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

[Umbelina]

Congratulations!  I love those transcripts, and that page, it's amazing. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I promise, last comment about my one and only time serving on a jury.

 

I didn't know I did this, and I was okay and knew I made the right decision when after going through all the evidence, voted to convict. But the jury foreperson told me, after the case was over and we were all walking out to our cars, that I flinched when we announced the guilty verdict and the judge pounded his gavel. So, it was not an obligation or an experience to take, nor did I take, lightly.

 

And I guess I'm fortunate, where I live. That is, the county where I live, because there is just One circuit court and one district court, and only about two miles from where I live now. Back then, it was about 10 miles.  These days, you have a number you call, and the recording will tell you if you need to show up, based on the number you have.  And really, if your number is not there and you show up, it's one day, and you find out if you will have to serve.  And I live in a state (MD), where it is the law that your employer has to pay you if you end up serving.  And even if you don't, the day you had to take off, to see if you would have to serve? The court pays you. Of course, you have the option to donate said funds, or a part of it, to juvenile court services or something, if you want, or just keep the whole whopping $15 to yourself!

 

And now I'll shut up. But I will forever be bitter that what I do for a living, prevents me from being able to serve on a jury. It's not fair.  Whereas I hear about people serving three or four times. The one guy on the jury I served on? It was his fourth time!

Edited February 14, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Kel Varnsen]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the pictures of O.J. wearing those particular shoes weren't discovered until the civil trial, after the criminal trial, right? I remember seeing parts of O.J.'s deposition in one of the documentaries where he claims he would never wear those Bruno Magli shoes, they were "ugly ass" shoes, and then lo and behold, pictures start showing up of him wearing them at different events. 

 

ETA: And apparently I never learned to read because the civil trial is mentioned in the first comment. I'll leave this as is to shame myself into better reading comprehension.

That seems pretty wild. For all the resources the LAPD and the DA had and all the time it took to prepare and have the trial, and they never looked into whether or not the shoe prints meant anything and/or if OJ owned them. But the investigators working for the plaintiffs did.

[elzin]

And now I'll shut up. But I will forever be bitter that what I do for a living, prevents me from being able to serve on a jury. It's not fair.  Whereas I hear about people serving three or four times. The one guy on the jury I served on? It was his fourth time!

Our bailiff at my last jury duty service told us his sister (or sister in law) has been called and chosen about 10 times. We only have to serve every 2 years, I guess, and so every 25th month she gets a summons and gets selected. I would die. I loved jury duty (the process, not the bull that goes along with it), but that's rough.

[Umbelina]

That seems pretty wild. For all the resources the LAPD and the DA had and all the time it took to prepare and have the trial, and they never looked into whether or not the shoe prints meant anything and/or if OJ owned them. But the investigators working for the plaintiffs did.

Actually, the National Enquirer found the photos.

[Callaphera]

That seems pretty wild. For all the resources the LAPD and the DA had and all the time it took to prepare and have the trial, and they never looked into whether or not the shoe prints meant anything and/or if OJ owned them. But the investigators working for the plaintiffs did.

 

From my understanding, the prosecutors couldn't prove that he wore those specific shoes, although it was his shoe size, and there were none in the house. I have to assume that they at least looked in his closet.

 

But what really blows my mind is the gloves. As I'm reading through Vincent Bugliosi's book, he makes mention that he personally sent prosecution a still shot that he had seen of OJ doing commentary at an NFL game wearing the gloves that Nicole had bought him, the same ones that were found at the murder scene, and they never introduced anything like that into evidence. He assumed that he wasn't the only one that had sent them a picture of OJ wearing the gloves, since apparently he had been seen wearing them at different football games but absolutely no mention of that at the trial. It's circumstantial but there weren't many pairs of those gloves made or sold in that specific size and Nicole had purchased two pairs (though size and colour weren't specified on the receipt, but he was seen wearing a black pair and the dark brown pair that would have matched the murder scene gloves) in 1990 as a gift for OJ. You'd think that they would bring that up.

 

So missing the pictures of the shoes? Seems a little more plausible to me. No one handed them a picture of OJ wearing the shoes. Also when you consider that, again according to the Bugliosi book, there were something like twenty five prosecutors assigned to the case, half of which were working on it part time, the other half full time. With that many cooks in the kitchen, there must have been an awful lot of communication breakdowns. 

[Fable]

I get a summons every few years and have since I was a young adult and once I got them twice in a month, once the by the county and another by the city.  Thankfully, I have never been called.  On the other hand, my father who is 25 years older than me, has never, ever received a summons.  My last name is very common and my father's is very foreign, and I wonder if that has anything to do with it!  

[ArizonaGrown]

In some respects the prosecution has it easier though. There used to be this show on FOX called Justice with Victor Garber as a top defence lawyer (think Shapiro). The show had a way better cast than it deserved, but the one thing I remember was in the pilot Garber's character talked about how the world needed defence lawyers because of the amount of advantage the prosecution has. He talked about what I said above about how people generally think that if you got arrested you are guilty, and how the prosecution basically has the power of their police force on your side (if you are the defendant it is hard to get the cops to investigate someone else, and it is not like you can apply for a search warrant). Plus at trial the DA gets to make opening arguments first and is the last person to speak to the jury in closing.

