves because we can be here another 5 million months. No way. I know people wanted to get home to their families and lives but I would have rather had a hung jury then what the verdict was, that way maybe the photos would have been found of him wearing the shoes by the next trial. Fuck it he has the money for his dream team, let them try that shit again without killing each other with all their big egos

Edited March 8, 2016 by toodywoody

[VCRTracking]

Twenty-one years later, Aldana said his post-trial life has never been the same.

“[i’ve] lost friends,” he said, “People that I knew who didn’t want to talk to me anymore … a few couple of fistfights [over Simpson].”

 

To quote Livia Soprano: "Poor you."

Edited March 8, 2016 by VCRTracking

[ByTor]

Yeah, I definitely think Nicole's murder was premeditated, he spent a lot of time setting up that alibi with Kato, who fucked up his timeline by deciding to go with OJ for a burger

If you think about it, if it was premeditated, and if Kato didn't ask to tag along for the burger, thus causing OJ to arrive at Nicole's later than he had planned, maybe Ron Goldman would have been spared.

[Umbelina]

Yeah, and OJ would have another alibi at the hamburger place, would have come home in plenty of time, made sure to see Kato again, probably while eating his take out, wouldn't have had to try to sneak in the back way, and fallen into Kato's wall, since the Limo driver wouldn't be sitting out front...

[toodles]

Here is what bugs me:  The kids slept through the whole thing.  The only thing that makes any sense is that he slit Nicole's throat right away so she couldn't make any noise.  I think I read somewhere that Ron's throat was cut too.  He left them and his kids could have found them.  That just makes me sick.  Among the many, many other things about this case.

[Shannon L.]

 

The only thing that makes any sense is that he slit Nicole's throat right away so she couldn't make any noise.  I think I read somewhere that Ron's throat was cut too.  He left them and his kids could have found them.  That just makes me sick.  Among the many, many other things about this case.

What's more--a slit throat would have killed them--so, if he did do that first so there was no noise, it means that he just kept stabbing over and over.  On both of them.  That's an incredible amount of rage right there. It just makes me ill thinking about it.

[Simon Boccanegra]

I have to wonder if he would still have been acquitted if Johnny Cochran hadn't joined the defense.  I know that's just intellectual exercise as this point, but Bailey was a drunk who'd lost his last high-profile case and Shapiro had tried to avoid setting foot in a courtroom.

 

In this production, my sense is that Cochran was like the lead actor and other people were the writers and directors. I mentioned in a previous post the December 1994 memo Bailey wrote (it's summarized in Toobin's book, page 220) outlining exactly, in four points, the eventual defense strategy, which he said Cochran's job would be to translate into what he called the "Downtown dialect," for the blacks on the jury. Bailey's handling of witnesses himself in this trial was of variable quality, and Marcia Clark showed him up a few times in confrontations, but Simpson got his money's worth from Bailey's experience. He knew far more about trying murder cases than Cochran did. 

 

Similarly, the line "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" was given to Cochran by Gerald Uelmen.  

 

So it's like asking if a movie would have won Oscars or been a big box-office hit if someone else had been cast in the lead role. Maybe not.  

Edited March 9, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Simon Boccanegra]

The tension in that car ride to McDonalds is something Kato conveyed very very well during civil testimony, also taking the Bentley was really unusual for OJ, makes me wonder what might have been in the Bronco.

 

Plastic all over the interior? The people still trying to pin this on drug dealers or a serial killer (they're still at it, as can be seen in the comments section of articles about the knife discovery) often argue that there should have been a much larger amount of blood in Simpson's vehicle had he killed two people. If he did something to insulate the interior of the Bronco, that would account for there being some but not a huge amount.   

[Isabella15]

In this production, my sense is that Cochran was like the lead actor and other people were the writers and directors. I mentioned in a previous post the December 1994 memo Bailey wrote (it's summarized in Toobin's book, page 220) outlining exactly, in four points, the eventual defense strategy, which he said Cochran's job would be to translate into what he called the "Downtown dialect," for the blacks on the jury. Bailey's handling of witnesses himself in this trial was of variable quality, and Marcia Clark showed him up a few times in confrontations, but Simpson got his money's worth from Bailey's experience. He knew far more about trying murder cases than Cochran did. 

 

Similarly, the line "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" was given to Cochran by Gerald Uelmen.  

So it's like asking if a movie would have won Oscars or been a big box-office hit if someone else had been cast in the lead role. Maybe not.  

 

(Simon, this is not at all meant to challenge your post, but since I've heard a different version, just wanted to throw this out for discussion:  and yes, I'm getting way too obsessed with this show and this case ). 

 

Regarding Bailey's memo on p. 220:

So here's the thing, Toobin's book is great but I'm not sure it's 100% accurate, and I think giving Bailey credit for that memo, was a way for him to needle Shapiro.  Toobin and Shapiro were already on bad terms because Toobin leaked more of the Fuhrman info than he had agreed to do.  And of course, Shapiro and Bailey were also feuding, so Bailey didn't mind shafting Shapiro either.  

 

It's been reported that the strategy was laid out almost immediately after OJ was booked.  Harvey Levin was a local LA reporter and covered the Simpson case wall to wall.   Please see the clip below for his account of how the strategy developed.

 

Of course by the end of the trial, Shapiro was distancing himself from the rest of the Team.  He didn't want to play the race card at all, for one thing.  And he had been getting booed at Lakers games, and his Beverly Hills and Hollywood clientele thought Simpson was guilty as hell and were not speaking to Shapiro for helping Simpson beat the rap.  So none of the Team felt inclined to say positive things about Shapiro. 

 

In any case, Here's the video clip (and no, I'm not a TMZ fan but Harvey knows all the players and knows the Simpson case firsthand.  If anybody has the inside stuff, it's him.)

 

Harvey Levin interviews Shapiro the day after he got the Simpson case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwxbEeaGDH8

[ByTor]

Yeah, and OJ would have another alibi at the hamburger place, would have come home in plenty of time, made sure to see Kato again, probably while eating his take out, wouldn't have had to try to sneak in the back way, and fallen into Kato's wall, since the Limo driver wouldn't be sitting out front...

Honestly, I don't care about the "would haves" as far as OJ and his alibi is concerned, the "would have" that I care about is something that could have spared a poor guy who was just returning a pair of glasses.

[Cherpumple]

I completely agree with you, ByTor. Between Kato spontaneously deciding to go with OJ and messing up OJ's plans, and Ron deciding to go home and change his clothes before heading over to Nicole's, Ron potentially had TWO chances that night to avoid his untimely death. It's quite chilling to think about. Although, if OJ had gone alone, and Ron had gone straight from the restaurant to Nicole's they both would have arrived earlier than they actually did, which may have resulted in the same outcome. Gah, this is really messing with my head!

 

Regarding the racial issues surrounding this case, it's been fascinating for me to read everyone's opinions on this forum about what might (or might not) have been different if Nicole had been black, or Johnnie Cochran had not been on the team, or other "what ifs". It is really interesting to speculate how these changes could have changed the media coverage, the jury selection, and the outcome of the case. I know one of the main debates is whether or not this was more about race or about fame, and I wanted to throw something out there. To my mind, the current Bill Cosby scandal is similar to this case in several ways, and I found it interesting that the accusations against him seemed to gain significant credence when Beverly Johnson, a famous African American supermodel came forward with her own story. She was taken more seriously than the other accusers who were largely unknown and repeatedly dismissed as wannabe actresses and models who were more than happy to make use of Cosby's "casting couch" to get ahead in the industry. Even more interesting is contrasting the general reaction to the accusations made by Janice Dickinson, a white former supermodel with a brash attitude and troubled past- she was not taken seriously and, like the others, was accused of lying to gain publicity for herself. So here you have a case dealing with fame, race, and reputation, and the one who comes out on top appears to be Johnson, who is seen as the "classy" model, as opposed to the "trashy" Dickinson. So in this case at least, it seems that fame and reputation are the most influential factors in forming public opinion. I'm not sure whether or not this can be considered "progress" from the time of the OJ trial, but I wanted to mention it.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Cherpumple

[laurakaye]

I am never sure where to put my questions, but here's another one:

 

Why would Lange have put crime scene evidence in the trunk of his car and kept it overnight?  I just can't even fathom the thought process at work there.

