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

[psychoticstate]

I wasn't actually talking about if that experience should have played in. I was saying that I thought it was a foolish move of the prosecution's not to address it. And turned out it was.

BTW and not addressing anyone in particular. I don't think anyone framed OJ and I find the conspiracy theories absurd. But I am no more willing to believe the conspiracy theories about the jury either. I could believe that 12 people independent of each other all conspired to get onto a jury that was sequestered for a year just do that they could acquit a celebrity they never met and stick it to LAPD, or I could look at the case and try to figure out how and what happened. That's all I was doing.

 

I don't think these 12 (or more) people plotted to get on the jury in order to acquit a black defendant and stick it to the LAPD.  I think they wanted to get on the jury of what was already being touted as the Trial of the Century, having little to no idea of exactly what that entailed.  I also think that the particular jury that was chosen was sensitive and susceptible to what the defense team decided their angle was.  Once that happened, I think Marcia Clark could have shown them a film of Simpson committing the murders and they still would have believed it was a conspiracy and the tape had been doctored or planted. 

 

That said, I think that, in correlation with a poor judge for this particular case, and a prosecution that likely assumed it was a slam dunk (with very good reason), added up to a terrible miscarriage of justice.

[psychoticstate]

 

 

Except that, according to Juror No. 6, they didn't even consider the blood trail/DNA evidence. None of it.  And I was there; I Lived through it. I saw, just as the jury did, OJ trying to put the gloves on and thinking even back then, how ridiculous and stupid it was. Because even I knew that leather shrinks when wet, and then those fucking latex gloves underneath?  He even said that he thought OJ probably was guilty, but the State didn't prove it "enough" for him. or Them. Or whatever it was he said in the Dateline special a couple weeks back.

 

Yes, in criminal, the standard is reasonable doubt. Not beyond ALL doubt, and that's what this jury was saying in the press.

 

So of course it only took them less than four hours. They disregarded a TON of the evidence.

 

And others have already stated upthread why when Fuhrman pleaded to the Fifth, he couldn't refute the allegation that he planted evidence. Once you assert it for one question, you have to assert it for any and all questions that follow.  And just because Fuhrman turned out to be a racist son of a bitch, doesn't mean that he wasn't a good investigator.

 

Good post.

 

This jury did not understand the DNA evidence, did not want to and clearly did not understand the legal definition of "reasonable doubt."  Yes, they needed all 12 jurors to convict but they didn't have to buy the prosecution's case 100% or have zero doubt.  You can say Tom Cruise sent aliens from his mother planet down to obliterate Ron and Nicole and then beamed back up to the Mother Ship.  There might be the smallest bit of possibility on that but is it reasonable?  Absolutely not.  Is there a possibility the two were killed by a drug dealer or someone driving down Bundy that was bored?  Sure - - but it's just not reasonable based on the plethora of evidence the state put forth.

 

The juror that stated that he believed Simpson was probably guilty but there just wasn't enough evidence to convict - - besides making me want to tear my own eyebrows out, it proves the point that the jury simply did not understand what was put forward.  I have never read or heard of another case where there was SO MUCH evidence and evidence that pointed to one person alone.

 

Like you, I was there and lived it too.  I can remember it like it was yesterday.  The racial divide could be felt during the trial when people were discussing guilt versus innocence but most especially after the verdict.  For the jurors - - or anyone else - - to suggest that race had nothing to do with the trial or the verdict itself is inane and completely disingenuous.     

[Umbelina]

"Reasonable doubt is not mere possible doubt. "It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge."

 

To expect every single person involved to be perfect, and to not make any errors is ridiculous, crimes don't happen in a laboratory where everything is pristine.  Dogs walk through blood, after many hours at a crime site, someone rests against a railing, shit happens, in all crimes and in all investigations. 

 

That's why the jury is supposed to go over the evidence.  Is it REASONABLE that OJ didn't commit these murders?  No.  Period.  ONE drop of OJ's fresh blood at the scene was enough, collected before they even had any of OJ's blood, or knew whether or not OJ was in town.

 

Fuhrman was right about a lot of it though.  That bloody fingerprint on the gate SHOULD have been collected, but it was ignored.  That right there would have probably convicted OJ, in spite of the "race card" crap.  The blood drops on Nicole's back?   I WISH they had those, because the likelihood of them being OJ's or Ron's is so huge.  Her body was covered because of the masses of press taking photos, so yes, a "mistake" but in the circumstances, understandable.  Fuhrman himself thought it was ridiculous to leave Bundy, but was junior so had to do as told.

 

Mistakes yes.  Reasonably doubt?  Something else that jury should have talked about instead of quickly voting.  What does the law mean when it says "reasonable."  It's it "reasonable" for human beings at a horrific crime scene to behave like robotic perfection?  If that's the case, no one would ever be convicted.  Because we don't exist in a perfect world, with perfect people.

 

Edited March 18, 2016 by Umbelina

[whiporee]

 

If we are to assume that such planting/tampering of evidence intentionally occurred after this, why?

 

Because they wanted to stack the deck. 

 

As firmly as you believe Simpson did it, I believe those detectives thought Simpson committed the crime as soon as they heard who the victim was. I think their story of going to his house to check on him because he might have bene in danger, too, was absolute bullshit. So they knew in their guts who did it, they had plenty of evidence to back it up, and then they added a little bit more. The blood on the sock, the blood missing from the vial. I don't think they planted the glove, but I also think  that they went to his house because they believed he was the murderer, and they lied in order to justify jumping the gate and searching the grounds. Fuhrman had been on one of Nicole's calls, and he (justifiably) thought Simpson a suspect. But instead of going through the right motions and the right procedures, they made up a bullshit story that allowed them to move quicker than the law should have allowed. It's fruit of the poisonous tree.

 

So, while I think Simpson did it, I don't think it's in any way acceptable that police break the rules in order to get bad guys. I think that's much more dangerous than a single person going free. because if the police are allowed to lie, and plant evidence -- even if they are just trying to help get the right guy, then they could just as easily start to plant evidence against the wrong guy. They could just as easily starting breaking rules based on their instincts, and in some cases (probably not this one) their instincts could be wrong. 

[MargotWendice]

So how did they get Nicole and Ron's blood, and swirl all three people's blood together?

[Epeolatrix]

Transfer from badly managed evidence samples is one realistic possibility. We're not talking about enough liquid that can be swirled together, it's patches and specks of blood here and there. (No, I'm not saying this is what happened. More that this is the kind of error that could generate such a result.)