That is pretty weird. Also with the socks if you read that frontline thing posted earlier which asks lawyers where the DA went wrong one of the lawyers they interviewed was Alan Dershowitz. I know he was on OJ's dream team but he mentioned that the blood samples from the socks had evidence of some sort chemical stabilizer on them that would be found in test tubes. Now again this guy was on OJs team so you know what side he is on, if they could get an expert to confirm that it's one more thing that would lead to reasonable doubt.

 

You know they had those said socks in their collection of stuff for a month or more before they were able to find the said blood stain and they were examined by several people who did not find anything on them until they finally said they found blood on them. Also there was ETA found on them which is used to preserve blood samples in lab. 

 

Heres the trial transcript links- 

http://edition.cnn.com/US/OJ/trial/jul/index.html

http://edition.cnn.com/US/OJ/trial/aug/index.html

[ArizonaGrown]

I just completed reading all the closing arguments in the civil trial. (A very long read) it answered any questions I may have had in a very articulate and easy to understand way. It doesn't have a lot of the BS to wade through that was in the criminal trial.

Thats because they dont have to prove what they are saying like in a criminal trial. 

 

The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/the-differences-between-a-criminal-case-and-a-civil-case.html#sthash.OpiCVepI.dpuf

[RedheadZombie]

While I do agree that the jury process needs to be overhauled, I don't agree that only those with legal experience should be able to determine/make verdicts.

 

I had no legal experience when I was on a jury, and I had no problem understanding and knowing how to do my job. Then again, Criminal Justice was my minor in college, so I did know how the law works. Or is supposed to work and was familiar with a lot of the language.  And there is always the option for jurors to ask questions of things that they don't understand. At least, the case/jury I sat on did.  But, if we didn't know what x drug was, or chemical y was, and how it worked or didn't work or what effect it had, that wasn't important. What we needed to look at, was whether the State was able to prove the defendant had it and distributed it/was in his possession, because it was illegal.  And we were forbidden to look it up or research anything that was revealed in court.

If a defendant fears the jury is too uneducated, there's always the option of a bench trial. But I'm sure there's a reason most go with a jury.

I remember hearing analysis of Oliver North's jury. His jury was basically high school educated people with blue collar jobs. The case was extremely complicated, yet the jury was thought to be made up of very serious people who really did a good job of analyzing the evidence. I think it's much more important that a juror goes in with an open mind and determination to do their duty, than simply be educated on law.

[Umbelina]

FINALLY clearing American Scandals with Barbara Walters from my DVR, and it piqued my interest when they showed an interview with Shapiro where he said he would not work with Cochran again and would not talk to Bailey again. I figured the Cochran beef was for him undercutting him and taking the lead on the case, but was baffled on the Bailey war.

 

For anyone else interested, or might have been in the dark as well, this clears it all up:

http://articles.philly.com/1996-04-23/living/25659144_1_robert-l-shapiro-shapiro-and-cochran-simpson-defense

This is really a fantastic article, now I may actually want to buy this book, after the uproar dies down.  I noticed on betterworldbooks.com every single OJ case book has seriously jumped in price.  Before the show?  $3.98 including shipping, now, more than double that. 

 

The links to other articles at the bottom are also good.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Umbelina

[hoosiermom]

Thats because they dont have to prove what they are saying like in a criminal trial. 

 

The standard of proof is also very different in a criminal case versus a civil case. Crimes must generally be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt", whereas civil cases are proved by lower standards of proof such as "the preponderance of the evidence" (which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way). The difference in standards exists because civil liability is considered less blameworthy and because the punishments are less severe - See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/the-differences-between-a-criminal-case-and-a-civil-case.html#sthash.OpiCVepI.dpuf

I understand that about civil trials.i'm just saying it cleared a few things up for me.

[Jel]

Bah this show is reactivating my obsession.  I really, really wanted him to be innocent of this crime.  Anyhoo.  Can someone please help me with this: did we ever get an explanation of why no one saw OJ with a cut on his finger on the night of the murders. (Was he wearing gloves that night?)

 

Watching the interview, his denial of those Bruno Magli shoes was quite convincing (to me anyway).  And then we see the pic of him wearing them.  I always think I am a good judge of whether someone is lying or not -- wrong!  And since he lied well about the shoes, I now have no reason to believe he was telling the truth about anything else. 

[MargotWendice]

It is reigniting my obsession as well. :-(

He did have a cut on his finger and several people noted it (including the guy sitting beside him on the plane home from Chicago. I believe his story was that he had broken a glass in his hotel room--or was it in the limo?

The prosecutions' argument was that he cut himself with his own knife after his glove came off at Bundy Drive.

I am going from memory so correct me if I am wrong.

[Jel]

It is reigniting my obsession as well. :-(

He did have a cut on his finger and several people noted it (including the guy sitting beside him on the plane home from Chicago. I believe his story was that he had broken a glass in his hotel room--or was it in the limo?