 

I feel like I'm missing something huge.

[Asp Burger]

I think he said that the unit at which he was supposed to book it was closed for the evening. Admittedly, you'd think "Wouldn't he routinely visit crime scenes at all times of day?" I don't think Lange was nefarious, personally, or even had the means or ability to do anything with Simpson's shoes overnight. But that was the defense's thing here, to try to plant little doubts that would grow in that particular jury's minds, in the environment of the time.  

[toodywoody]

Please, what were the shoes he put in his trunk?

[Umbelina]

http://www.eonline.com/news/746986/brentwood-simi-valley-this-o-j-simpson-trial-cheat-sheet-will-help-connect-the-dots

 

Good little maps, and connect the dots stuff here.

 

The shoes, if I remember correctly, had nothing to do with the case, other than being OJ's.  Why Lange did that?  Who knows?  So many mistakes were made it's mind boggling.  The biggest error of all was the possible cross-contamination by having the same people going back and forth from OJ's and Nicole's.  That would never happen today, but back then, the LA police force was seriously understaffed, and DNA was still relatively new.  Do I believe the cops really went to OJ's to "notify him?"  No, I don't.  If someone lies once on the stand, do I necessarily believe they won't lie again?  No, I don't. 

 

What a disaster this case was, from start to finish.  If only they'd found the photos of OJ in those shoes earlier!  It was so critical to counter the "reasonable doubt" of the police force itself, because how in hell would they have planted the shoe prints, when the shoes were never even found?  Also, the levels of conspiracy this would have taken are just mind boggling, including among people who didn't even know each other, all needing to agree to frame someone. 

 

 

http://www.eonline.com/news/746986/brentwood-simi-valley-this-o-j-simpson-trial-cheat-sheet-will-help-connect-the-dots

[MargotWendice]

One thing I have never been clear on--how did the Akita get outside? Was the theory that he came out with Nicole when she answered the gate? I would think a stranger who was walking along with a big knife and thought they just felt like killing someone would have moved on in the presence of a dog. Now OJ on the other hand would not have been afraid of the dog and would have caused the dog less alarm (although I am still surprised he didn't bark more).

[Umbelina]

The Akita barked quite a bit. 

 

The door was open, so the dog could have come out any time.  I do think the dog knew the attacker though.  Poor dog, at least OJ didn't slaughter him too.

[ButterQueen]

I believe they went to OJ's because he was the children's next of kin.

[Umbelina]

That would have been a better thing to say.

 

I believe they probably went there because the husband is always the suspect, and Fuhrman knew about his domestic abuse because he'd responded to one of Nicole's many desperate calls.

 

ETA I wish they would have played the tape of the cop keeping OJ from suicide in that Bronco during the trial, and OJ saying he deserved to die.  So much for the police being so against him. 

 

Starts about 20 minutes in on this video. 

Edited March 11, 2016 by Umbelina

[FuriousStyles]

Did AC ever admit what the plan was? Go to Nicole's grave and then continue south to Mexico? Was he willing to go on the run (potentially ruining his own life) with OJ?

[Simon Boccanegra]

I've seen Kato the Akita described in some pieces as a "ferocious attack dog," but he was evaluated by an LAPD dog trainer who described him as having a very nice disposition but "inadequate instincts or courage to protect his territory, owner or himself." He sounded about as ferocious as the houseguest after whom he was named. So even if the killer had been a stranger, I don't know that he would have been good for more than barking.  

 

Jason Simpson ended up adopting him and renaming him "Satchmo." 

[vibeology]

Even though it was obvious OJ wanted to run to Mexico, I always thought it would be so hard to convict AC for anything. Last time anyone saw OJ he was sitting in Kim's bedroom with a gun. OJ and AC are there alone and next thing, they're both gone. During the Bronci chase police see OJ holding the gun to his own head several times. It would have been very easy to defend AC by saying that he was going along with OJ to try to prevent a suicide and had no idea about a plan. AC wasnt ever going to jail the way the Bronco stuff played out.

[Umbelina]

They could have convicted him.  I really don't think it would  have been that hard.  I'm kind of glad they didn't really.  In a very weird way, I kind of feel sorry for AC, for many reasons.

[psychoticstate]

From a juror's mouth -- (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/oj-simpson-juror-defends-verdict-evidence-didnt-prove/story?id=37485960)

 

I would expect somebody playing the "we didn't necessarily see everything the people at home saw" card, but this guy doesn't even do that -- he just doubles down, 20 yrs later.  Cochran could have spun the prints as easily as the blood with this jury, so short of a video shot by a bus load of nuns, he was going to walk.

Cochran would have attacked that busload of nuns as being racist or having some ties to the LAPD that would make them prejudicial against Simpson. 

 

The jurors were given more physical evidence than presented in most trials.  Simpson did not verbally confess but the physical evidence was his confession of sorts.  There was nobody else with the motive, opportunity and in the geographical region that could have done this.

 

I have to wonder if he would still have been acquitted if Johnny Cochran hadn't joined the defense.  I know that's just intellectual exercise as this point, but Bailey was a drunk who'd lost his last high-profile case and Shapiro had tried to avoid setting foot in a courtroom.

 

I think he would have.  Shapiro was the first attorney to float the racism/conspiracy theory and Cochran just ran with it. 

 

He was wearing some kind of dark track suit type thing, I think it was a gift from a commercial shoot he'd done for a company.  He normally didn't wear things like that.  As for the shoes?  Who knows?  Dark shoes, maybe quiet, and if he really did think they were "ugly ass shoes" why not use them, since he was going to toss them anyway? 

 

Yeah, I definitely think Nicole's murder was premeditated, he spent a lot of time setting up that alibi with Kato, who fucked up his timeline by deciding to go with OJ for a burger, prompted by how uncommonly friendly OJ was being earlier.  The tension in that car ride to McDonalds is something Kato conveyed very very well during civil testimony, also taking the Bentley was really unusual for OJ, makes me wonder what might have been in the Bronco. 

 

ETA, about the velour track suit thing, he actually TOOK it from a commercial shoot, never returned it, even though he said he did, the prop mistress there testified she never got it back.  OJ said he never owned anything like that.

 

Simpson had been "studying" with Navy SEALS on the Frogman shoot.  He learned from them not only how to come up behind your target and cut their throat quite effectively but also to dress all in dark colors and wear a knit cap on your head in order to disguise your identity/blend.

 

I have no doubt in my mind that as soon as Nicole told him they were completely done and over, he began planning to take her out.

 

If you think about it, if it was premeditated, and if Kato didn't ask to tag along for the burger, thus causing OJ to arrive at Nicole's later than he had planned, maybe Ron Goldman would have been spared.

I've stated before that I believe this.  If Simpson's original plan had been executed, he would have arrived at Bundy earlier and only Nicole would have been killed. 

 

If Ron had come straight to Bundy from Mezzaluna versus going home first, he would have been spared.

 

It was a tragic "perfect storm" set of circumstances that set into motion Ron losing his life as well.

 

Plastic all over the interior? The people still trying to pin this on drug dealers or a serial killer (they're still at it, as can be seen in the comments section of articles about the knife discovery) often argue that there should have been a much larger amount of blood in Simpson's vehicle had he killed two people. If he did something to insulate the interior of the Bronco, that would account for there being some but not a huge amount.   

