Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Aethera

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

Recommended Posts

If what you're discussing doesn't fit into an episode topic, here's the place to go!

 

A place to discuss the actual case in full, outside of what's happening episode to episode.

Share this post


Link to post

Bumping this one up, since it was pointed out in the episode thread, and probably a lot of what we were discussing there belongs here.  Also?  No need for spoiler tags!

 

Lots of good books about this trial out there, and also these trial and evidence and motions transcripts.  http://simpson.walraven.org/index.html

 

I particularly like the civil trial transcripts because?  No Ito! 

The testimony is still about these murders, but, especially Kato's testimony is very enlightening.

 

My opinion?  No question at all.  OJ did it, he got off because, as Marcia said yesterday on The View interview about this show?  Even if she had video tape of him murdering them, that jury would have let him off.

 

http://www.davewagner.com/OJ/oj/rocklay.htm Some diagrams and photos of OJ's house, and other information about the case.

 

I will NEVER understand why Marcia Clark allowed the defense to remove the art and photos OJ had in his house and replace it all with more African-American stuff.  EVER.

Edited by Umbelina
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

UMBELINA: since you are the super sleuth of all things OJ, can you find the documentary about the civil trial called " Juror number 5"? It was riveting. Hope it was ok to post this here. And, thanks a million for the links to all the transcripts,etc. you are my hero!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I will NEVER understand why Marcia Clark allowed the defense to remove the art and photos OJ had in his house and replace it all with more African-American stuff.  EVER.

 

She actually discussed that on The View:

 

 

She tried to prevent them from entering the house with all the changes by having an impromptu hearing on OJ's lawn but Ito overruled her.

 

Both clips of her on The View are fascinating. This trial really did a number on her life but she seems to have come out of it well. It seems like this show is sort of a vindication for her.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I remember seeing her and Darden interviewed on...20/20?  60 Minutes?...maybe a year after the trial to give their take on what had happened.  The one thing that really stands out in my mind was how she talked about being more or less forced to put Mark Fuhrman on the stand, because as damaging as he was as a prosecution witness, he would have been worse as a hostile defense witness.

 

Everyone remembers Rodney King, but few people remember the Rampart Scandal that happened a few years after the trial.  It ended up costing the city $125 million in civil damages.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

From the episode 01 thread:
 

Did anyone see the specials last night about OJ and the murders? There were two--one was about OJ, the case, and his subsequent "career" of crime. The second was an analysis of the autopsy, which also included a re-enactment of the murders. I had no idea that Ron Goldman charged in trying to save Nicole--I thought he just stumbled onto the scene and was immediately dispatched. Incredibly brave of him.

 

I didn't see the specials either. Heck, I didn't even know about them. BUT, I did know that Ron had been killed trying to save Nicole. I do remember hearing that during the criminal trial.

 

And for all that the defense/Cochran made this case abour race, and not about an abusive monster, all the outrage was for Nicole, which was right, but Poor Ron was forgotten in the middle of the circus frenzy. You would think that Nicole was the only victim, if it hadn't been for Fred Goldman, who made sure to remind everyone that his son had also been murdered that night.

 

And now I want to see those specials, dammit!
 

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post

It's easy for me as a white woman to say this wasn't about race, but it really wasn't. Definitely for other people, but the colors of the people involved had nothing to do with how I felt.  I mean, who else is going to kill her? The statistics of an ex killing a former spouse are enormous, and then when you factor in that they were abusive too? Astronomical it would be anyone else. Then you have corroborating evidence too.

 

There are/were so many things wrong with the LAPD, but Nicole and Ron should have had some criminal justice positive closure and not be brushed aside by too many people because of the LAPD's history or Fuhrman's or Ito's starfucking.

 

Towards the end all of the defense lawyers were bickering and fighting. I really hope we get to see that. I don't have a lot of respect for most of them.  There's zealous defense (Strang and Buting!) and there's sleazy lawyering, and I felt gross watching the defense. I'm more disappointed in Clark and Darden, like when my kid does something she's not supposed to by accident and is upset. I can't get too mad because it wasn't on purpose and she tried really hard, but it isn't endearing and good.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't see the specials either. Heck, I didn't even know about them. BUT, I did know that Ron had been killed trying to save Nicole. I do remember hearing that during the criminal trial.