The prosecutions' argument was that he cut himself with his own knife after his glove came off at Bundy Drive.

I am going from memory so correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks, MargotWendice.  Do you happen to remember if anyone saw his cut finger on the way to Chicago? Yes, his story was that he had broken a glass in his hotel room and cut his finger that way -- that it had happened in Chicago, not LA.  

 

Was there ever any report of someone seeing him with a cut, say at the airport, or on the plane, or at the hotel during check in? Or did anyone notice him wearing gloves in LA?

 

One sidebar thing I noted from The Interview was that when asked about gloves (did he own those gloves) he talked a fair bit about he had lots of gloves and was always losing one (or words to that effect).

Edited February 14, 2016 by Jel

[Mya Stone]

I totally bought American Tragedy: The Uncensored Story of the OJ Simpson Defense last night. It's only $4.99 for Kindle!

Why read nursing text books when you can read this??

[ennui]

yet when it comes to the most important part (IMO) of determining someone's guilt or innocence, they leave it to people who have no legal experience.

 

On L&O, Jack McCoy once commented that the verdict is with twelve people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

 

I've been called for jury duty a couple of times, served once, for a civil trial (car accident). The last time I was called, it was a criminal trial. There must have been over a hundred people called for that jury pool, and I was the very last person at the end of the day. Both attorneys looked at me, decided the twelve they had were good enough, and I was free to go. I didn't know how to take that. It's like not being picked to play basketball or something.

 

For those who have doubts about defense attorneys, I seem to recall that most criminal cases are settled by plea bargain and don’t actually go to trial. It’s a situation of “they know you did it, you know you did it, they’re going to charge you with murder, but we can plead guilty to a lesser charge,” and everyone goes home happy.

Edited February 14, 2016 by ennui

[Kel Varnsen]

From my understanding, the prosecutors couldn't prove that he wore those specific shoes, although it was his shoe size, and there were none in the house. I have to assume that they at least looked in his closet.

 

But what really blows my mind is the gloves. As I'm reading through Vincent Bugliosi's book, he makes mention that he personally sent prosecution a still shot that he had seen of OJ doing commentary at an NFL game wearing the gloves that Nicole had bought him, the same ones that were found at the murder scene, and they never introduced anything like that into evidence. He assumed that he wasn't the only one that had sent them a picture of OJ wearing the gloves, since apparently he had been seen wearing them at different football games but absolutely no mention of that at the trial. It's circumstantial but there weren't many pairs of those gloves made or sold in that specific size and Nicole had purchased two pairs (though size and colour weren't specified on the receipt, but he was seen wearing a black pair and the dark brown pair that would have matched the murder scene gloves) in 1990 as a gift for OJ. You'd think that they would bring that up.

 

So missing the pictures of the shoes? Seems a little more plausible to me. No one handed them a picture of OJ wearing the shoes. Also when you consider that, again according to the Bugliosi book, there were something like twenty five prosecutors assigned to the case, half of which were working on it part time, the other half full time. With that many cooks in the kitchen, there must have been an awful lot of communication breakdowns.

That's sort of the point i was trying to makeabout the shoes and how it was a failure by the cops and da. I mean showing a shie print collected from the site, then showing a commercially produced shoe that makes that print and then showing a pic of OJ wearing that shoe is a lot easier for a jury to understand than dna. Especially when wasn't there only like 200 pairs of shoes inthe US that could have made that print.

And then on top of that even though you have an army of criminal investigators you get out done by the Enquiror?

[starri]

For those who have doubts about defense attorneys, I seem to recall that most criminal cases are settled by plea bargain and don’t actually go to trial. It’s a situation of “they know you did it, you know you did it, they’re going to charge you with murder, but we can plead guilty to a lesser charge,” and everyone goes home happy.

Except sometimes innocent people are pressured into taking deals because overworked public defenders don't have the time or resources to mount a vigorous defense, and so accepting a plea to a lesser charge seems like the path of least resistance.

[FuriousStyles]

If a defendant fears the jury is too uneducated, there's always the option of a bench trial. But I'm sure there's a reason most go with a jury.

I remember hearing analysis of Oliver North's jury. His jury was basically high school educated people with blue collar jobs. The case was extremely complicated, yet the jury was thought to be made up of very serious people who really did a good job of analyzing the evidence. I think it's much more important that a juror goes in with an open mind and determination to do their duty, than simply be educated on law.

I dont know how it is in other states, but here in NY, a defendant accused of murder in the 1st isnt allowed the option of a bench trial. They MUST have a jury trial. And in other cases the court must still approval the defendant's waiver of a jury trial. So even if the defendant wanted a bench trial there's no guarantee they'd get it.

I think people of all walks of life and educational background are capable of understanding evidence presented to them. I didnt mean to insinuate that they couldnt. But clearly in far too many cases, something happens between the understanding of the evidence and the formulation of an opinion as to someone's guilt or innocence. As folks here have said based on their own experience serving on juries, some people already had their minds made up probably before opening statements. That's not right. And you cant tell me someone who does actually have experience with the law wouldnt be helpful in a jury room....which is probably as others have noted they can never get on as a jury (most likely) because of their occupation.