 

Suggesting that drug dealers were responsible for these two murders is beyond laughable to me.  First, Nicole was clearly the target that night.  Drug dealers would have watched her and known that she went for a long jog every morning.  It would have been easy to see her route and select an area of the route to execute the hit.  Quick gunshot to the head/torso and you're out.  Nothing so up close and personal as a knife.  And even assuming that they did elect to be more personal, they could have attacked her in her home during the day while the kids were at school.  I don't think any hit (professional or otherwise) would have chosen to attack her outside her residence where it could have been seen or heard by passerby (and then have another party like Ron show up.) 

 

And if it was drug related, where were the drugs?  Surely Nicole would have had drugs in her home and in her system.  None were present.  Neither were drugs found in Ron's system. 

 

As far as blood, I don't imagine that he got a great deal of Nicole's blood on him.  I think he either cut her throat from behind or as the prosecution suggested - - once she was unconscious and down, he jerked her up by the hair, exposing her throat and killed her.  The majority of the blood would then run out and away from her body and away from him.  I do think he probably got more of Ron's blood on him since Ron put up a fight.  But remember that Simpson was wearing knit clothing (in June!) and that clothing would have absorbed blood. 

 

In any event, I think if Simpson's Bronco had been awash in blood, these same critics would have then said it was a clear case of evidence being planted.

[psychoticstate]

They could have convicted him.  I really don't think it would  have been that hard.  I'm kind of glad they didn't really.  In a very weird way, I kind of feel sorry for AC, for many reasons.

 

I think AC was in a very unfortunate and unenviable position.   Simpson was his friend and he had a gun pointed to his own head.  He's talking suicide so what was AC to do?  It wasn't right to run but it was a slow speed "chase" and AC did call 911. 

 

I'm not sure if the original plan was to head to Mexico but it wouldn't surprise me given Simpson's passport, $10G and the disguise.  I do wonder if it was Simpson's idea to bail on that plan though.  We all know he could never go into hiding and not be O.J.

 

I felt terrible for AC during the civil trial.  If you watch the deposition tapes, when he's shown a picture of Nicole after Simpson battered her, the grief and tears are real.

[Umbelina]

Johnnie Cochran's clothes got press too.  I wish I could find an old article, he wore an electric blue suit one day, and always had colorful combinations of shirts and ties, sometimes suits.  I hope we see him in one of them, but it would probably distract. 

 

His forest green day, note the tie.

 

One of his electric blue suits:

 

(this one may have been enhanced, but he did wear one during the trial.)

 

He was a sharp dresser, with a flair, and I do remember press about it, people waited to see what he'd be wearing that day, but it was almost always very positive. 

[helenamonster]

I get a little mixed up between what is actually said on the show and what is discussed here, but didn't the prosecution find some evidence that OJ had chartered a plane from Mexico to some island in the Caribbean the day after the Bronco chase, implying that he had had a premeditated plan to run and hide?

[vibeology]

I think AC was in a very unfortunate and unenviable position.   Simpson was his friend and he had a gun pointed to his own head.  He's talking suicide so what was AC to do?  It wasn't right to run but it was a slow speed "chase" and AC did call 911. 

 

I'm not sure if the original plan was to head to Mexico but it wouldn't surprise me given Simpson's passport, $10G and the disguise.  I do wonder if it was Simpson's idea to bail on that plan though.  We all know he could never go into hiding and not be O.J.

 

I felt terrible for AC during the civil trial.  If you watch the deposition tapes, when he's shown a picture of Nicole after Simpson battered her, the grief and tears are real.

 

Right? No one was witness to the time between OJ and AC being left alone in Kim's room and them getting in the Bronco. Even a very bad defense attorney could make a case that OJ threatened to shoot himself or AC if AC didn't go along with OJs plan. And again, once they're in the Bronco, no one can hear most the conversation, so it would be reasonable to suggest that OJ told AC to do what he said or OJ would kill himself. The things that can be corroborated is that OJ was holding the gun the whole time, AC called 911, and AC never did anything to actively evade the police once the chase was on. From that it's hard to say if AC was an accomplice or carjacking victim.

Edited March 11, 2016 by vibeology

[Umbelina]

I think it was a boat or plane from Mexico to the Bahamas.  It was very easy to drive over the border of Mexico back then, especially with California plates...so common.

 

I can't find it though, so someone else may have a link.

[psychoticstate]

I was listening to my audio version of "(If) I Did It" during my lunch break and while the book is full of contradictions - - Simpson will say he and Nicole were getting along and had no fights on this particular trip and in the next breath say they only had one argument, etc. - - he does say something about June 12 which I think adds to motive.

 

Naturally he does not suggest that Paula sent him a breakup voice mail that morning.  He claims that he did not want to bring Paula to Sydney's dance recital because he thought it was unfair to Nicole (the same person he's also claiming is out of control on drugs and associating with unsavory people.)  He says right before this that he and Paula were in a great place and their relationship was phenomenal and he was in love with her but then states that she's upset that she's not invited to the recital and angry with him.  He tries to call her and cannot get ahold of her; he assumes she's intentionally avoiding his call.  He says that this (like everything else) is Nicole's fault.  Nicole is to blame that Paula is now upset with him.

 

We all know that he picked up that voice mail from Paula earlier in the day.  She broke up with him and he knew it.  It's possible that the reason she broke up with him is because he was keeping her separate from Nicole because, despite what he says, it appears that he was stalking Nicole and trying to win her back.  Losing Paula that day, along with Nicole giving him the cold shoulder, showing up at the recital in a little black dress (which he says in the book angered him), and him being shut out of the family dinner (which he says he chose not to go to) tipped the scales that night.

 

I think he was already planning on harming Nicole, as evidenced by the purchases he made at the end of May.  He had tried everything to win her back - gifts of jewelry, attempting to care for her when she was sick in May - - and then moved on to stalking her and threatening to inform the IRS that she was using the Rockingham address as her home address and the Bundy address as a rental.  He apparently was perfectly fine with the mother of his children potentially facing jail time.  He was angry before June 12. 

 

I think Nicole not responding to these things in the way he hoped and instead, becoming more firm in cutting ties with him - - she had found a rental in Malibu and was going to list the Bundy property for rent, preventing the IRS action - - and losing Paula, which he blamed on Nicole, sent him over the edge.  For the first time he had zero control over Nicole and no one (i.e., Paula) to fall back on. 

Edited March 11, 2016 by psychoticstate

[mojoween]

I know putting everything into perspective it's ridiculous to think this but I can't help it - it makes me sad knowing that Kato the Akita (Satchmo) has to have passed on by now.

[Kel Varnsen]

I get a little mixed up between what is actually said on the show and what is discussed here, but didn't the prosecution find some evidence that OJ had chartered a plane from Mexico to some island in the Caribbean the day after the Bronco chase, implying that he had had a premeditated plan to run and hide?

Speaking of which is there a reason nothing about the Bronco chase, including the note, the possible suicide or the getaway gear was ever brought up by the proscutors as evidence in the criminal trial?

[Pallas]

Something that's always bothered me....why would OJ wear an expensive (and rare) pair of shoes + expensive leather gloves to kill his wife.

 

Both the Brooks Brothers gloves and the Bruno Magli boots had been gifts to OJ from Nicole. 

[FuriousStyles]

Both the Brooks Brothers gloves and the Bruno Magli boots had been gifts to OJ from Nicole.

Ah...that makes sense. Man OJ is one sick SOB.

Regarding whether the jury would have acquitted had Johnnie not been on the team. ..I vote NOPE. I cant imagine the jury being as receptive to Shapiro (even though the whole race angle was his idea). And I dont see Shapiro delivering that type of defense with the same vigor. For one, Shapiro wanted to haggle for a plea deal early on, like before tbe trial even started right? Pleas was his specialty. I dont know what Bailey could have added. Cochran was definitely the glue that held the defense together.

Speaking of which is there a reason nothing about the Bronco chase, including the note, the possible suicide or the getaway gear was ever brought up by the proscutors as evidence in the criminal trial?