[psychoticstate]

Because they wanted to stack the deck. 

 

As firmly as you believe Simpson did it, I believe those detectives thought Simpson committed the crime as soon as they heard who the victim was. I think their story of going to his house to check on him because he might have bene in danger, too, was absolute bullshit. So they knew in their guts who did it, they had plenty of evidence to back it up, and then they added a little bit more. The blood on the sock, the blood missing from the vial. I don't think they planted the glove, but I also think  that they went to his house because they believed he was the murderer, and they lied in order to justify jumping the gate and searching the grounds. Fuhrman had been on one of Nicole's calls, and he (justifiably) thought Simpson a suspect. But instead of going through the right motions and the right procedures, they made up a bullshit story that allowed them to move quicker than the law should have allowed. It's fruit of the poisonous tree.

 

So, while I think Simpson did it, I don't think it's in any way acceptable that police break the rules in order to get bad guys. I think that's much more dangerous than a single person going free. because if the police are allowed to lie, and plant evidence -- even if they are just trying to help get the right guy, then they could just as easily start to plant evidence against the wrong guy. They could just as easily starting breaking rules based on their instincts, and in some cases (probably not this one) their instincts could be wrong. 

 

I think it was Lange that stated they initially went to Simpson's house to notify him of the murders because of the children.  He was their father.  Per his recounting, once they arrived at Rockingham they noted lights on in the house but no one answered the buzzer at the gate.  They noted the Bronco parked at the odd angle and then the blood drop on the door. 

 

Should Furhman have jumped the fence?  Maybe, maybe not.  I believe this is when Marcia Clark got a call from either Lange or Vannatter about Fuhrman doing that and a search warrant.  

 

FWIW, I believe Lange.  It would make sense to notify the former spouse and father of the children, especially given that he was local and the Brown family was down in Dana Point.  They knew Nicole's identity and Simpson's history but they did not know who Ron was yet and had no other details of the crime, as well as not knowing where Simpson was or who he was possibly with.  

 

Do I think the police take shortcuts at times?  Of course.  But it seems to me that in this particular case, where a celebrity was involved, they would be extra careful to dot their "I"s and cross their "t"s.  To the average layperson it may not have made sense for Fuhrman (or one of the other cops) to jump the gate but they had just left a horribly bloody crime scene and they did not know the motive.  Could they have thought Rockingham was another crime scene?  Sure.  I think that's more reasonable than to assume they went through the steps necessary to plant evidence (again, not knowing where Simpson was or who he was with.) 

[BBDi]

Most likely they had both thing in mind when they got to Rockingham - that he could have been involved as a perp or as another victim.

But also considering that OJs two youngest kids were in the house and their parent caring for them at the time was murdered, of course they needed to go there as soon as possible.

Poor kids. I'm always left with that thought.

[Crs97]

 

I have never read or heard of another case where there was SO MUCH evidence and evidence that pointed to one person alone.

 

Read Scott Turow's take on the case.  He basically said when the prosecution takes that long to put on its case, it actually can backfire with the jury.

 

 

So, while I think Simpson did it, I don't think it's in any way acceptable that police break the rules in order to get bad guys. I think that's much more dangerous than a single person going free. because if the police are allowed to lie, and plant evidence -- even if they are just trying to help get the right guy, then they could just as easily start to plant evidence against the wrong guy. They could just as easily starting breaking rules based on their instincts, and in some cases (probably not this one) their instincts could be wrong.

 

You say this like it's a hypothetical when we know that time and time again police have done exactly this.  The Innocence Project is one of many groups that have uncovered these exact situations, and it seems like the unjustly imprisoned are typically poor, black, and mentally challenged in some way.  I wish there was as much outrage for them as against OJ.

 

 

Do I think the police take shortcuts at times?  Of course.  But it seems to me that in this particular case, where a celebrity was involved, they would be extra careful to dot their "I"s and cross their "t"s.

 

You would think, but we know they didn't.  They didn't follow procedure for booking all the crime scene material, they lied under oath, they released the crime scene too quickly, they did a horrible job questioning OJ in the beginning.

 

This is one of those cases that turns my stomach because I think it brings out the worst in everyone.  I feel blessed that I am religious; justice may have been denied in this lifetime, but that doesn't mean justice will never happen.

[DangerousMinds]

or at least they came up with a verdict you agreed with. 

 

I find it amazing that people are so quick to condemn the criminal jury for their assumed biases, and do not assign the civil jury the same level of malice. As if they walked into their courtroom completely barren of preconception, and the idea of paying back the murderer they assumed got off never entered their minds. 

 

If you want to blame juries in this thing, that's your right. But don't say the one you agreed with was awesome and the one you didn't agree with abandoned their oaths for the sake of a statement about race in America. 

 

I think both followed their oaths and their guidelines and came up with the verdicts they both thought appropriate, and the idea that one of them (that had a verdict many disagreed with) did their job haphazardly while the other followed only the evidence and the law is laughable. You either have trust in human nature or you don't. And the idea that the eight white people on the civil jury were less biased -- especially after two years of intense scrutiny -- than the nine black members of the criminal one ... well, that's an interesting take.

Not quick to condemn - I have been studying and thinking about this for 20 years.

[CaughtOnTape]

You say this like it's a hypothetical when we know that time and time again police have done exactly this.  The Innocence Project is one of many groups that have uncovered these exact situations, and it seems like the unjustly imprisoned are typically poor, black, and mentally challenged in some way.  I wish there was as much outrage for them as against OJ.

 

Please allow me to point you to a little show called Making A Murderer that has generated the outrage you speak of.

There's also another case...the West Memphis 3.

And a man named Ryan Ferguson that you may have heard of.

And last but not least, the Central Park Five.

 

I dunno if you meant it to sound like OJ is the victim of unjust outrage...but, he's not.  It's pretty clear our justice system needs a serious overhaul...on both sides of the aisle.  It seems that jury's nowadays don't just convict someone based on the evidence their presented with (or lack thereof in the cases I pointed out above) but it's come down to which side can convince them of the better story.  It's a circus.

 

He is a shell of the man he used to be.  If you ask me, the guilt of what he's done is eating him alive.  No one who is a decent human being will touch him with a ten foot pole.  He's lost his money, his jobs, his endorsements, his friends (people who he was friends with before the trial anyway) his women and more importantly his respect and standing in the eyes of the masses.  He's a punchline.  No one gives a shit about him anymore other than to feel bad for him or talk about this case.  He's not some hero sports God anymore.  No one is interviewing him on red carpets.  He's not being inducted into any hall of fames.  He's not a special guest at any Super Bowl or special football celebrations.  For a man like OJ, who lived and died by the accolades and adulation showered on him by the public, that's probably worse than jail.  