 

 

And now I want to see those specials, dammit!

 

 

 

GHScorpiosRule~

 

SPECIALS ALERTO.J. SIMPSON: Fame and Scandal and Autopsy: O.J. Simpson Murder Trial will be repeated tonight at 9:00 and 10:00 respectively on REELZ Network (which for Verizon is Ch. 233).  The first one will again repeat at midnight.

 

ETA:  Looks like they're also on Saturday, too:

Fame and Scandal       2:30p.m.

Autopsy                        8:00 p.m.

 

Hope you get to catch them!

Edited by Tunia
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

GHScorpiosRule~

 

SPECIALS ALERTO.J. SIMPSON: Fame and Scandal and Autopsy: O.J. Simpson Murder Trial will be repeated tonight at 9:00 and 10:00 respectively on REELZ Network (which for Verizon is Ch. 233).  The first one will again repeat at midnight.

 

Hope you get to catch them!

 

 

Thanks for the BOLDED reminder, Tunia! Now get thee to Thy View and tell me your thoughts about today! Hee!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

A hint according to one of the jurors it was the lack of blood evidence.  The jury surmised anyone involved in that bloodbath would be covered in blood.  A common theme-the prosecution's case was too long and they tried it too quickly.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

From the episode 01 thread:

I didn't see the specials either. Heck, I didn't even know about them. BUT, I did know that Ron had been killed trying to save Nicole. I do remember hearing that during the criminal trial.

And for all that the defense/Cochran made this case abour race, and not about an abusive monster, all the outrage was for Nicole, which was right, but Poor Ron was forgotten in the middle of the circus frenzy. You would think that Nicole was the only victim, if it hadn't been for Fred Goldman, who made sure to remind everyone that his son had also been murdered that night.

And now I want to see those specials, dammit!

I watched those specials. They were on Reelz channel. Maybe you can catch them on demand. Hope that helps you.

One of the things I found interesting from the autopsy was no evidence of cocaine use per Nicole's nasal septum. If she was using as has been put out there, autopsy did not show it.

Edited as I now see someone replied about the shows up thread. Sorry for the redundancy.

Edited by FanOfTheFans
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

No, it's good, you gave me a head's up they are on tonight.  Here, in 8 minutes, one follows the other on REELZ, 238 DTV.

 

And it just started on 161 on Comcast/Xfinity. But I'm dvring it, so I won't be missing it or of there are commercials, I can zip through them.

 

Also, the O.J. Simpson tapes is being re-aired on A&E this coming Saturday at 10:01 p.m. EST.

 

Damn, I feel like it's 20 years ago, being inundated with all of this stuff!

Edited by GHScorpiosRule
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Hmph. Both of those specials sounds so interesting but unfortunately I don't get the Reelz channel. I've fallen down the rabbit hole of this case. Spent all afternoon following the various links posted in the episode thread, and reading/watching interviews, footage etc. I only have minor knowledge of the case, being that I wasn't born yet, and the first I remember hearing about OJ was when the whole "If I did it" book controversy happened, and I was still pretty young then. I'm definitely playing catch up but it's all so intriguing that I don't mind.

Share this post


Link to post

I am glad I watched the specials on Reelz channel because I had forgotten about the road rage case in 2001.  He is up for parole next year. I am with Fred Goldman in hoping he doesn't get out.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Jeffrey Toobin's book is really good, and I've just started Lawrence Schiller's. I'm at the point where Dr. Henry Lee is looking at multiple police photos of the same evidence but the pieces of evidence are in different locations in each photo. Which now makes me want to re-read all of Dr Lee's chapters on the case (he talks about it in a few of his books).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I am glad I watched the specials on Reelz channel because I had forgotten about the road rage case in 2001.  He is up for parole next year. I am with Fred Goldman in hoping he doesn't get out.

I doubt he'll ever leave prison unless it's feet first.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Since OJ had about 15 years of freedom he should never had, maybe the parole board won't be sympathetic to his parole request. No one would ever admit that the murder would influence a parole board's decision regarding his separate crimes, but, you never know.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'm so going to have nightmares tonight after watching both the Scandal and especially Autopsy.