I think Marcia said she didnt want to address these things because she wasnt sure how the jury would view them. They could look at him as a sympathetic figure. And she was so confident in the physical evidence she thought it was unnecessary basically.

[FozzyBear]

So I remember the case (it would be impossible not to), but I didn't follow really closely. Was there proof of OJ stalking Nicole? Police report, restraining order, something? I remember vaguely thinking at the time that motive was a weaker part of the case. Yes OJ was violent and had been violent toward Nicole, but they were divorced and had both dated other people. Why kill her now? I really don't remember. Was the prosecution able to establish that the DV had continued after the divorce and why it escalated into murder that night? I thought some people thought they hadn't, but I really don't remember.

[Umbelina]

Nicole told everyone he was stalking her, he admitted to watching her outside the window, she would point him out to various friends when he'd show up where ever she was.  I didn't sleep well last night and so my brain is mush, but even though they were divorced, they tried to reconcile several times, even a month before the murders I think.  I'm trying to remember if the abuse continued or if it was just his affairs that broke them up, or Nicole's DV counseling, could be all of the above, someone will remember.

 

Anyway, still reading Dominick Dunne's column and just ran across this one, when the Salinger's, the neighbors on the other side of the hedge from Kato's wall invited him to dinner, there is also a ton about the woman who tried to sell the Fuhman tapes in this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1995/11/dunne199511

 

“Do you think she was really out walking the dog that night?” I asked.

 

“Our dog has a bad allergy,” said Wolfgang, “and I made it a rule that the dog never go out on the street.”

 

“Rosa adored Mr. Johnnie. She had a new dress every day,” said Marta.

 

A fence covered by hedges separates the Salinger property from the Simpson property. The Salingers believe that in order for Simpson not to have been seen by the limousine driver that night he would have had to get to his house by coming onto their property and going down their driveway. We walked along the length of the fence. “My husband thought the only way for him to get over the fence was by this tree,” said Marta. Indeed, there is a tree on the Salinger property with branches that create a ladder which would have made it easy to hop over the fence and come down in the area near the air conditioner outside the room where Kato Kaelin was staying.

 

All of them here:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/02/dominick-dunne-oj-simpson-trial-coverage

 

I think there are more here, after the trial.

http://www.vanityfair.com/contributor/dominick-dunne

Edited March 12, 2016 by Umbelina

[Milburn Stone]

They voted when they walked in after electing a foreperson in 2 minutes.  10-2.  The two didn't stick or even argue or try to change any minds, and immediately, on the second vote, it was 12-0.  The rest of that 4 hours was filling out the jury slips, etc.

 

You obviously have a source for this, umbelina, and I'm curious what it is. Mind you, I'm not challenging your information; I'm fascinated by it, and want to head for the source of it to see what else I can learn.

[MerryMary]

I always thought the jury deliberated for only 4 hours because they just wanted out of there. I agree that they should have deliberated much longer. No way they could have discussed all that evidence in four hours. But being sequestered for that long was jury abuse. The trial lasted much longer than needed. If the initial vote was 10 to 2 to convict then the verdict would go the other way.

And yes, it appears that most juries on these high profile cases don't understand reasonable doubt.

Completely agree with this. It was jury abuse. I couldn't believe how disrespectful both sides were concerning the jury's time. Not only the court delays but how the arguments were presented. A simple point that could have been made in two minutes took twenty. I think the jury got in there, took a vote, and didn't have the will to argue about it. Nobody mentioned this at the time. It was all about race and jury nullification.

Edited March 12, 2016 by MerryMary

[psychoticstate]

Nicole told everyone he was stalking her, he admitted to watching her outside the window, she would point him out to various friends when he'd show up where ever she was.  I didn't sleep well last night and so my brain is mush, but even though they were divorced, they tried to reconcile several times, even a month before the murders I think.  I'm trying to remember if the abuse continued or if it was just his affairs that broke them up, or Nicole's DV counseling, could be all of the above, someone will remember.

 

Anyway, still reading Dominick Dunne's column and just ran across this one, when the Salinger's, the neighbors on the other side of the hedge from Kato's wall invited him to dinner, there is also a ton about the woman who tried to sell the Fuhman tapes in this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1995/11/dunne199511

 

All of them here:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/02/dominick-dunne-oj-simpson-trial-coverage

 

I think there are more here, after the trial.

http://www.vanityfair.com/contributor/dominick-dunne

Nicole and Simpson's final reconciliation attempt ended by her in May of 1994.  They had agreed in May of 1993 after a nice trip to Cabo, I believe, to reunite for one year, but living in their separate residences, to see how it went.  October of 1993 was the infamous 911 call Nicole made from her Gretna Green rental house, the one where you could hear Simpson yelling in the background, and where Nicole was begging for help and saying he was going to beat the shit out of her.  This was the same house that Simpson had stood outside to watch her when she was with Keith Zlomsowich.  I think she purchased the Bundy condo at the end of 1993/January of 1994.  In May of 1994, Nicole gave Simpson his final walking papers and even returned jewelry to him that he had gifted her with.  Kris Jenner later said that Nicole was more decisive and done with Simpson than she ever had been and she seemed a different person. 

 

After that final breakup, Simpson sent Nicole a letter stating that he was going to inform the IRS that she was using his Rockingham address as her legal address and claiming the Bundy condo was a rental property (she had sold a San Fran condo she received in the divorce settlement, a rental property, in order to purchase the Bundy condo and was therefore subject to taxes that she avoided by claiming she was investing the San Fran proceeds in another rental property).  Either by that letter or in a phone conversation he was particularly cruel with Nicole, calling her a bitch and a C-U-Next-Tuesday and threatening to have her thrown in jail.

 

The Toobin book also reported that an extra house key that Nicole put in a planter outside her condo, for her use while she was jogging each morning, went missing in the days before the murders (insinuating that Simpson had stolen the key and used it that night.)   

 

In any event, I think the final break in May of 1994 happened because Nicole realized that Simpson had not changed and would never change.  He was controlling and abusive and he treated her like shit.  That was never going to change, especially with her living basically down the road.  At the time she was killed, she had found a property in Malibu that she could have rented with the money she would have received by renting out Bundy.  If she had been able to do that, I think it may have made a world of difference for her.  Malibu is not the easiest drive from Brentwood, or the LA area in general, and it would have put a healthy distance between her and Simpson.  She would have gotten away from "his" turf and his friends that may have (unknowingly) been reporting back to him what she was doing and who she was with.  She would have been able to find a new circle of friends.  It's tragic she was never given that opportunity.

 

ETA:  Fozzy, I think the reason Simpson decided to kill Nicole when he did was because she was finally and completely done with him.  He had been able to control her for 17 years and that had ended.  Like many excessively controlling people (and abusers, to boot), he couldn't stand it.  It's cliché but if he couldn't have her, nobody would.  Simpson was the classic narcissist and had been enabled his entire professional life.  He was used to getting whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted it.  He couldn't have Nicole any longer and his way of dealing with that was to react in rage.

Edited March 12, 2016 by psychoticstate

[FozzyBear]

Nicole and Simpson's final reconciliation attempt ended by her in May of 1994. They had agreed in May of 1993 after a nice trip to Cabo, I believe, to reunite for one year, but living in their separate residences, to see how it went. October of 1993 was the infamous 911 call Nicole made from her Gretna Green rental house, the one where you could hear Simpson yelling in the background, and where Nicole was begging for help and saying he was going to beat the shit out of her. This was the same house that Simpson had stood outside to watch her when she was with Keith Zlomsowich. I think she purchased the Bundy condo at the end of 1993/January of 1994. In May of 1994, Nicole gave Simpson his final walking papers and even returned jewelry to him that he had gifted her with. Kris Jenner later said that Nicole was more decisive and done with Simpson than she ever had been and she seemed a different person.