[Umbelina]

I don't think it would be helpful to have someone involved in the legal profession in the jury room.  Too many people might be inclined to defer to the one with experience in the field.  I also don't think every trial goes for "dumb" juries, because some lawyers NEED their juries to understand fairly complicated things, whether civil or criminal.  Also, not all lawyers have the resources to hire jury selection consultants, and I don't think Marcia Clark is the only one to select juries based on her own feelings, not what focus groups or anyone else thinks.

 

Marcia, for example, thought female jurors would relate to a female prosecutor, and the domestic violence.  She was naive about the racial divide, which in a way, speaks well for her faith in humanity, and lack of racism.  Still?  Stupid.

 

The main things I remember excluding people from juries have to do with close associations with something that will be in the trial.  "Is anyone in your family in banking/real estate/law-enforcement/insurance/whatever the case is about?  Even then, some lawyers seem to connect with certain jurors and will directly ask "In spite of that (the fact you were once raped, for example) can you, will you, listen to the evidence and decide on this case fairly and without prejudice?"  or "You say your boyfriend is a police officer.  Do you believe ALL  police officers incapable of planting evidence or behaving improperly?"  If that defense attorney believes you, they will keep you, or if they see something else in you that they want in that jury box, you aren't automatically dismissed.

 

I do think for SOME trials, they prefer simpletons, but to say that is true of all trials?  Nah.  I don't believe that, at all.

 

I get called for jury duty regularly, luckily, the past several years, I never make it into the jury box for individual questions, because my number isn't called, and yay!  I'm done for two years.  I DO end up sitting through the questioning though.  I've seen many jurors chosen that surprise me.  In a DUI case this year, I did notice some choices that I felt were odd.  It was obvious from questioning that the prosecution DID NOT have blood evidence, indeed that the blood evidence would show the old-hippy looking guy was not over the legal limit at all.  They obviously were going to say that the police officer had enough experience to know the guy was under the influence, even though legally he wasn't.  No drugs and not enough booze in his system.  They pretty much kept 12 of the first 15 that were called, in spite of one being a bartender, and one thinking cops are not all good guys.  You just never know.

 

(I knew I could get out of that jury easily and honestly were my number called, because my answer to those questions basically asking "would you believe this officer over blood and urine evidence?" would have been a resounding "Hell no!"  The others all said they would listen to all of the evidence and decide.)

Edited February 14, 2016 by Umbelina

[BBDi]

One time I made it to questioning but I had mentioned various family members who were lawyers in my questionnaire. The judge asked me if my father ever mentioned that police officers sometimes lie on the stand. I said yes, he did say that, but I was capable of making up own mind. I was dismissed anyway.

Too bad - I would take it a lot more seriously and pay more attention than the average person. Next time I will just lie on my questionnaire.

ETA: I heard that Marcia Clark believed that she had done well with black female jurors in the past.

Edited February 14, 2016 by BBDi

[MargotWendice]

Thanks, MargotWendice.  Do you happen to remember if anyone saw his cut finger on the way to Chicago? Yes, his story was that he had broken a glass in his hotel room and cut his finger that way -- that it had happened in Chicago, not LA.  

 

Was there ever any report of someone seeing him with a cut, say at the airport, or on the plane, or at the hotel during check in? Or did anyone notice him wearing gloves in LA?

 

One sidebar thing I noted from The Interview was that when asked about gloves (did he own those gloves) he talked a fair bit about he had lots of gloves and was always losing one (or words to that effect).

I did not find anything to confirm anyone saw the cut before he left LA, but I thought this was interesting: http://articles.latimes.com/1996-11-09/local/me-62924_1_nicole-simpson.

He offered contradictory accounts of how and when he got the cut, which seems odd--it was a bad enough cut that it seems like you would remember how you got it.

[hoosiermom]

I got called for jury duty when I was 9 months pregnant and scheduled for a C section the following week and I ended up on the jury. They said it it was OK because the trial would be a short one and they started the trial the same day the jury was picked. It must take a killer of an excuse to get out of jury duty.

[Umbelina]

I totally bought American Tragedy: The Uncensored Story of the OJ Simpson Defense last night. It's only $4.99 for Kindle!

Why read nursing text books when you can read this??

 

 

You'll have to share the good parts.  I found this review:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/23/reviews/20348.html

The defining moment in ''American Tragedy,'' Lawrence Schiller and James Willwerth's book on the O. J. Simpson defense team, comes early on, when Mr. Simpson, facing arrest for murder, embarks on a search for a suitable place to commit suicide. Wandering around his friend Robert Kardashian's house, he vetoes the backyard. ''I'd be baking in the sun,'' he says. ''I don't want to bake in the sun.'' The driveway is wrong too -- the Hertz pitchman doesn't like the idea of cars being parked on his suicide spot. The side yard is too close to the trash pile. Mr. Simpson also refuses simply to walk off into the sunset. ''I don't want to be found in the street,'' he says. By then Mr. Kardashian, who seems to be developing some enthusiasm for the suicide scenario, is taking snapshots of O. J. posing with his about-to-be-grieving friends. Then Mr. Simpson vanishes, apparently gone off on his own to do the deed. But no, he's on the phone, calling from the white Bronco with a progress report: ''We drove to some orange field and sat there for a while. I was going to do it there, but I couldn't see myself lying in some field.''