 

In the first, I found it very offputting, that two psychologists? psychiatrists? talking about Simpson as if they had been his shrink...urgh, I'm not saying it clearly, but let's just say, talking out of their asses as if they knew him, when I doubt they even sat down and spoke with him to get a sense of who he was.  And then there was the narrator, with his script, pretty much saying that Simpson was a killer to begin with was so "destined" since he was from, you know, the ghetto.  Then again, this show was Scandal, so salaciousness, I guess, was to be expected? Doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with how they were able make their assumptions.  I think he was a narcisstic, abusive asshole, who killed his ex-wife and poor Ron was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I didn't like the implication that it was Simpson's "ghetto roots" as the main reason he killed them.  That's the way it sounded to me.

 

I found the parts going over the case and how ridiculous the part where Simpson tried to put on the gloves, over latex gloves he was already wearing (!) as proof he didn't do it. Well, of course not! I'd have problems putting on my own gloves if I'd done the same thing.

 

But the scariest part for me, was seeing him turn into an apparently charming, charismatic nice guy, into a cold-blooded, scary killer. It's all in the eyes.

 

Interesting fact: in the Scandal show, Ron Shipp is described as Former Friend, and in Autopsy as Family friend.

 

I will say this is the first time I've watched the show Autopsy, and I'm not a fan of the reenactments. But it was eerie, that the actress playing Nicole looks so much like her.  I also didn't like how the director had this actress and the actor playing Ron, give each other these hither looks, pretty much sexing each other up in the restaurant.  It gave me the vibe that they were thinking they couldn't wait to be alone to have sex. I'm sure that's not the show was going for, but that's the way it looked.

 

And the worst was the forensic pathologist showing me in detail, how the knife was thrust into Nicole and Ron. Like I said, I'm gonna have nightmares tonight. I don't think I'll sleep tonight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

A couple questions for people who weren't in diapers like I was when this was going on...

 

In the first episode, Kardashian mentioned how OJ had a good relationship with the police, which I assume was true. Did the prosecution ever try to use this to their advantage? Like OJ was cool with the police and they were still convinced he was the murderer? Just curious.

 

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I will say this is the first time I've watched the show Autopsy, and I'm not a fan of the reenactments. But it was eerie, that the actress playing Nicole looks so much like her. I also didn't like how the director had this actress and the actor playing Ron, give each other these hither looks, pretty much sexing each other up in the restaurant. It gave me the vibe that they were thinking they couldn't wait to be alone to have sex. I'm sure that's not the show was going for, but that's the way it looked.

And the worst was the forensic pathologist showing me in detail, how the knife was thrust into Nicole and Ron. Like I said, I'm gonna have nightmares tonight. I don't think I'll sleep tonight.

I had a terrifying dream about Nicole a few years after the trial - either I was her or was somehow experiencing it with her. My dream ended with the moment when she realized that something bad was about to happen - this moment of the purest most intense fear. What a horrible way for both of them to die and what an evil piece of shit OJ is.

I guess no one knows exactly what happened - whether she knew OJ was at her door and went out willingly, or perhaps she thought it was Ron and opened the door. But there must have been a moment when she realized something horrible was happening.

Edited by BBDi
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

Since OJ had about 15 years of freedom he should never had, maybe the parole board won't be sympathetic to his parole request. No one would ever admit that the murder would influence a parole board's decision regarding his separate crimes, but, you never know.

 

Yea incredible that people actually think that this is ok - what sheep and the funny thing is where does it stop? If this is allowed and okay with this man then why not you ?  When we let the scales of justice get tipped for one the unbalance will continue.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I really dont want to even get into it here but I cant just keep my mouth shut - it is clearly full of hate and biased opinions so I just want to state some of the facts in this case which it sounds like this one sided slaughter is not showing to its audience. 

First - Mark Furman not only was caught on tape making racial remarks BUT he took the fifth when asked if he tampered with the evidence in this case. That is like saying he did or else why not answer? So if we are to assume (which is what most of this case in here is  being based on assumptions ) lets say that it is safe to assume he did tamper with the evidence in this case- who knows what and how much ? Second - Why is it okay to punish this man for a crime that he was found not guilty of with a much lesser crime that he was clearly provoked into? This is NOT how the American Justice System is suppose to work - if we bend the rules with one case then whats to stop from bending with any other case? Would you like it if yourself or family member was getting the rules bent to punish them or you? 