After that final breakup, Simpson sent Nicole a letter stating that he was going to inform the IRS that she was using his Rockingham address as her legal address and claiming the Bundy condo was a rental property (she had sold a San Fran condo she received in the divorce settlement, a rental property, in order to purchase the Bundy condo and was therefore subject to taxes that she avoided by claiming she was investing the San Fran proceeds in another rental property). Either by that letter or in a phone conversation he was particularly cruel with Nicole, calling her a bitch and a C-U-Next-Tuesday and threatening to have her thrown in jail.

The Toobin book also reported that an extra house key that Nicole put in a planter outside her condo, for her use while she was jogging each morning, went missing in the days before the murders (insinuating that Simpson had stolen the key and used it that night.)

In any event, I think the final break in May of 1994 happened because Nicole realized that Simpson had not changed and would never change. He was controlling and abusive and he treated her like shit. That was never going to change, especially with her living basically down the road. At the time she was killed, she had found a property in Malibu that she could have rented with the money she would have received by renting out Bundy. If she had been able to do that, I think it may have made a world of difference for her. Malibu is not the easiest drive from Brentwood, or the LA area in general, and it would have put a healthy distance between her and Simpson. She would have gotten away from "his" turf and his friends that may have (unknowingly) been reporting back to him what she was doing and who she was with. She would have been able to find a new circle of friends. It's tragic she was never given that opportunity.

ETA: Fozzy, I think the reason Simpson decided to kill Nicole when he did was because she was finally and completely done with him. He had been able to control her for 17 years and that had ended. Like many excessively controlling people (and abusers, to boot), he couldn't stand it. It's cliché but if he couldn't have her, nobody would. Simpson was the classic narcissist and had been enabled his entire professional life. He was used to getting whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted it. He couldn't have Nicole any longer and his way of dealing with that was to react in rage.

Thanks. That's good info. And to be honest, I never actually doubted the abuse continued or that it wasn't a "I kill you if you ever really stand up to me." situation, I just couldn't remember if the prosecution did a good job connecting the dots for the jury.

[Umbelina]

Yeah, the testimony about Nicole's keys going missing was with that "friend" of Nicole's, Cora Fischman, who pretty quickly sided with OJ in all of this.  Nicole ran with her nearly every morning, and so she was there both when Nicole tossed her keys into the bushes (as she always did) and also when they got back and the keys weren't there.  She was obviously hostile to the prosecution, and I felt she was untruthful about quite a bit, or in denial.  It's a little long, so I'll spoiler tag it,  but here is some of her testimony about it, remember she was on OJ's side.  Even in this short excerpt she tries to lie and say OJ and Nicole were still in the process of reconciling, but Petrocelli nails her on that.  He was good.

 

Q: Okay. When you used to run with Nicole, did Nicole carry a key with her?

A: Yes. No, we don't, no. We had-

Q: Let me clarify my question.

A: Right.

Q: When Nicole was living at Bundy

A: Uh-huh. Yes.

Q: - you and she would run together. Would she carry a key on her person, either like on a ring finger- a ring with a key attached to it?

A: She never carried a key.

Q: Never?

A: Never.

Q: How did she get in the house?

A: What we do is, when we run, she has a spare key that we-that she throws it by the plant by her gate, and we put it there and then we run.

Q: Was that key a single key or a key on a key chain?

A: It's a key on a key chain.

Q: And can you describe the key chain?

A: God, I don't remember now.

Q: Did she have a little Smoky the Bear key chain?

A: Smokey the Bear.

Q: Little Smoky the Bear ring with a key attached to it?

A: It was just a round key.

Q: How many keys were on that?

A: I think two.

Q: Two?

A: Yeah.

Q: And what did the keys operate? The front gate?

A: Just the front gate and the door.

Q: Front door?

A: Yes.

Q: And also the back gate?

A: See, the front and the door is one key, I think, for all-

Q: One key?

A: Yeah.

Q: And the back gate was a separate key?

A: See, I don't know the back door because we never went through that back door, so...

Q: The back gate?

A: The back gate. I assume that that one key is for the three gates.

Q: There was one key or two keys on this key chain that she would hide under the planter? How many keys?

A: You know what? I think not from my own-I think it's just one, because we just throw it in the bushes.

Q: When you would arrive at Nicole's condo at Bundy during the period January through June of 1994, would you buzz the gate in front?

A: Sometimes I do or sometimes- then when she gave me a key, I just opened it with my key.

Q: Well, when you used to buzz the gate, could you describe how that worked?

A: How it works?

Q: Yes. In other words, there was a doorbell. Right?

A: Yeah.

Q: You would press the button, press the doorbell?

A: Right.

Q: And then she could talk to you; there was a little speaker box?

A: Yes. Yes.

Q: And you said, "This is Cora?

A: Right.

Q: And if she wanted to let you in, how could she let you in? Did she buzz it, or did she have to come and open the gate manually?

A: Sometimes she buzz it. Sometimes -see, that thing works off and on. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't work.

Q: Okay. When it's working, how can she let you in from inside the condo?

A: She will buzz it and the door will open. It would buzz, and then you open-

Q: You open it.

A: Yes.

Q: But there were times when it wasn't working.

A: Right.

Q: And when it wasn't working and you didn't use your key, how would she let you in?

A: She would get out and then open the-

Q: Go out the front door, walk down to the gate and then have to manually open it?

A: Yes.

Q: And do you remember whether the buzzer on the gate was working in dune of 1994?

A: If it was working?

Q: Or whether it was not working.

A: I don't remember, but it was working off and on. I already told you that.

Q: But do you know if it was working or not working around the time of her death?

A: I don't know that.

Q: When did you get the key?

A: When did I get the key?

Q: Yes.

A: Well, she moved in January of '94, so any time after that.

Q: Sometime after January of '94?

A: Yeah.

Q: And under what circumstances would you use the key?

A: Because every morning I go there, so it was easier for me to just walk in and out. Plus-

Q: So when you got the key, you would just use the key?

A: Right, yes.

Q: And then go to her front door and knock on the door or let yourself in?

A: Sometimes I knock at the door. Sometimes-the door is always unlocked, anyway. She leaves it unlocked, and I would just walk in or I use my key, so...

Q: During the time she was at Bundy, did Nicole ever tell you that she thought OJ. was spying on her at Bundy?

A: She never told me that, no.

Q: Never?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever let anybody use the key that Nicole gave you to her condo?

A: No. It was always on my key chain.

Q: Did OJ. Simpson know that you had a key to that condo?

A: He didn't know.

Q: Did there come a time before Nicole's death when one of her house keys was lost?

A: Yes.

Q: When did that occur?

A: Around June.

Q: And tell me what you know about that incident.

A: Well, we were gonna go for a run, and then she noticed that her key was missing. She said "Oh, my key is missing. I can't find it." So I said, "Okay, fine, we'll run," So- but that was the conversation that we had.

Q: Was it the same key that she had been using to put under the planter?

A: The one that we would throw in the bushes, yes.

Q: So what did she then do to get back to the house that day?

A: Well, it was either my key or we leave it unlocked or-[Name Deleted] was there, so-

Q: It was not a problem.

A: No.

Q: And do you know whether she ever found that key before she died?

A: I didn't know that.

Q: How long before her death did this incident occur?

A: What do you mean, "incident"? The key missing?

Q: Yes.

A: I would say early part of June.

Q: Did she tell you that she thought OJ. might have taken it?

A: At that time she thought that either OJ. or Faye, because at that time she said "Probably OJ. has it or and then she said, "probably Faye has it."

Q: Why did she-do you know why she thought that OJ. might have taken the key?

A: Well, because at the time OJ. was in and out of the house, too, because, see, OJ. was feeding-was helping -at that time OJ. was helping the kids, too, because he was there most of the time. They were trying to reconcile, too, at the time, so he was there.