[starri]

He is a shell of the man he used to be.  If you ask me, the guilt of what he's done is eating him alive.  

I'm sorry, but no man with a scintilla of guilt would have attempted to publish a book called If I Did It.

[Dev F]

I don't think they planted the glove, but I also think  that they went to his house because they believed he was the murderer, and they lied in order to justify jumping the gate and searching the grounds. Fuhrman had been on one of Nicole's calls, and he (justifiably) thought Simpson a suspect. But instead of going through the right motions and the right procedures, they made up a bullshit story that allowed them to move quicker than the law should have allowed. It's fruit of the poisonous tree. 

 

But that's a matter of law that was settled by the court before the trial even started. Given that the judge in the preliminary hearings found the cops' explanation acceptable and refused to exclude the evidence they gathered from Simpson's home, it wasn't up to the jury to overrule that decision. If the judge made the wrong call, that's something to bring up on appeal.

 

Did the cops make some sloppy mistakes? Sure they did. But it's never been clear to me that they made unusually sloppy mistakes, or whether any case is going to involve stuff that went wrong and details you can't totally make sense of. It seems to me that the latter is probably the case, and that the standard for reasonable doubt, therefore, shouldn't be "Everything the prosecution presents is totally persuasive" but "If you discount whatever elements you don't find totally persuasive, what remains is still enough to dispel any reasonable uncertainty."

Edited March 19, 2016 by Dev F

[SinInTheCamp]

It's important to remember that the jury in the criminal case wasn't privy to much of the information that the rest of us had. And even if outside info was leaked to them, they wouldn't be allowed to consider it during deliberations if it wasn't introduced during the trial. The woman who alleged to have seen OJ speeding away from the direction of Nicole's? She sold her story to a tabloid, so the prosecution ousted her. The Bronco chase? They decided not to include that as evidence of guilt, even though OJ had a gun, a disguise, a passport, and nearly $10,000 on him. The ineffectual yet incriminating police interview? Nope. OJ denied being the murderer, and the prosecution didn't want the jury to know that (of course he was denying it! That was the whole reason for the trial!).

I think my take on the case is different from most, because I was a young person living at the time in one of the worst areas in L.A. You know it's bad when other Angelinos try to distance themselves from it by pretending they're not even aware that it exists. In 1994 and 1995, people like me (and probably many of these jurors too) had no access to computers and no means to travel, ever. You think we'd have a clue that wet gloves shrink? I never even owned a pair of gloves until I moved away in my thirties! It generally never gets that cold here. Even if it did, we wouldn't be able to afford leather gloves. We knew nothing about them.

Not only that, but we all grew up with zero faith in law enforcement. I was a Latina "passing" for white due to my mixed ethnicity, and even I was afraid. When a friend of mine was killed by a white man, he was blamed for his own death, because he was Latino and therefore must have been making trouble. In that case, which received some press in L.A., the murderer received a slap on the wrist. I don't recall any whites who were up in arms about that particular injustice.

I'm also bemused about the assignation of significance the black power salute has received. It is nothing like a white supremacist salute. The salute (which is essentially just a fist held up in the air) can be--and is--symbolic of many different things. It was most famously used by 1968 black Olympians as a gesture to honor all of the black Americans whose voices had been drowned out over the centuries by the waters of the Middle Passage, the whip of the slaveowner, the rope of the lynch mobs, and the batons of unjust police. Gloria Steinem also famously used the salute alongside Angela Davis to symbolize solidarity in seeking justice during the civil rights movements. In my childhood L.A. neighborhood, it could mean anything from "best of luck" to "fight the power" to "justice has been served." There's no way to know conclusively what that juror was communicating, but as he was from my neck of the woods, I'm betting it was something along the lines of "Justice has been served," and not, "Booyah! We got your guilty ass off! Three cheers for black supremacy!" Utter nonsense. But perhaps this is something that only someone of a certain socio-economical class in that particular time and place can truly understand or believe.

Although I was only 20 at the time of the trial, I was glued to my TV--my primary source of information about it at the time--and had no doubt that Simpson was guilty. I still don't have any doubts. But I had an African American coworker who was fully convinced of his innocence. This lady was so devoted to her beliefs that she took the bus to the courthouse any time she had a day off during the week. She became a staple outside the building, just standing there to show her support, and was often interviewed by the press. I've sort of been hoping I'd see some representation of her on the show. As wild as I thought her ideals seemed, I never demeaned her for them. And although I was initially frustrated by the jury, I've come to understand over the years the factors that went into their decision.

Part of this is becoming more open-minded and compassionate as I age, and I really like that the show is telling the story from all angles. And that's important, because there is no "one"/right story. We all rely on our own unique worldview a to provide us with interpretations. This case no longer belongs to just the Goldmans and Browns...it's now a part of the history of Los Angeles itself.

I've served on juries myself, and two cases really stood out to me. In one, a civil case, we had to rule against the plaintiff, who was a very sympathetic figure. We also really liked her attorney. But even though her story was reasonable and believable, she had no convincing evidence. Believe me, I would have loved to have walked in there and awarded her with everything she asked for. And many, many times while jurors may believe in their hearts that someone is guilty of a crime, they must acquit if they don't feel the prosecutor proved their case. That's why "not guilty" doesn't actually mean "innocent." That's why the justice system doesn't use the word "innocent." In another case, an all-white jury took about 5 minutes to decide a black man was guilty of a drug charge after a week-long trial. I was the one who insisted that we needed to sit down and go over all of the evidence, even though we were all in agreement. I don't think they liked me much for that, but I thought it was the right thing to do.

Interestingly then, after this show has renewed so much interest in the case, I find myself increasingly supportive of the way it all turned out. Not because I'm a fan of murderers being set free on the golf course or because I necessarily support so-called jury nullification. But when I realize that phrases like "the race card" and sentiments like "this case had nothing to do with race" (which the show's writers so neatly disputed right at the beginning with the unforgettable Rodney King footage) and "I'm glad Cochran got brain cancer" (for doing his job? I wouldn't wish that on anyone) and "the jurors were lazy idiots"(translation: they were mostly black...which makes them automatic lawbreakers/jury nullifiers, DUH) are still being batted around, the cultural ignorance inherent in those statements is like a sickening punch in the gut. I suppose what this show has really underscored is that, as a society, our views and assumptions about those we consider abject sadly have not evolved much in twenty years.