 

O. J. Simpson's flailing efforts to convince his friends and himself that he was suicidal were a preview of what was to come. Most of the defense team, the authors say, struggled continually to take Mr. Simpson on his own, possibly delusional terms. The lead attorney, Johnnie Cochran, was among the most unshakable defenders. When told Mr. Simpson had taken, and utterly failed, a polygraph test, Mr. Cochran simply refused to believe it. But he was haunted by his client's inability to come up with a consistent explanation for the cuts police officers found on his hand when he was arrested. Near the trial's end, Mr. Cochran came back from an argument with Mr. Simpson and expressed doubts for the first time. ''He scared me, Carl,'' he told his colleague Carl Douglas. ''It's a good thing I didn't have blond hair.''

 

Another:  http://articles.latimes.com/1996-10-13/news/ls-53332_1_simpson-case

 

Schiller's access to Kardashian is a mainstay of his reporting, particularly in the book's early sections, and Kardashian's willingness to discuss the case with the author may have implications beyond this book. In fact, it may jeopardize Kardashian's ability to steer clear of the civil case, since he may have lost his chance to continue asserting the attorney-client privilege regarding conversations with Simpson.

But Schiller's reporting goes well beyond a reliance on Kardashian. Nearly the entire defense team is acknowledged, and many of the conversations and meetings the book recounts did not even involve Kardashian.

 

Kardashian did have to testify in that trial, hmmm.

 

According to "American Tragedy," Kardashian long harbored questions about the blood evidence pointing to Simpson as the likely culprit. Simpson's first lawyer, Howard Weitzman, told Kardashian over lunch that he was convinced Simpson was guilty.

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by Umbelina

[suomi]

Schiller's book makes a point of presenting Cochran's doubts re the cut on Simpson's finger. Cochran wasn't stupid; he was cunning, he was sly, and he wasn't stupid. Contrary to popular belief, most defense attorneys prefer to know their client's innocence or guilt because it helps them to properly plan their case. Cochran spent beaucoup hours with his client. He got different responses (as opposed to answers) every time they talked about how and when the cut happened. Due to that issue alone Cochran knew, without asking The Question, that his client committed double murder.

[Inspectabecky]

dp

Congratulations!  I love those transcripts, and that page, it's amazing. 

 

You've brought me out of lurking with these transcripts! lol I'm in deep now and must discuss..

Did you see the part in OJ's depo about Kathryn and the earrings? Kathryn's obsession w diamonds led to the 89 arrest! Apparently Nicole was gushing over new diamond earrings marcus just bought kathryn and kathryn blew up OJ's spot by mentioning that he had bought Nicole a great pair too, not realizing they were for someone else. Nicole flipped out and they were fighting all night about who he got them for and you know the rest..

Edited February 15, 2016 by Inspectabecky

[Umbelina]

You know, I've  read all of the civil depositions, EXCEPT OJ's.  I've read a bit over 1/2 of his.  I can only take him in small doses.  Then I flipped over to some of the motions / decisions in the criminal trial, and around to other articles people have mentioned here.  So, I haven't come across the earrings part of his yet.  Apparently there ARE some video transcripts of the civil deposition out there, haven't found them yet, saw a couple of tiny clips somewhere, including AC breaking down in sobs when he saw the photos of Nicole.

 

I'd like to find those, since in Juror # 5 she talks about how scary/weird OJ was on during his, and I'd like to watch AC say the things he did, watch Marcus lie (either Marcus is lying or everyone else is.)

Edited February 15, 2016 by Umbelina

[suomi]

Vannatter brought Marcia Clark on board; they had recently worked another case together. For whatever reasons (ego? fame?), Vannatter swooped in and took credit for finding evidence that Fuhrman and (Brad) Roberts found, AND Vannatter didn't read their case notes which is Investigation Techniques 101. I mean, come the fuck on! That's how/why the 10-point fingerprint IN BLOOD on the back gate was overlooked.

 

Whether Marcia knew this from the get or whether it gradually became apparent, she co-signed it and covered for Vannatter by going along with it. This is what Fuhrman was referring to during the Oprah interview when he said that everyone except for he and Brad was "running from something." This particular example of technical corruption buried testimony that could have made a difference: the testimony of a second officer validating and building upon what Fuhrman noticed and noted. Like, oh, I don't know, Roberts finding the (wet) dark clothing in the washing machine at Rockingham and the blood swipe on the light switch plate in the laundry area. By technical corruption I mean the evidence wasn't planted or tampered with or manufactured but lies were told about who discovered it, so it was still corruption. Which the LAPD and the DA's office wasn't prepared to and couldn't afford to admit. Roberts couldn't testify about the clothing in the washing machine, seeing the blood in the Bronco and on the driveway, etc because Marcia had to keep him off the stand to cover for Vannatter's glory-hogging lies and inefficiency (not reading the case notes). It boggles the mind that Fuhrman has long been painted as the asshole when he was the best detective at both scenes, Which Is Why he was mis-characterized. I mean, I can see the defense doing that but not the prosecution, FFS. Does the prosecution hanging Fuhrman out to dry make more sense now? They further fucked up by not even attempting to rehabilitate their witness.  