Q: Wait a second. You're trying to tell me that they were trying to reconcile in June of 1994?

A: Well, now, he was-see, he was -she had pneumonia at that week of-

Q: That's middle of May.

A:-May.

Q: You told the police officers that their final breakup occurred a week and a half before her death.

MR. BAKER: Is that a question? A statement?

THE WITNESS: A week and a half?

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Yes. You're not suggesting now that they were trying to reconcile that week and a half, are you?

A: No. No, they were not.

Q: So during that week and a half OJ. wouldn't have permission to your knowledge to go onto Bundy with a key to her house. Right?

A: See, she didn't know that OJ. had a key to the house.

Q: Is that right?

A: I'm sorry. What?

Q: It's not your understanding that OJ. had permission to have a key to Nicole's house during the last week and a half?

A: Yes.

Q: That's -

A: Yes, that's-

Q: That's true. Right?

A: That's true, yes.

Q: Did she tell you that she was concerned that OJ. might have a key to her house-

A: Yes, she did mention that, yes.

Q: -and that she wafted to get it back?

A: She didn't specify that.

Q: Okay. Do you know whether she did anything to get her key back?

A: She didn't-she didn't tell me that.

Q: Okay. Now, during the break you had a chance to review exhibits 156, 157, 158, which are all statements that you gave to police officers- actually, their reports of your statements.

A: Uh-huh.

Q: And 159 is the Star Magazine article for which you were paid money. Let's talk about Exhibit 156, June 14 interview with Detectives LeFall and A. J. Luper. Are all the statements reported in Exhibit 156 accurate?

A: Yes.

Q: Thank you. Exhibit 157 is a report of your interview with Detective Payne. Are all the statements in Exhibit 157 accurate?

A: Yes.

Q: Exhibit 158-

MR. KRAMER: I am pointing something-I am calling to the attention something to the witness.

MR. PETROCELLI: Why? She can testify for herself.

MR. KRAMER: That's right.

MR. PETROCELLI: Okay.

THE WITNESS: Yeah.

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Thank you. Exhibit 158 is a report of your third interview with the police, this one with Detective Vannatter. That's on September 15th, 1994. Are the statements on Exhibit 158 accurate?

A: This-

Q: Are the statements accurate?

A: The statements are accurate, right.

 

 There is much more, this is from her 2nd day of deposition, she was there 3 days, and her efforts to exonerate OJ are palpable, and can be felt even in the printed testimony, simply by how hostile and uncooperative she is to Petrocelli, and how relived and easy she is with defense attorneys.    Direct link to that particular day is here:  http://simpson.walraven.org/cf_depo2.html

 

All of the trial stuff for criminal and civil is here:

http://simpson.walraven.org/

Edited March 12, 2016 by Umbelina

[Umbelina]

They voted when they walked in after electing a foreperson in 2 minutes.  10-2.  The two didn't stick or even argue or try to change any minds, and immediately, on the second vote, it was 12-0.  The rest of that 4 hours was filling out the jury slips, etc.

 

You obviously have a source for this, umbelina, and I'm curious what it is. Mind you, I'm not challenging your information; I'm fascinated by it, and want to head for the source of it to see what else I can learn.

Actually, usually I'd usually cite stuff when I say things like this.  Yesterday was weird for me, as I said in another post, my brain was kind of mush from lack of sleep.  I'd guess that almost every "source" is linked in this thread, or the media thread though.  Oh, and feel free to challenge me!  I made a huge mistake just yesterday that someone else caught, about Denise.  I'm very far from infallible, and I might believe certain accounts, or disbelieve them, when someone else would have the opposite opinion. 

 

I got it from a few places.  I went on another "OJ binge" yesterday, watched a bunch of interviews with jurors, read all of Dominick Dunne's trial columns, and watched a couple of other interviews and documentaries.  So where did it come from?  All of the above probably, and my previous binging, reading several of the books out.  Toobin, Shiller, certainly Ron Shipp, someone I do believe, but some others don't.  Also, Robert Kardasian's finance (they later broke up) who contradicted some of the people in RK's house when OJ took off in the Bronco.  They said she wasn't there, that she was out shopping, she says she was, and she seems more believable to me, she lived there.

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-09-07/local/me-41354_1_o-j-simpson 

But Toobin, in an interview with "Dateline NBC," provided a detailed description of just how Simpson allegedly learned the verdicts early. Toobin said a juror passed news of the verdicts to the two alternate panelists who sat through the criminal trial but did not participate in deliberations, using the code letter "n" for "not guilty." The alternates then told a sheriff's deputy who was celebrating with them in their hotel, Toobin said.

*

"One of the sheriffs put in a call to his buddy who was guarding O.J. They said 'O.J.'s walking,' " Toobin recounted. As Simpson waited in his cell, he added, a guard said, "I want your autograph tonight because you're going home tomorrow."

 

(much more about this at that link)

 

 

Ron Shipp, a former LA police officer, black, and until the murders, a friend of OJ's.  He's the one who said OJ told him  that he dreamed of killing Nicole.  http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/02/us/simpson-dream-testimony-stirs-uproar.html?pagewanted=all 

 

DD adds more when he talks to Ron, who was especially hurt by OJ's sisters and mom saying it wasn't true, or that he was drunk.  He was shocked really, they were close.http://www.vanityfair.com/news/1995/09/dominick-dunne-oj-simpson-trial

 

Twice he spoke directly to Simpson from the witness stand. The first time he said, “This is sad, O.J.” The second time he said, “Tell the truth, O.J.” When I told an African-American reporter my impressions of Shipp, she looked at me as if I were mad. The person she had seen was a sneak, a snake, a most disloyal figure.

 

“No one had a drink on the night of the 13th,” Shipp said emphatically, slapping his hand on the table in the restaurant. “I didn’t have a drink all that day.” It was particularly hurtful, he said, that Eunice Simpson had used the word “spaced” to describe his condition that night. “Even when I’ve been drunk, I’ve never been spaced. . . . Someone had to say to her, ‘Mom, don’t you remember when Ron Shipp was spaced?’ ”

 

Shipp had admitted on the stand that he had had a drinking problem, and he didn’t hesitate to discuss it now. “I drank quite a bit when I was a cop. I got to the point where I hated the job. I loved the people, but I hated the job.”

 

“Do you still drink?” I asked.

 

“A little bit of wine and beer. Not much, but I do. Is that wrong?”

 

He was still smarting from a television interview with Bryant Gumbel on the Today show that morning, during which he had been accused of having called Simpson’s mother a liar.

 

“I got to the house the day after the murders about 6 or 6:30. They were already there, both sisters and Mom. I kissed her on the cheek. I’d met her there at big parties and the wedding.”

 

“The sisters say you were never alone with O.J.,” I said.

 

He responded very precisely. “The conversation took place between 10 and 11 that night. It was just me and O.J. The girls were downstairs in the kitchen, or in the room outside the kitchen. They never came up when I was there. Shirley said on the stand, ‘I told Bob Kardashian to go up and take off O.J.’s clothes,’ or something like that, and Kardashian wasn’t even there. He was already gone. He left about a half-hour before I went up there. The girls knew I was upstairs. When I came down, Shirley said to me, ‘Don’t let him fall asleep alone. Stay up there with him.’ ”

 

DD goes on to say that it's certainly possible OJ's mom/sisters were mixed up because of the emotion of it all, the chaos that day, but yeah, I think he's being generous there.  DD really liked OJ's sisters and mother, and respected them, sympathized with them. 

 

I know about the two votes directly from things interviewed jurors said on film.  Ditto about how long it took to elect a foreperson, directly from video'd interviews with a couple of jurors.  I know they only asked for the limo driver's testimony from court records and news reports.  I know they dismissed all DNA and Abuse evidence almost on arrival in the deliberation room from a couple of interviewed jurors.