Edited March 19, 2016 by SinInTheCamp

[whiporee]

 

Not quick to condemn - I have been studying and thinking about this for 20 years.

 

I'd argue that, like all of us, perhaps you formed your opinion 20 years ago, and have been defending and supporting it since then.  The fact that you -- or any of us -- have held an opinion for 20 years doesn't make it any more or less valid. 

[kathe5133]

When I first heard about this murder it was the morning after my best friends husband died of cancer. As he was actively dying Nicole and Ron were being slaughtered. There was talk that OJ had done it........... I don't know the word for it, but I was sitting with a woman who would have moved mountains to save the life of her spouse, and in California they say this guy just murdered his. Those two events will always be linked in my mind. Honestly, I didn't want to believe that he had done it. How could someone do that to the mother of his children? I loosely followed the trial and I had reasonable doubt. Fuhrman testified under oath that he found the gloves and some of the blood. He also testified that he never used the n word. We all know he lied about using the n word. We heard him. If he lied about one thing it is not inconceivable that he would lie about the other. That's reasonable doubt. Since I truly did not want to believe a human being could do something that horrific, I was good with the not guilty verdict.

20 years later........ Not so much based on OJ's behavior (searching for the killers on various golf courses, writing a book as if he had done it, etc). I live with a pathological liar. She will lie when the truth would serve her better. I came upon an interview with OJ on YouTube. There were over 10 parts to it. He "explained" everything. Over explained in my opinion. I felt like I was listening to my roommate explaining to her husband that the car was in the shop when she had actually given the car to her son to drive with his suspended license. She had an answer for everything, and implied that her husbands doubts were simply because he was so simpleminded. Same with OJ. Even the pauses with incredulous faces!

I firmly believe he did it. He is a horrible human being. But, because he is a human being, I have to believe there is some guilt. That is his punishment.

[Catherinewriter]

I apparently missed it in real time (twelve  years ago) and now, but WHY didn't the gloves fit. Can someone explain?  And if that really the straw that broke the prosecution's back?   Thanks

[FozzyBear]

I apparently missed it in real time (twelve years ago) and now, but WHY didn't the gloves fit. Can someone explain? And if that really the straw that broke the prosecution's back? Thanks

I think (and I am not an expert) that it was a combination of factors. Wet gloves that had been sitting in evidence for a year without being worn probably shrunk a little. OJ had been in prison for a year on a prison diet and probably put on a little weight. I think there was also talk that he may have stopped taking arthritis medication (which is pretty condridcitocontray to the idea the show floated that the whole thing was very spur of the moment) causing his hands to swell more. OJ wore latex gloves so the fit would have been off no matter what. Plus, IIRC, they weren't winter gloves which are usually sized a little large making it easy for people to remove them easily, they were driving gloves which are cut to fit very snugly so it wouldn't take much to make them not fit. Plus if you watch the original footage, it's not clear that they don't fit so much as they weren't slipping on immediately giving OJ the chance to make a giant production of the whole thing. To me it was more of a super creepy moment watching him play act at being innocent, but either way it was a show stopping moment.

[DangerousMinds]

I'm sorry, but no man with a scintilla of guilt would have attempted to publish a book called If I Did It.

And he still has plenty of money.

[Crs97]

There are several explanations for the gloves:

1. The gloves would have fit, but OJ stopped taking his medicine, which caused his hands to swell, and he was holding his fingers in ways to make it impossible to put the gloves on.

2. They gave OJ latex gloves to put on first, and those gloves caused the gloves in question not to fit.

3. The gloves had been wet with blood and (I've heard) were frozen, and leather shrinks when wet.

Or what FozzyBear said.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Crs97

[DangerousMinds]

I'd argue that, like all of us, perhaps you formed your opinion 20 years ago, and have been defending and supporting it since then.  The fact that you -- or any of us -- have held an opinion for 20 years doesn't make it any more or less valid.

Except that is NOT what I said.

[Apprentice79]

It's important to remember that the jury in the criminal case wasn't privy to much of the information that the rest of us had. And even if outside info was leaked to them, they wouldn't be allowed to consider it during deliberations if it wasn't introduced during the trial. The woman who alleged to have seen OJ speeding away from the direction of Nicole's? She sold her story to a tabloid, so the prosecution ousted her. The Bronco chase? They decided not to include that as evidence of guilt, even though OJ had a gun, a disguise, a passport, and nearly $10,000 on him. The ineffectual yet incriminating police interview? Nope. OJ denied being the murderer, and the prosecution didn't want the jury to know that (of course he was denying it! That was the whole reason for the trial!).

I think my take on the case is different from most, because I was a young person living at the time in one of the worst areas in L.A. You know it's bad when other Angelinos try to distance themselves from it by pretending they're not even aware that it exists. In 1994 and 1995, people like me (and probably many of these jurors too) had no access to computers and no means to travel, ever. You think we'd have a clue that wet gloves shrink? I never even owned a pair of gloves until I moved away in my thirties! It generally never gets that cold here. Even if it did, we wouldn't be able to afford leather gloves. We knew nothing about them.

Not only that, but we all grew up with zero faith in law enforcement. I was a Latina "passing" for white due to my mixed ethnicity, and even I was afraid. When a friend of mine was killed by a white man, he was blamed for his own death, because he was Latino and therefore must have been making trouble. In that case, which received some press in L.A., the murderer received a slap on the wrist. I don't recall any whites who were up in arms about that particular injustice.

I'm also bemused about the assignation of significance the black power salute has received. It is nothing like a white supremacist salute. The salute (which is essentially just a fist held up in the air) can be--and is--symbolic of many different things. It was most famously used by 1968 black Olympians as a gesture to honor all of the black Americans whose voices had been drowned out over the centuries by the waters of the Middle Passage, the whip of the slaveowner, the rope of the lynch mobs, and the batons of unjust police. Gloria Steinem also famously used the salute alongside Angela Davis to symbolize solidarity in seeking justice during the civil rights movements. In my childhood L.A. neighborhood, it could mean anything from "best of luck" to "fight the power" to "justice has been served." There's no way to know conclusively what that juror was communicating, but as he was from my neck of the woods, I'm betting it was something along the lines of "Justice has been served," and not, "Booyah! We got your guilty ass off! Three cheers for black supremacy!" Utter nonsense. But perhaps this is something that only someone of a certain socio-economical class in that particular time and place can truly understand or believe.