 

Ito's wife was the highest-ranking female in the LAPD at that time and she commanded Internal Affairs. She had run-ins with Fuhrman over the years at other posts and sanctioned him once, although he refused to sign the sanction and he was upheld. She stated under penalty of perjury that she had zero recollection of Fuhrman. Ito-the-star-fucker managed to avoid recusing himself from the case (conflict of interest) because of her statement. Cochran could've dropped the dime on Ito at any point because the defense was aware that Margaret York/Mrs Ito perjured herself. So Ito was "running from something" as well.

Edited February 16, 2016 by suomi

[Shannon L.]

 

I didn't know how to take that. It's like not being picked to play basketball or something.

One time, I was in the first group called up on a Monday morning.  I really didn't want to serve on a jury, but wasn't about to go through pains to get dismissed because it's my duty to do it and even I knew that my reasons for not wanting to be there weren't good enough.  Anyway, I was dismissed Thursday afternoon.  When I left, I thought it was funny that in the beginning, I groaned when I got the summons, but at the end I was wishing they told you why because I felt like I'd failed a test!

 

 

So, it was not an obligation or an experience to take, nor did I take, lightly.

 

It's really not something to take lightly.  Having been on a jury once, I understand how hard it is to stay focused, to not bring personal experience or emotion into it, how to take the facts as they are presented and not take into account the person's behavior on the stand or at the table with their lawyers.  And mine was over in a few days.  I can't imagine what it was like being on that trial, with that defendant, but I hope I'd have taken it seriously enough to hold off on a decision for at least a few days. 

 

Thank you, everyone, for all of the links.  I've been really busy over the past few days, but hopefully sometime soon I can get to a few of them. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Since this is related to the real case, I'm posting it here...and it's not the show itself in the Media...

 

Because the last minute of the A&E: OJ Speaks: The Hidden tapes, I went to see if it was available on Demand, and it was, but dayum, I didn't/forgot that there was another one: The Secret Tapes, which has him on a recording, basically reciting almost the same words he wrote in his suicide letter. There are some snippets from the civil depositions, that weren't in the documentary about the deposition that shocked me. And I thought I'd already been more shocked than I already had been. Maybe shock is the wrong word, but jaw dropping at how OJ is so narcissistic and self-absorbed that he actually said that the black eye/bruise he gave Nicole was nothing more than make-up! Yes, make-up, like when he "did movies" and they would put make-up on him to make it look like he was all banged up. And that it was something they, he and Nicole, often did.

 

And it's no secret I can't stand the Kardashians, but the show wasn't taking creative license when they showed Kim, at least, at the funeral. Maybe Kris calling out to them, was made up, but in the Secret Tapes documentary, there was footage of the funeral, and you could see Kris with Kim. So, they were there.  And Carl Douglas, the defense attorney, who questioned Ron Shipp was interviewed and he admit that OJ had a hand in how the team "conducted" his defense.  And now I'm wondering why the show didn't cast anyone to play him? Because he was the one who questioned Shipp; not Bailey, Kardashian or Cochran!

 

Anyhoo, for those that don't have on demand, I'm sure that you can see it on their website.

[ByTor]

Many jurors just don't care about the law or doing it right and it is the only area where there will be absolutely no consequences.

Or they don't even know the basic principle of the system. I've been chosen for two juries, and in one of them, all I could think was I hope if I'm ever accused of something I never have people like these on my jury. When we went to deliberate, the foreman and I both said that this is an easy one, the prosecution didn't prove guilt AT ALL. This was followed by several jurors saying that the defendant didn't prove he wasn't guilty. THAT is truly scary. Edited February 16, 2016 by ByTor

[suomi]

So, has anyone read Sheila Weller's book Raging Heart? She did numerous interviews with the circle of close friends, male and female, and bonded with and became friends with some of them herself. It's a good read, shedding new light all around, especially re AC. Only one person's real name isn't used: Ron Shipp; she calls him "Lee" but the circumstances and conversations identify the one and only RS. A few chapters in so far and I'm reading about something done to Nicole during the murder that wasn't publicly revealed until the book was published. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? It ties in to Simpson's behavior at the viewing, before the funeral. Now I need to find the autopsy report and look into what SW claims. Sorry to be cryptic, but I'm not one to carry rumors and I've never heard this "information" before.

Edited February 16, 2016 by suomi

[Umbelina]

Well, when you find out, share!

[shafted]

Did Mark Fuhrman really sue the LAPD for turning him into a bigot?