 

Some of the rest I know I got from Dominick Dunne's columns. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2016/02/dominick-dunne-oj-simpson-trial-coverage  It may be hard to understand for some, but DD had an ability that was pretty interesting, people TALKED to him, often unbidden.  He talked to everyone, status or rank was not a factor to him, he was as interested in a maid or taxi driver as he was in the very wealthy.  Many people in LA knew things, but deliberately didn't come forward because they absolutely didn't want to be involved.  Many told DD what they knew. 

 

Do I believe him?  Yes.  I also think he had a good bullshit detector, and when he gives some of the "don't use my name" quotes, you can tell when he thinks the information is credible or that it's bullshit.  He also quotes some people that allowed that.  So when I was reading his, I was cross-googling some of the people who talked to him, some of whom later wrote books. 

 

So a couple of things stand out to me related to your question.  In DD's columns he says several things, both before and after the verdict.  Or he quotes someone else as saying them, and I then googled and found that information from them on line, video or print.  Some of course, are just facts, such as when the jury requested certain things, and how long it took the court to comply.

 

The jury packed their bags the night before.

How long it took for the jury to request the slips for verdict.

 

He also says that it's obvious the jury has outside information coming in, that all of the long-term reporters in the trial commented on it.  As the trial went on and on and on, they knew when certain witnesses were to be called, and what they would probably say.  DD had the added benefit of being able to watch the jury and their reactions, something the TV cameras never showed.  He was there almost every day of the trial as well, leaving for a few days twice with family emergencies, but other than that, he was there.  Also, people, after the acquittal, kept opening up to him, even those who were on the defense team.  Robert Kardashian was one, when they bumped into each other at the airport.

I think all the jurors know a great deal more about what is going on than they are supposed to know. When Laura Hart McKinny took the stand, I felt that the jurors knew who she was, although they had not heard her name in court before. More goes on during conjugal visits than conjugal things. Cynthia McFadden of ABC said to me at a dinner given by constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams at Eclipse, “Remember, the conjugal visits are five hours. That leaves four hours and 45 minutes for pillow talk.” Even if jurors are openly discussing the case among themselves now, there is little the deputies can do about it. The trial needs the jurors more than the jurors need the trial.

 

Laura Hart McKinny was the woman who had the Fuhrman tapes, and at first tried to sell them.  So, the turning point in the trial, when it became the "Mark Fuhrman Trial" instead of the OJ Simpson trial?  The jury already KNEW about her, and what she would say.  That is HUGE.

 

A reporter I know who’s a friend of a deputy who’s a friend of another deputy who’s connected to the jury of the Simpson trial called me early on the morning of October 2, the first day of deliberation, to tell me that some of the jurors had already packed their bags in the Hotel Inter-continental, where they had been sequestered for so long, before leaving for court. At that time, that bit of information seemed too improbable to pay attention to. I had told both Dan Rather and Larry King on television that I believed there would be a hung jury. But some of the jurors had packed their bags. They had also apparently already made up their minds. The deputy who told the deputy who told my friend said some of them had made plans for the weekend. The night before, a person I know had visited O.J. in the county jail. He reported him to be upbeat, making plans for his future, looking forward to being with his kids, a man “with not a negative thought on his mind.” That afternoon, in the courthouse, another journalist went up to turn in his press badge to Deputy Jex, after hearing a court reporter read back to the jury a section of the transcript dealing with the limousine driver Allan Park, who had testified that he had seen an African-American man of six feet and 200 pounds enter the house. The journalist assumed the day was over. “You better stick around for another hour,” replied Deputy Jex.

 

In a trial of stunning surprises, nothing was more stunning than the news that the jury had arrived at a verdict in less than four hours of deliberation. Another deputy reported that from the time the jurors received their verdict forms from Judge Ito it took them eight minutes to arrive at their unanimous decision: NOT GUILTY.

 

 

It's human nature to want to get back to your family. Sequestering a jury that doesn't need to be sequestered or keeping them sequestered for extended periods of time is considered by some to be abusive. Sequestered juries can't go to work or see their families (even on days where there is no trial so if a trial gets extended for a week to prepare a witness or whatever reason it is not like the jury goes home or back to work). so many will give quick uniformed verdicts just to get back to their lives.

You can make a point that is what happened on this case.

This jury got conjugal visits.  5 hours each, no exceptions, the visitor couldn't leave early or arrive late, vans transported them.

 

At the time, and probably even today, it was the longest sequestered jury ever.  I DO believe that would have been horrible.  Many of the jurors had problems from this, one taken away on a stretcher, suspected suicide attempt, never found out why, also another wife of a juror said her husband had massive issues from it, I'll find the link if I can remember it.  He was dismissed after several months on the jury, very unfairly he contests, talked about many of the hardships they had as jurors and how long it took to recover from both that experience and the aftermath, and the dismissal.

 

By the way, DD said this about the prosecution not bringing up the Bronco chase:

The mystery of why the prosecution did not bring the freeway chase into the trial is beginning to seep out. Robert Shapiro said to Shirley Perlman of Newsday, “If the prosecution brings in witnesses to the freeway chase, they will regret it.” The story is—and it sounds right to me—that the helicopters hovering over the Bronco picked up and taped O.J.’s many cellular-phone calls. Parts of the transcript of one of them—to his mother, who urges him to turn himself in—have been published in the National Enquirer. In other calls, Simpson apparently proclaims that he is innocent and that he is being framed. One could interpret that as meaning that the defense had already come up with its conspiracy theory, before the arrest. For the jury to hear that in O.J.’s voice, probably crying, would be devastating for the prosecution.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Umbelina

[Umbelina]

There is just SO much out there. 

 

ETA

A couple of other dismissed jurors talked  as well.  Actually, one article just leads to another when you google a name for more information, there is just so much out there on this trial.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/25/us/ex-juror-predicts-conviction-of-simpson.html

    While mentioning fellow jury alumni by name, Mr. Knox refers to incumbents by pseudonyms and numbers. For present and former jurors alike he also used nicknames: "the Manipulator," "the Bully," "the Health Nut," "the Timid Beauty," "the Lesbian," "the Bitter Old Man," "Mister Bad Breath" and "the Sexpot" among them.

 

    He is particularly critical of Ms. Harris and other black women on the jury for their harsh treatment of Tracy Hampton, a 25-year-old flight attendant who left the jury last month. In part because she considered Ms. Hampton insufficiently black, in part because she resented her good looks, he wrote, Ms. Harris led other jurors to shun the naive and hypersensitive Ms. Hampton, ultimately driving her off the jury and into the hospital.

 

    He quoted approvingly his wife's reaction to the situation. "Black people are always complaining about prejudice from white people," she told him. "And then we go and act that way toward each other. I never realized how intolerant some black people can be."

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-25/local/me-16995_1_dna-evidence

    On a dais with him sat fellow dismissed juror Jeanette Harris, who described sequestration as like being "a prisoner." The 38-year-old job counselor recalled family members, including her children, having to be searched whenever they visited. She also recounted an incident in which, she said, deputies mistreated her 70-year-old father and detained him until visitation was over even though he had another appointment.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/05/22/a-case-that-courts-criticism/c9656f13-a4f9-4d97-880d-a6fcf9effffa/

    Cochran was so worried about losing touch with the jurors that he took on cross-examination of a minor witness, a tow truck driver who was at the Simpson house the day after the murders, "because it had been a long time." But some observers said the defense's apparent disarray may be a disinformation campaign. "There's method to their madness," Rothstein said. "When Shapiro says he doesn't agree with playing the race card and Cochran's playing it, that's intentional. They know that information gets through to the jurors in the pillow talk during conjugal visits. And they're looking down the road to a jury in a retrial, as well as to O.J.'s afterlife."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1995/04/22/thirteen-simpson-jurors-stage-revolt/f0b8a434-5491-49bb-be5e-e1c082250cfa/

THIRTEEN SIMPSON JURORS STAGE REVOLT
 

Rising tension on the O.J. Simpson jury erupted in open revolt today when 13 of the 18 sequestered panelists refused to go to court, halting the trial. Most trial watchers said the rebellion increases the likelihood the jury will be unable to reach a unanimous decision in the double murder case.