Although I was only 20 at the time of the trial, I was glued to my TV--my primary source of information about it at the time--and had no doubt that Simpson was guilty. I still don't have any doubts. But I had an African American coworker who was fully convinced of his innocence. This lady was so devoted to her beliefs that she took the bus to the courthouse any time she had a day off during the week. She became a staple outside the building, just standing there to show her support, and was often interviewed by the press. I've sort of been hoping I'd see some representation of her on the show. As wild as I thought her ideals seemed, I never demeaned her for them. And although I was initially frustrated by the jury, I've come to understand over the years the factors that went into their decision.

Part of this is becoming more open-minded and compassionate as I age, and I really like that the show is telling the story from all angles. And that's important, because there is no "one"/right story. We all rely on our own unique worldview a to provide us with interpretations. This case no longer belongs to just the Goldmans and Browns...it's now a part of the history of Los Angeles itself.

I've served on juries myself, and two cases really stood out to me. In one, a civil case, we had to rule against the plaintiff, who was a very sympathetic figure. We also really liked her attorney. But even though her story was reasonable and believable, she had no convincing evidence. Believe me, I would have loved to have walked in there and awarded her with everything she asked for. And many, many times while jurors may believe in their hearts that someone is guilty of a crime, they must acquit if they don't feel the prosecutor proved their case. That's why "not guilty" doesn't actually mean "innocent." That's why the justice system doesn't use the word "innocent." In another case, an all-white jury took about 5 minutes to decide a black man was guilty of a drug charge after a week-long trial. I was the one who insisted that we needed to sit down and go over all of the evidence, even though we were all in agreement. I don't think they liked me much for that, but I thought it was the right thing to do.

Interestingly then, after this show has renewed so much interest in the case, I find myself increasingly supportive of the way it all turned out. Not because I'm a fan of murderers being set free on the golf course or because I necessarily support so-called jury nullification. But when I realize that phrases like "the race card" and sentiments like "this case had nothing to do with race" (which the show's writers so neatly disputed right at the beginning with the unforgettable Rodney King footage) and "I'm glad Cochran got brain cancer" (for doing his job? I wouldn't wish that on anyone) and "the jurors were lazy idiots"(translation: they were mostly black...which makes them automatic lawbreakers/jury nullifiers, DUH) are still being batted around, the cultural ignorance inherent in those statements is like a sickening punch in the gut. I suppose what this show has really underscored is that, as a society, our views and assumptions about those we consider abject sadly have not evolved much in twenty years.

I have been lurking on this board and I love your post. I wish that I could like it a million times..Beyonce got alot of heat from pundits for doing the salute at the super bowl during her awesome performance.. She was accused of being anti-police and racist. She is far from that..However for all her money and fame, she is still a Black woman in America and she knows exactly what that means...Many people who are outside the Black community have no idea what the salute means and the history behind it. I am so happy that you gave the people on here a bit of knowledge about it..I doubt very much that some people would have cared about OJ being acquitted of double murder,  if Nicole and Ron were Black. All this vitriol against Johnny Cochran and the mostly Black Jury is disturbing...It is very telling and ironically it reminds me of the conversation that Chris Darden had with Marcia Clark about Mark Furhman about racist whites and Black people having the spidey sense to ferret them out...

[Umbelina]

I think it's hard to say what people would have cared about.

 

Remember this whole thing started, the entire media circus really began with the Bronco chase.  Yes, of course the press was at OJ's and Nicole's houses when the murders broke as a story.  He was famous, and very beloved, because he was always so very nice to fans, so accommodating, so available.  He had the perfect "nice guy" image, and his fame, while starting with the football fans, transcended that with his movies and commercials.  So, yeah, press!

 

BUT, what captured everyone and enticed the television coverage?  That Bronco chase did it, everyone was glued to that, so bizarre, the LA freeway shut down, cop cars following at a respectful distance, OJ threatening suicide.  TV producers are nothing if not aware of opportunities to get people to watch their channels.  Without the Bronco chase, would any of this happened? 

 

Maybe.

 

Then, to nail that coffin shut, Ito allowed it to be televised live.  Circus was in full regalia then, most people watched, or watched the endless news and entertainment shows about it.  When it was over, many read the books, many listened to the endless interviews.  It was all OJ all the time.

 

It was a series of events that just became a perpetual motion machine, and that's why people still even know Ron and Nicole's names.  I think this latest "made for TV about OJ" event is really capturing that phenomena, the whole circus and media side of it, the real birth of reality TV.  Yes, there had been a few other shows, but nothing like this.

 

So, it's not that people don't care about other crimes, it's that this one was in your face impossible to ignore for nearly a year, so yeah, people know more about it than other crimes, and when you know more, you care more.

 

I'm not denying that the racial aspect wasn't a huge part of things.  Still?  Without that Bronco chase, which led to Ito televising this?  Interest would have died long ago.

[Marsupial]

I think this is the kind of case that haunts people precisely because we hear so much, and are so justly outraged, at seeing innocent people convicted, that we think, good lord, all that prosecutorial zeal should have been directed at this person who is clearly guilty.  I think of cases like the McMartin and other daycare "sex abuse" prosecutions, and some of the cases the rest of you have mentioned. All that energy, money, resources and time directed at innocent people...if half of it had been directed at, say, O.J., the outcome might have been different.

 

I know some people feel that way about  Casey Anthony, although from what I've read--and I admit I did not follow it that closely--there really was not enough evidence to convict her.

 

During that barroom scene, where Marcia Clark did a brilliant job showing in plain terms how ludicrous the "framing" conspiracy was, I kept thinking, "you're doing a great job; why didn't you do that when it counted, in front of the jury?"

[Kel Varnsen]

During that barroom scene, where Marcia Clark did a brilliant job showing in plain terms how ludicrous the "framing" conspiracy was, I kept thinking, "you're doing a great job; why didn't you do that when it counted, in front of the jury?"

One thing I didn't get was that her conspiracy theory revolved around them taking OJ's blood sample and then using that to place bloed evidence to frame him at his house. But that seems to be over thinking it. Let's say cops hypothetically that the cops decided to frame him, couldn't they have taken blood from the crime scene and placed it at his house and in the bronco? If they had done that, picking up OJ's blood could have just been dumb luck.

[psychoticstate]

I dunno if you meant it to sound like OJ is the victim of unjust outrage...but, he's not

 

 

No he's not.  Simpson is not a victim at all nor should he be the poster child of sorts of police corruption or conspiracy.  If anything, he's the symbol of a miscarriage of justice.  