[Jade Foxx]

This article is quite interesting re Fuhrman.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-02/news/mn-52447_1_disability-claim

[Jel]

This article is quite interesting re Fuhrman.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-02/news/mn-52447_1_disability-claim

Very interesting, thanks for posting it.  This chilled me:  

 

"Longtime pension commissioner Sam Diannitto agreed that expressions of racism and violence do not necessarily constitute a disability. "If you look at racial hatred and violence, that's really a mind-set," said the assistant fire chief. "It's not disabling, in my opinion.""

 

Probably pretty disabling to the people who are subjected to that mind set though.

[BBDi]

Very interesting, thanks for posting it. This chilled me:

"Longtime pension commissioner Sam Diannitto agreed that expressions of racism and violence do not necessarily constitute a disability. "If you look at racial hatred and violence, that's really a mind-set," said the assistant fire chief. "It's not disabling, in my opinion.""

Probably pretty disabling to the people who are subjected to that mind set though.

Jesus. That is pretty cold.

No doubt they are concerned with avoiding a situation where half the force claims disability by saying they hate black people, Mexicans, etc. But still.

[GHScorpiosRule]

There were a few questions why Marcia was so upset in last night's episode about the leaking of the tapes.

 

Here's my theory and the reasons.

 

Theory: just as the beating of Rodney King was leaked out to the point we all saw it, just not the people who would be the jury--it desensitized them, I think. And it tainted the jury pool.  That's my theory on why she was upset: afraid people wouldn't be shocked by it, by the time she introduced it to trial.

 

And reason: it definitely tainted the jury pool.  In the Secret Tapes, you see how the radio stations leaked it, and the callers that called in, calling OJ a murderer, that he did it, that he didn't do it, calling Nicole names.  And since I didn't watch the trial live, I can't recall whether the tapes were admitted into evidence or not.

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

I remember hearing the 911 call as a kid when this all happened, but hearing them as an adult - a little younger than Nicole was, but a mother myself - I find them terrifying. You can hear the absolute terror in her voice but that she's trying not to scream/wake up the kids/stay calm enough to get the dispatcher to understand her. I can't even imagine how scary that was.

 

I hope that one day, Sydney and/or Justin will write a memoir about their childhoods and what they remember about the abuse/murder/trial and life with OJ after (preferably Sydney since she was older - but still very young - when the murders happened). My guess is that out of loyalty and love for their dad, it may not happen until after OJ dies, if at all. I would just be interested to know what they remember and for them to tell their own stories.

Edited February 18, 2016 by MyPeopleAreNordic

[Umbelina]

There were a few questions why Marcia was so upset in last night's episode about the leaking of the tapes.

 

Here's my theory and the reasons.

 

Theory: just as the beating of Rodney King was leaked out to the point we all saw it, just not the people who would be the jury--it desensitized them, I think. And it tainted the jury pool.  That's my theory on why she was upset: afraid people wouldn't be shocked by it, by the time she introduced it to trial.

 

And reason: it definitely tainted the jury pool.  In the Secret Tapes, you see how the radio stations leaked it, and the callers that called in, calling OJ a murderer, that he did it, that he didn't do it, calling Nicole names.  And since I didn't watch the trial live, I can't recall whether the tapes were admitted into evidence or not.

They were.

[psychoticstate]

So, has anyone read Sheila Weller's book Raging Heart? She did numerous interviews with the circle of close friends, male and female, and bonded with and became friends with some of them herself. It's a good read, shedding new light all around, especially re AC. Only one person's real name isn't used: Ron Shipp; she calls him "Lee" but the circumstances and conversations identify the one and only RS. A few chapters in so far and I'm reading about something done to Nicole during the murder that wasn't publicly revealed until the book was published. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? It ties in to Simpson's behavior at the viewing, before the funeral. Now I need to find the autopsy report and look into what SW claims. Sorry to be cryptic, but I'm not one to carry rumors and I've never heard this "information" before.

 

I read this book years and years ago.  I don't recall the injury or information you're referring to but I do remember thinking it showed Simpson in a violent, unflattering light.  Very sad story all around.

 

Please share the info once you check against the autopsy report.  I'm curious.

 

ETA:  I think I know what injury you may be referring to and I believe it was later reported that what the author reported in this book was incorrect.

Edited February 17, 2016 by psychoticstate

[Crs97]

I have been called twice for jury duty, one civil and one criminal.  I was too far back to be chosen for civil, although I am pretty sure the defense attorney already crossed me off when he saw where I worked and mentioned knowing a few lawyers there only to have me tell him the ones he named had retired years earlier.  I was potential juror #4 on the criminal case, but I answered a question differently than the other potential jurors during and, when asked to explain my answer, caused three more potential jurors change their minds.  They got called in to the judge's chambers and yelled at.  They asked me why I didn't get called in, and I told them I was sure I had already been dinged for being opinionated and persuasive.  Never been called again.  Hah.  I don't want to serve on a criminal trial, but wouldn't mind experiencing a civil one.