 

Next just some of the facts from the evidence in this case - real life evidence.

Blood samples were not handled properly – not stored properly and detectives and forensic dept actually took samples home for days.

Head of the criminal collection division admits in court to returning 2 weeks after crime to collect blood off fence at crime scene.

1st cops to search OJs house did not find bloody glove after a 2 hour search – it was only discovered after Mark Furman arrived at home.

 The bloody glove, sock and blood in Bronco were found by Mark Furman.
Blood expert McDonald testifies that the blood soaked through the socks all the way through proving no foot was in sock when blood was put on sock.
1.5 centimeters of (OJs) blood collected went missing from the 8 centimeters collected in evidence.
 ETA was detected in the blood samples on sock which is used to preserve blood samples.
Blood soaked glove found without any blood around it or leading up to it.
 Cut was found on Ojs hand but neither glove had a tear in it so how could hand be cut?
 Knife bought by OJ and said to be thought the weapon at his home was found not to have ever been used by testing its finishing oil.
There was not blood leading up to his house – nor was there any large amount of blood other than small drops very small drops like eyedropper size found at his residence.

Would you be willing to give up your own freedom or a loved one if you are wrong in saying guilty? Because if you truly believe he did it it should not be a problem to consider if not then there is doubt and you can not expect to take a mans freedom and his life from him if you are not sure he is guilty. And this has been done to him as the time he is now doing does not fit the crime he did commit and everyone is ok because they think he deserves it on the first crime. This is not how our justice system is supposed to work in our country – shameful.

For every man out there that has any domestic violence in your past - you should pray that it does not come back on you and put you in a position where you are viewed as a killing animal - God help you if you do cause our justice system will probably fail you too.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

For every man out there that has any domestic violence in your past - you should pray that it does not come back on you and put you in a position where you are viewed as a killing animal - God help you if you do cause our justice system will probably fail you too.

 

Well, the easiest solution to that would be not to be abusive and get help if you make a one-time mistake. OJ was repeatedly violent with Nicole. It wasn't even the nebulous area of he said/she said.

 

Our justice system does not fail perpetrators of DV by any means.  OJ repeatedly abused Nicole and what came of it? NOTHING. He did not go to jail. He kept custody of his kids. What happened is what happens to thousands of men who abuse their spouses and get caught: a light slap on the wrist after a promise to never do it again. 

 

So when an abusive man goes too far and kills his partner, I'm not feeling very sympathetic to the idea of the police were out to get him based on past crimes. It is very, very, very, very unlikely anyone but the abuser was behind the murder of a DV victim, especially if they were fighting that day and it appeared she was on a date with someone else. He had nearly killed her before. It's not a stretch to think he was capable of completing the deed.

 

If there were no other evidence besides that, I'd STILL think he did it (admitting my bias there), but there *is* other evidence. MONTHS of it. 

  • Like 23

Share this post


Link to post

Supposedly one of the big stumbling blocks for jurors was the emphasis placed on domestic violence. Jurors saw those previous incidents as far apart and not necessarily related to the crime.

Which might mean the prosecution was in a no-win situation in some respects - they felt they had to establish OJ was an abuser to overcome the perception of him as a nice guy, while jurors apparently saw that as a distraction or irrelevant to the murder.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

If there were no other evidence besides that, I'd STILL think he did it (admitting my bias there), but there *is* other evidence. MONTHS of it. 

One of Darden's most effective moments in the entire trial was during his closing argument where he builds up this narrative about Nicole being terrified...and then did a switcheroo and revealed he was talking about when he'd beaten her and she'd gotten the cops involved and nothing happened.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Umbelina , I just wanted to thank you for posting the link and encouraging people to read Kato's deposition if they're interested. I'm only about half way through the first one (they're long!) but I have to say that it makes for some compelling reading. I hang my head in shame when I admit to that it's pretty entertaining.

I'll acknowledge that I find the exchanges between the lawyers and judge and Kato to be pretty funny. It's just uncomfortable to find anything funny about this since it's all connected to murder at the end of the day, but I feel like I'd have to be made of stone to not find some of this stuff funny.

A few examples---

Petrocelli in general comes across like a bulldozing prick. I love the way the judge smacks him down from time to time like over the way he constantly interrupts the witness.