 

 

He is a shell of the man he used to be.  If you ask me, the guilt of what he's done is eating him alive

 

He is most definitely a shell of who we thought he was - - evil does eventually show in every pore.  That said, I don't think the guilt is eating him alive because I don't think he has any guilt over what he's done, toward Ron, Nicole, their families or Sydney and Justin.  Simpson has never taken responsibility for anything he's done; he rationalizes it and blames it on others.  It's Nicole's fault he killed her - - she pushed him to it and "the bitch deserved it" (as he quoted to a friend of a friend.)  It's Ron's fault he killed him because he shouldn't have been there, he shouldn't have shown up, he shouldn't have . . . whatever.

 

 

Did the cops make some sloppy mistakes? Sure they did. But it's never been clear to me that they made unusually sloppy mistakes, or whether any case is going to involve stuff that went wrong and details you can't totally make sense of. It seems to me that the latter is probably the case, and that the standard for reasonable doubt, therefore, shouldn't be "Everything the prosecution presents is totally persuasive" but "If you discount whatever elements you don't find totally persuasive, what remains is still enough to dispel any reasonable uncertainty."

 

Excellently said.  No crime scene is pristine (especially those that are outside) and there is always human error but it's a stretch to suggest that the same cops and investigators that are so sloppy as to allegedly eradicate evidence and results are also clever enough to conspire to frame Simpson - - the same person, by the way, that they mollycoddled and allowed to turn himself in when it was convenient for him.

 

The woman who alleged to have seen OJ speeding away from the direction of Nicole's? She sold her story to a tabloid, so the prosecution ousted her. The Bronco chase? They decided not to include that as evidence of guilt, even though OJ had a gun, a disguise, a passport, and nearly $10,000 on him. The ineffectual yet incriminating police interview? Nope. OJ denied being the murderer, and the prosecution didn't want the jury to know that (of course he was denying it! That was the whole reason for the trial!).

 

 

These were huge mistakes in my opinion.  Okay, so Jill Shively sold her story.  Many people tried to cash in on this case.  It doesn't make her a liar.  She still saw who she saw at the time she saw him where she saw him.  It probably wouldn't have mattered with the jury, all things considered, but it proved that Simpson was lying about being at home during the time of the murders, and further supported Alan Park's testimony that the Bronco was not parked on the street when he arrived (because Simpson was speeding across town in it.)

 

The slow speed chase was clear evidence of guilt.  Why take off?  And take off with your passport and a large sum of cash?  And a disguise?  Please.  This man adored being recognized. 

 

I think there was so much evidence in this case that the prosecution was considered the jury would get weary and so they eliminated some pieces.

 

I'm also bemused about the assignation of significance the black power salute has received.  The salute (which is essentially just a fist held up in the air) can be--and is--symbolic of many different things.

 

 

I agree that the salute is a symbol of many different things, many - - if not most - - being pride.  But in this case, a case that the defense made about race and how the predominantly white cops went out of their way to frame a prominent and successful black man, the salute was not about anything other than a verdict based on race.  When you take that with Carrie Bess' statement immediately after - - that the jury had to look out for their own - - I agree that the message could have been justice being served but I don't believe it was being served due to anything other than the race card being played in a case that had zero to do about race.

 

I'd argue that, like all of us, perhaps you formed your opinion 20 years ago, and have been defending and supporting it since then.  The fact that you -- or any of us -- have held an opinion for 20 years doesn't make it any more or less valid.

 

 

I formed my opinion some twenty years ago myself.  I didn't feel Simpson was guilty because the police arrested him or because of his skin color.  I watched the trial, I read the evidence (and even more once the trial ended) and I based my belief in his guilt on the physical evidence, his history and his initial interview with the police, all of which are very clear markers of guilt to me.  His behavior since has done nothing to change my opinion.

 

 

I apparently missed it in real time (twelve  years ago) and now, but WHY didn't the gloves fit. Can someone explain?  And if that really the straw that broke the prosecution's back?   Thanks

 

This has basically been answered and answered well but I also want to point out that Simpson held his thumbs at angles to insure that the gloves would not fit.  His hammy behavior was repulsive - - guilty or innocent, he should have been horrified to put back on the gloves he used to nearly decapitate his ex-wife (and gloves that were still stained with her blood.)

 

I don't know if the gloves were the turning point for the jury - - because I believe they would have acquitted regardless - - but I think more importantly the glove demonstration took the steam out of the prosecution's case and they never got it back.

 

 

..I doubt very much that some people would have cared about OJ being acquitted of double murder,  if Nicole and Ron were Black. All this vitriol against Johnny Cochran and the mostly Black Jury is disturbing...It is very telling and ironically it reminds me of the conversation that Chris Darden had with Marcia Clark about Mark Furhman about racist whites and Black people having the spidey sense to ferret them out...

 

I can't speak for all people but I would have cared because two people were brutally and intentionally killed.  Not two white people - - two people, two human beings that were very deserving of their lives.  I don't give a crap who killed them or what color their killer's skin is, that person should be rotting in prison.

 

The frustration I have with the jury and with Cochran has nothing to do with their race, it's the fact they allowed a trial that was supposed to give justice to Ron and Nicole become a spectacle about race (and I blame Ito equally.)   

 

 

Without that Bronco chase, which led to Ito televising this?  Interest would have died long ago.

 

 

Maybe not.  I think the fact that his defense was to allege police misconduct and framing, that he was acquitted, then went on his world tour of golfing and drugging, ending up in first Florida and then a Nevada prison, would keep this interest up . . . as well as the civil case and the Goldmans fighting to keep Ron's memory alive.

 

I do understand what you say about the Bronco chase though.  It was basically reality tv at its finest.  I was glued to the set for hours watching it - - and not much happened.  I do recall thinking that once Simpson returned to Rockingham he was going to kill himself.  It really was akin to watching the proverbial train wreck that you couldn't turn away from.

 

 

During that barroom scene, where Marcia Clark did a brilliant job showing in plain terms how ludicrous the "framing" conspiracy was, I kept thinking, "you're doing a great job; why didn't you do that when it counted, in front of the jury?"

 

 

This really should have been done as soon as Furhman was left out to dry.  His beliefs are despicable but she should have protected how he handled the crime scene that night and shown how impossible it really would have been to do what the defense was alleging.  And reiterate that point during closing.

 

I think she was so exhausted - - mentally, physically and emotionally - - by the end, she had no energy left to fight for her case.