 

 

I was just out of law school and working at a big firm down south when the OJ Simpson case was happening.  I still feel very conflicted about it.  Back then I really didn't want him to be guilty (I come from a big football family and we always enjoyed watching him play).  I was very uncomfortable with all the police foul-ups and especially Mark Fuhrman's participation in discovering evidence, given his racial biases.  I tried to avoid a lot of the details, but that wasn't easy at the firm.  Texas has its own folklore of wealthy white men murdering their spouses, sons in law, exes' boyfriends, etc. and getting off due to colorful lawyering.  It seemed like every partner at the firm had some juicy "fun" tidbit of their connection to a case, even though we did no criminal work.  The Simpson case was discussed in the hallways a lot and we brought a television into the conference room so that everyone on our floor could see the verdict live.  When I watched all these attorneys who so gleefully shared their six degrees of connection to the defenses in all the Texas cases express outrage that a guilty man could go free, my stomach turned.  Now I accept that he is guilty, but I also understand how and why race played a huge role in that trial.

[Umbelina]

Kato was on the phone with a friend when he heard the thumps, and he was so scared that the friend advised he get out of there for the night.  Later he talked to the limo driver about the thumps, as well as another caller, AND OJ, AND cops.

 

They happened. 

[suomi]

OK, I found the autopsy report and the wounds Sheila Weller wrote about are not noted. Obviously, rumors were flying among the friends that were Not True.

Edited February 18, 2016 by suomi

[Mittengirl]

I wasn't sure if this should go here or in the Media thread -

Does anyone remember any comments/reactions from Howard Cosell (one of O.J.'s broadcast partners on Monday Night Football)? I know he died before the verdict but I can't recall if he had anything to say after the arrest, because, God knows, Howard always had something to say.

Also, my dad used to watch MNF every week and I swear I can "hear" Howard addressing O.J. as "Juice". "Juice, what did you think of that play?" "Well, Juice, how are the Lions looking tonight?" That kind of thing. I don't know if OJ and Howard would have considered themselves friends, but Robert Kardashian was not the only one who addressed OJ as Juice.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Mittengirl

[Jadzia]

I don't know if OJ and Howard would have considered themselves friends, but Robert Kardashian was not the only one who addressed OJ as Juice.

 

That reminds me of an interview I just read with Evan Handler, who is playing Alan Dershowitz, and who filmed an unreleased pilot with OJ Simpson in 1994 right before the murders.

 

http://www.vulture.com/2016/02/evan-handler-oj-simpson-frogmen-pilot.html

 

 

"We spent three weeks together. It probably took me 18 days to get comfortable calling him Juice. That's what everybody called him, but it always felt strange and silly to me"

[Crs97]

Surprisingly, this is the only quote I found from Cosell:

"There's nothing to say except that the law must take its course," said Howard Cosell, who worked with Simpson on ABC's "Monday Night Football."

[ennui]

Kato was on the phone with a friend when he heard the thumps, and he was so scared that the friend advised he get out of there for the night.  Later he talked to the limo driver about the thumps, as well as another caller, AND OJ, AND cops.

 

They happened. 

Wasn't there someone living in the guest house for the Tate murders? Who survived because he didn't answer the door? Am I dreaming?

 

There are other factors I haven't seen mentioned. I think OJ had the benefit of a speedy trial. The murders occurred in June, 1994, and he was acquitted in 1995. For contrast, Travis Alexander was murdered in 2008, and Jodie Arias convicted in 2013.

 

Someone mentioned OJ and Nicole's children, and how they should write a book. I think those kids will be doing well if they simply become productive members of society. If your father murdered your mother, would you write a book, or simply struggle to understand and cope?

 

My last comment ... the murder of Nicole stays with me because it was so violent, so brutal, so angry. Nicole wasn't smothered with a pillow, like Lacey Peterson. Nicole was almost decapitated. How angry do you have to be to do that to someone?

[Umbelina]

Wasn't there someone living in the guest house for the Tate murders? Who survived because he didn't answer the door? Am I dreaming?

 

There are other factors I haven't seen mentioned. I think OJ had the benefit of a speedy trial. The murders occurred in June, 1994, and he was acquitted in 1995. For contrast, Travis Alexander was murdered in 2008, and Jodie Arias convicted in 2013.

 

Someone mentioned OJ and Nicole's children, and how they should write a book. I think those kids will be doing well if they simply become productive members of society. If your father murdered your mother, would you write a book, or simply struggle to understand and cope?

 

My last comment ... the murder of Nicole stays with me because it was so violent, so brutal, so angry. Nicole wasn't smothered with a pillow, like Lacey Peterson. Nicole was almost decapitated. How angry do you have to be to do that to someone?

William Garretson.

He passed a polygraph.  He was listening to his stereo and didn't hear anything.  Later he admitted witnessing a portion of the murders, when the police walked him past some of the bodies, not in the house, but outside.  It's murky.  http://murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/thread/280/william-garretson Steve Proctor, the visitor who dropped him off was killed in the driveway.  He's quoted here, basically, left LA and move to a fly over state and doesn't like to think about it, understandably:  http://articles.latimes.com/1994-08-06/news/mn-24113_1_manson-family 

 

Back on topic, yes, lots of rage in those murders, no robbery, just rage.  They photos are chilling.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Umbelina