 

The angry jurors initially refused to board the bus that shuttles them from their first-class hotel to the courthouse and demanded that Judge Lance A. Ito meet with them to hear their complaints, according to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

 

After the judge declined and ordered them to come to court, four jurors arrived dressed entirely in black and nine wore some black clothing. Sheriff's sources said the black attire was intended as a protest over Ito's decision Thursday to reassign three sheriff's deputies who had been guarding the jury and recently were the subject of a dismissed juror's complaints.

 

http://articles.philly.com/1995-04-09/news/25685919_1_jeanette-harris-jury-crisis-simpson-trial
 

The bomb was dropped by dismissed juror Jeanette Harris, who told a TV interviewer that members of Simpson's jury were forming cliques and circumventing court orders by making unsupervised phone calls.

 

Harris, whose dismissal stemmed from her failure to disclose an incident of domestic violence, also accused sheriff's deputies of "promoting" racial discord on the panel and predicted, "To be perfectly honest, I see a hung jury."

 

With six of the original jurors already dismissed and three others out sick last week - possibly in protest - Judge Lance Ito halted testimony and struggled to defuse the biggest crisis to rock the celebrated case.

 

"This has become an absolute nightmare," said trial analyst Robert Pugsley, a Southwestern University law professor. "Judge Ito is down to six alternates with 60 percent of the trial yet to come. A mistrial is an extremely real possibility."

 

Believe me when I tell you, there are more out there.  I still can't find the one I read yesterday from the wife of a juror who basically describes nearly PTS from her husband long after the trial was over, he eventually got counseling and they saved their marriage.  She talked of feeling like a prisoner when she had her conjugal visits with him, being patted down, having to drive home after midnight, basically locked in the room with him for exactly 5 hours each time.  His stress reactions were even worse, because of course, eventually she got to leave, but he, of course, didn't.

[FozzyBear]

I remember the length of the sequester being a very big deal and one of the many things Judge Ito was criticized for (the feeling being that if he was going to sequester a jury he should have forced both teams of lawyers to get their shit together and move things along. The one thing most people seemed to agree about was that Ito really let this thing get away from him.). And I swear I remember it being a thing for years after. People would reference it whenever a jury might get sequestered, that you didn't want another OJ situation.

[Mittengirl]

This is probably a stupid question, but what the hell.

Could the D.A. have charged OJ with only one murder, either Nicole or Ron, and "saved" the other in case they lost the first one? It wouldn't be double jeopardy to charge him with the other murder, would it? Like if the newly found knife turns out to be the murder weapon, they would still be able to press charges.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm not a lawyer, but I would say no, they couldn't.  The only way they could have charged OJ for the crime, would be if someone else had been charged and found not guilty of both murders. I think. Because there is no statute of limitations on murder.

[jaync]

Suggesting that drug dealers were responsible for these two murders is beyond laughable to me.

​Yeah, the idea that Nicole was killed by drug dealers doesn't really fly. Dealers don't (normally) kill their customers, because they can't collect owed and future monies from a dead person. They're more likely to threaten/target a loved one if a point needs to be made.

[Umbelina]

They were murders that happened simultaneously.  There was a ton of evidence.  I can't see a court allowing them to try them one at a time, because it would be an obvious ploy to avoid double-jeapardy.  Everyone would see thru it as a way to subvert the law, and I can't imagine a judge agreeing to that.

 

There were reports that the jury was able to look at Nicole's horrific autopsy photos, but a few had to be ordered to look at Ron's, and trial was recessed when one juror needed to run from the room when Ron's were being shown. 

http://articles.philly.com/1995-06-14/news/25688928_1_brian-kelberg-alternate-juror-sathyavagiswaran
 

LOS ANGELES — As Ronald Goldman lay bleeding to death from multiple stab wounds, his killer may have poked him in the face repeatedly with a knife "to check whether he was still alive," the Los Angeles County coroner testified yesterday.

 

Dr. Lakshmanan Sathyavagiswaran offered that grim account as a possible explanation for five superficial cuts on Goldman's right cheek.

"Since they all have hemorrhage, they all occurred when Mr. Goldman had some blood pressure," the coroner told jurors. "It could be after the fatal injuries were inflicted . . . to check whether he was still alive or not. That would be one conclusion I would draw."

 

Defense attorney Robert Shapiro branded the coroner's conclusion ''speculation without any foundation." And Sathyavagiswaran acknowledged that he had "no way of knowing exactly why" the cuts were inflicted.

 

Later, as the coroner graphically described two of Goldman's fatal wounds, Judge Lance Ito briefly halted testimony after the victim's father broke down in tears, upsetting an alternate juror.

 

The juror, a 24-year-old receptionist, abruptly stood and was led from court by deputies as Fred Goldman sobbed in his front-row seat.

 

Ito reconvened court about 25 minutes later, telling jurors: "This has been difficult testimony. . . . If at any time you feel uncomfortable and you need to take a break, just let me know. I understand."

 

It was the second time in a week that a juror was overwhelmed by the coroner's testimony and by the sight of gruesome autopsy photographs. A similar outburst on Thursday prompted Ito to end the day almost two hours early.

 

In one of DD's columns he talks about jury reactions when Ron's were shown as well, looking away.

 

There were also tons of "The bitch deserved it" moments, signs hung, one prospective jury member even said it on her jury questions sheet. 

 

O.J. Simpson’s ex-girlfriend has penned a sensational book about her 12 years with the disgraced football great – disclosing a twisted life of drugs, sex, violence and betrayal.

 

In this steamy tell-all – to be published later this year – 33-year-old Christie Prody lays bare the couple’s private life, beginning with their meeting in Los Angeles in 1996 and ending with Simpson’s jailing for armed robbery and kidnapping last December.

 

“When O.J. heard Christie was writing the book, he went nuts!” an insider told the Enquirer.

 

“He was frantic trying to phone her. He wanted to control what she would say and even called her family members. But Christie isn’t pulling punches, and she’s not talking to O.J.”

 

Prody, who received a mega-bucks book deal, reveals that at the time the two met she was in denial over O.J.’s murder of his ex-wife. He later confessed to her that he killed Nicole Brown, but insisted that Nicole brought it on herself. Christie says 61-year-old Simpson preferred talking about his trial in bed nearly every night after having sex.

http://www.celebitchy.com/47042/ojs_ex-girlfriends_shocking_tell-all_not_so_shocking/

There were as many "The Bitch Deserved It!" signs as their were "Free the Juice!" signs.

For many reasons, and the comment comes up a lot in various blogs. 

The reasons were varied but mostly come down to:

 

Gold digger.

Broke up his marriage.

White women don't belong with black men, from the KKK types.

White woman stole a primo black man from black women.

 

It's even in the urban dictionary now.  To go OJ.

The OJ Simpson trial stirred up some sexism, like an agitated beehive. The phrase “to go OJ” was added to Urban Dictionary. It’s a term I’ve heard young men use casually before. Basically, when a man gets upset at his girlfriend who’s getting on his nerves, he might feel tempted to “go OJ” on her. When probed about the justice of the trial, some men willingly admitted they believed OJ was guilty but stated “the bitch got what she deserved.”

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I can't remember if it was asked here, or in the media thread, but about how the vote of 10-2 for acquittal was quickly turned around, after another vote for a total acquittal--Juror No. 6, from the Dateline special last week, was the one who revealed that.  That they took a vote, and two were against, but that it didn't take long to change their minds. Or something along those lines.  And this was the same guy, I think, that was identified as raising his arm to OJ after the verdict. Or was that a hoax and debunked?