 

  ​

[ByTor]

"the jurors were lazy idiots"(translation: they were mostly black...which makes them automatic lawbreakers/jury nullifiers, DUH)

Correct translation: They were people who took 4 hours to reach a conclusion over months' worth of evidence (some of which they admitted to not even listening to).

[Epeolatrix]

Alternatively, they were people who had months' worth of listening to evidence and—by the end of the trial—they were pretty clear on what they thought by then. It's not like closing statements made everyone go, "Oh my God, I must reconsider everything I've heard in the past year!"

[ByTor]

Except that there were two who did not agree, who miraculously came around to popular opinion in no time at all.

[psychoticstate]

Alternatively, they were people who had months' worth of listening to evidence and—by the end of the trial—they were pretty clear on what they thought by then. It's not like closing statements made everyone go, "Oh my God, I must reconsider everything I've heard in the past year!"

 

Toobin's book reflects very well on this.  He claims that out of the four hours the jury was in the deliberation room, only TWO HOURS were spent actually deliberating.  That's two episodes of this show. 

 

You have the jury members, plus alternates.  Sure, percentages say some will have already formed an opinion, some will be on the fence and others no opinion.  That's what the deliberation is for.  It's also on the record that the majority of the jurors did not take notes (the notable exception being Cochran's "white devil").  Could they honestly have remembered what witnesses from the beginning of the trial said?  Wouldn't most people who go into jury duty without feelings of guilt or innocence take notes?  Not taking notes would indicate to me that either you do not take your civic responsibility seriously and/or you already have an opinion that isn't going to change.

 

In any event, and to put the two hours into context, most of us here have spent much more time than that debating the merits of the case.

[Gam2]

I served as a juror on a capital murder death penalty case. The judge wouldn't allow us to take notes because he said we'd be writing down our impressions of the testimony rather than the testimony verbatim. We were allowed to ask for a copy of particular testimony given in court when we were in deliberations. We indeed did do that on two occasions when there were questions about what exactly was said. I have no idea if Judge Ito refused to allow the jurors to take notes or if they just choose not to do so.

[Umbelina]

I served as a juror on a capital murder death penalty case. The judge wouldn't allow us to take notes because he said we'd be writing down our impressions of the testimony rather than the testimony verbatim. We were allowed to ask for a copy of particular testimony given in court when we were in deliberations. We indeed did do that on two occasions when there were questions about what exactly was said. I have no idea if Judge Ito refused to allow the jurors to take notes or if they just choose not to do so.

That is terrible.  I can't even imagine that order.

 

For just one example, when I was on a jury I did take notes, something like "date/testimony of person X is a direct contradiction of testimony by person Y, review testimony."  How would you even know what to review, or remember, especially during a long case, or what points you wanted to discuss with other jurors once deliberations began?

[Gam2]

Our case was 4 days long and very simple, actually. The testimony and video of the crime scene with deceased body was very straight forward and horrifying. The defense was so weak-it's like they knew they had no chance of defending this sub human. I won't get into the details of this crime or trial because we were sequestered and under armed guards the entire time. There were threats against our lives by the defendant's family. Believe me, we remembered everything except a couple of small chronological points. When you have served on a jury that can decide to take the life of another human being, even such a despicable one, you take your responsibility extremely seriously. After conviction, we went into the penalty phase. When we retired to the jury room, the judge gave us a paper listing 13 questions we had to honestly answer "yes" to before we could vote for the death penalty. We could answer "yes" to the first 12 with no argument from any of us. The last one was the one we could not answer in the positive. It was " Do you believe that this defendant entered this house with the express purpose of murdering the victim?" Our deliberations in this phase lasted almost an entire day. In the end, we sentenced him to life in prison with the possibility of probation or parole. Until you've served on a death penalty case, you have no idea how this impacts your life for years afterwards.

[Umbelina]

My case was civil and over a month long, I could have never kept it all straight without my notes.  Or at least been able to call for the testimony I felt showed that both sides were horrible liars and crooks.  ;)

 

Yikes!  What a horrible case for you!

Edited March 24, 2016 by Umbelina

[Gam2]

Oops, I meant to say "without the possibility of probation or parole". So he will spend the rest of his life in prison. As he deserved, in our opinion.

[Gam2]

Umbelina, I hope you were able to read my correction above. Yes, it was a horrible case. I had nightmares for weeks after I came home. My husband was a long time detective in the Army-I thought there was no way on earth that the defense would select me to serve on this jury. I found out on the bus on the way home at 2:00 am, from a deputy Sheriff, that the prosecution fought to put me on that jury. When we walked out of the courthouse at midnight, the steps were lined on both sides with police officers and sheriff's deputies down to the bus. We were escorted home by four police cars with lights flashing. This was 17 years ago and I remember all of it like it was yesterday. I actually hadn't thought of it in a long time until reading this site. Now I wish I hadn't because it brought all of this up again. I haven't served on a jury since then and hope I never have to again. Once was enough on a death penalty case.

[Crs97]

Thanks for your service, Gam2. It does seem like there should be a rule allowing someone who served on a capital murder case to opt out of future service.

[Gam2]

Thank you for saying that. I think it's everyone's responsibility as a citizen of this country to serve on a jury but I also know that many people don't take this responsibility as seriously as they should. I know that my life experience is different than many others but I do hope that decency, honesty and ethical behavior will always prevail.

[kathe5133]

I know a woman who followed every day of the OJ trial. This same woman watched all 10 episodes of making a murderer and "knows" that Stephen Avery didn't do it. Law and Order reruns run on continuous loop all day long and into the evening on her TV. She falls asleep to "A Touch of Frost" (British detective show that is on Showtime). She will rail against police, lawyers, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys because they are incompetent. All of them. If it was up to her there would be no injustice in this world because she is one of the very few with a superior intellect who can sort through all complexities and arrive at the truth. She was summoned to jury duty. She told the judge she was the sole caregiver for her elderly mother, even though the was an out and out lie, and got excused. I was shocked! I thought she'd be all over the jury duty. "Why?" I asked. "I couldn't be bothered" was her retort.

I've served on a jury once. It was an amazing experience and I would do it again anytime. I consider it a privilege. I wish more people did.

[savannah1985]

You know, it wasn't until I went in for jury duty and was questioned, that I found out how quickly I form opinions based on first impressions. You don't want me on a jury.

Edited March 24, 2016 by savannah1985

[Umbelina]

November 3, 1995 is Kendall Jenner's birthday.

 

The OJ trial jury was sworn in on November 9, 1994. 

The verdict came in on October 3, 1995.

 

Fung testifies APRIL 3, 1995, I think that was the beginning, either way, he was on the stand for 9 days.  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/fungtest.html

Handshakes all around:

 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-19/news/9504190183_1_simpson-defense-team-defense-lawyers 

 

So, the jury has 6 months to go.  Kris has 7 months to go before Kendall is born.  So Kendall wasn't much bigger than a peanut at the time, and Kris would not have been showing.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Umbelina

[Dejana]

November 3, 1995 is Kendall Jenner's birthday.

The OJ trial jury was sworn in on November 9, 1994.

The verdict came in on October 3, 1995.

Fung testifies APRIL 3, 1995, I think that was the beginning, either way, he was on the stand for 9 days. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/fungtest.html

Handshakes all around:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-19/news/9504190183_1_simpson-defense-team-defense-lawyers

So, the jury has 6 months to go. Kris has 7 months to go before Kendall is born. So Kendall wasn't much bigger than a peanut at the time, and Kris would not have been showing.

By the end of the last episode, the Fuhrman tapes had been uncovered. He was brought back on the stand months after Fung's testimony, and I thought one of the jurors in a scene mentioned being sequestered 7-8 months, so I was thinking the episode covered a significant amount of time. Edited March 24, 2016 by Dejana

[Umbelina]

They'd found the tapes, but that doesn't mean they'd presented them to the jury and the world yet.

 

Although with only two episodes left there will be another huge time jump next episode.  I just took a guess at the timetable, since Fung was shown this episode. Also, RK was talking about the blood evidence with Kris.

 

Who knows though?  They are compressing a lot.

 

August 30, 1995 - It looks like articles about them being introduced as evidence came out on. 

Sep 7, 1995 - A somber, stony-faced Detective Mark Fuhrman asserted his 5th Amendment rights

 

So IF Kris shows up then, she would be 7 months pregnant.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Umbelina

[ganesh]

My memory of the events is all out of order. I thought Fung was before the glove, and I thought Furhman was dispatched well before that. I don't know why everything is reversed. I remember listening to the verdict on the radio at work though. 

[Umbelina]

I was responding to a post I made about Cuba's acting in the episode thread, then realized this probably is better placed here, since it covers the whole trial.

 

Here are trial highlights and yes, OJ reacted more than I remembered, but I still think Cuba is chewing the scenery.  Or maybe he just has a rubber face with lots of wrinkles so it shows more?

1:18, 1:33, 1:36  are a few of his reactions though.  At 1:45 Simpson "wipes away tears" after Fuhman plead the 5th.  You can see him in the background of several shots, he always talked to someone during crime scene photos though, not looking if I remember correctly.

[Simon Boccanegra]

The SNL sketch was exaggerated for comedy, but that's their thing; they take something inherently factual and elevate it to the absurd, like making him wince over toppings on a pizza. It was something going on that week that people were talking about.  

 

I'm sure even some of his courtroom reactions were done with the cameras and the jurors in mind ("Look! OJ is pained and shaking his head no. Bet he wishes he could rebut what Marcia just said somehow...without taking the stand!"). But on the other hand, I don't think self-control is Simpson's strong suit. Even with no one to sway or impress during the deposition phase of the civil case, his lawyers couldn't shut him up. Petrocelli writes about a number of times he snorted, swore, repeated a word back incredulously, or something of that nature when he was present for a deposition and heard something he didn't like, and was only supposed to be there quietly observing.   

 

Of course, we also have pictures of a battered wife and later two dead bodies to attest that self-control wasn't his strong suit, so...no news flash, eh? 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Umbelina]

Yeah, I definitely stand corrected.  I agree with you that most of his reactions were staged for the jury, but not all.  My 20 year memories of his cheerful or impassive face were probably shaded by my dislike of OJ, and today, fading memories.  It's better to watch the tapes, and oddly enough, there are MANY of them, trial tapes, on You Tube.  I haven't looked at those at all, other than this one, and a few other trial tapes that had to do with testimony.

 

Didn't someone post something way back when this all began that said the main reason Kardashian sat so near OJ during the trial was because the other lawyers needed him to control OJ? 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Umbelina

[psychoticstate]

The SNL sketch was exaggerated for comedy, but that's their thing; they take something inherently factual and elevate it to the absurd, like making him wince over toppings on a pizza. It was something going on that week that people were talking about.  

 

I'm sure even some of his courtroom reactions were done with the cameras and the jurors in mind ("Look! OJ is pained and shaking his head no. Bet he wishes he could rebut what Marcia just said somehow...without taking the stand!"). But on the other hand, I don't think self-control is Simpson's strong suit. Even with no one to sway or impress during the deposition phase of the civil case, his lawyers couldn't shut him up. Petrocelli writes about a number of times he snorted, swore, repeated a word back incredulously, or something of that nature when he was present for a deposition and heard something he didn't like, and was only supposed to be there quietly observing.   

 

Of course, we also have pictures of a battered wife and later two dead bodies to attest that self-control wasn't his strong suit, so...no news flash, eh? 

 

 

I'm just bolding a portion of your quote because I think one of the most egregious, foul mistakes Ito made in a sea of them was to allow Simpson to make a statement to the court (and, obviously, the jury) without taking the stand.

 

Twenty years later, it's still unbelievable to me and without precedent.  

[Simon Boccanegra]

Cochran also strongly implied in his final summation that Simpson was not allowed to testify, which was grossly improper argument, and he didn't even get called on it. That was a door he opened for the prosecution and they either didn't see it or didn't take advantage. Cochran tried to generate sympathy for Simpson by describing his having to sit quietly for months while person after person testified against him, and "all [he] could do" was maintain his dignity and have other people "stand up for him" in the defense portion of the case. Of course, Simpson was sitting quietly and letting other people talk on his behalf because of the defense's decision. We've all talked about Marcia Clark's blunders in this trial, but he would have been no match for her, and they all knew it. He certainly was no match for Daniel Petrocelli, ESPN's Chris Myers, or even the two detectives who interviewed him on June 13th far too briefly, superficially, and deferentially and still got him to trip up a dozen times. Every time he ever was questioned about this case, he reeked of guilt.   

 

Clark and Darden wouldn't have been allowed in ordinary circumstances to ask the jurors to draw an inference from Simpson's failing to submit to cross examination, but with Cochran's statements opening the door, maybe.  

[Mittengirl]

I'm sure this was mentioned in the first episode, but I can't remember - how long after the crime was discovered did the police realize one of the victims was OJ's ex-wife?