Or Petrocelli saying something like 'Now you're going to object?'

Kato admitting that he doesn't know how to use a jacuzzi. (I think I had the jets figured out by the time I was nine.)

Kato getting offended when he thinks that Petrocelli is saying that he's not in shape and defensively replying that he's still in shape.

Kato saying that he answered the phone at OJs like an effeminate hair dresser.

Petrocelli commenting for the record about Kato's manner of speaking in a way that would make anyone self conscious.

Imagine some of this stuff SNL style.

ETA:

The judge having to remind Petrocelli that he's the one in the robe and Petrocelli making it seem like he wouldn't want the job.

Edited by Avaleigh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think when the guy puts out a book titled *If* I did it...you got to give him the side-eye even if you fully believed in his innocence prior. I mean that shows a complete lack of remorse, tact, etc. for not only Nicole and Ron's family but his own children!

With that said, I have no doubt that OJ's guilt (perceived or actual) played some part, however minute, in his Las Vegas sentencing. Certainly, OJ made it very easy for the police and the justice system, but I remember hearing that the arresting officer or someone close to the case said "we got him this time" or something to that effect. I dont know if that was ever proven to be true but I wouldnt blame them if it was. Not knowing all the crimes he was actually charged with and Neveda Criminal/Penal law, just on its face, I find 30+ years in prison for a crime where nobody was killed or injured to be...excessive. And the judge might as well have said without parole, because there aint no way in hell OJ is getting paroled early. He's gonna do those 30 years or the vast majority of it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I found Kato so annoying during the criminal trial. I haven't really followed his interviews, either back then or more recently.

Reading the civil trial transcripts and considering everything now, I'm kind of fascinated by him. He was obviously a likable guy who made friends easily. Maybe a little flighty - sounds like Nicole was pissed when he went to live at OJs. So this nice, fun guy - but even then he wasn't that young and was kind of a loser I'm thinking.

Someone like that is an ideal 'friend' for certain people because he's always there when you want someone to hang out with or listen to your problems, not having a lot of obligations of his own.

I agree with others that he seems far from stupid and doesn't deserve that label.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think us "older folk" can convey just how HUGE this was in the media.  Where ever there was a TV, the trial was on, and EVERYONE was talking about it, in depth, with smart opinions.  Can someone refresh my memory on how the verdict was conveyed to the public?  I remember signs through the courthouse windows.  Google isn't helping me....too much OJ stuff to wade through.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

I think when the guy puts out a book titled *If* I did it...you got to give him the side-eye even if you fully believed in his innocence prior. I mean that shows a complete lack of remorse, tact, etc. for not only Nicole and Ron's family but his own children!

I find 30+ years in prison for a crime where nobody was killed or injured to be...excessive. And the judge might as well have said without parole, because there aint no way in hell OJ is getting paroled early. He's gonna do those 30 years or the vast majority of it.

Well, there's the rub.  He wasn't given an illegally excessive sentence.  And unlike in the actual guilt phase, prior bad acts are allowed to be part of the conversation on appropriate sentencing.

 

And frankly, if someone was killed or injured during the robbery, he would have faced even more charges and with a death, a probable capital murder charge.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think us "older folk" can convey just how HUGE this was in the media. Where ever there was a TV, the trial was on, and EVERYONE was talking about it, in depth, with smart opinions. Can someone refresh my memory on how the verdict was conveyed to the public? I remember signs through the courthouse windows. Google isn't helping me....too much OJ stuff to wade through.

Wasn't it on live TV, like everything else about the trial? My school had TVs but had them shut off for the verdict, afraid students would riot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes it was live, but all the people standing outside would not have been able to immediately hear the verdict, so some county employees were holding up posters through their office windows as the verdict rolled in. It was so weird.  

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think us "older folk" can convey just how HUGE this was in the media.  Where ever there was a TV, the trial was on, and EVERYONE was talking about it, in depth, with smart opinions.  Can someone refresh my memory on how the verdict was conveyed to the public?  I remember signs through the courthouse windows.  Google isn't helping me....too much OJ stuff to wade through.  

The courthouse window signs were at the civil trial.  

 

With the criminal trial, it was easy for the crowd to know, between TV and people running outside and radio.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously the judge was well within the law to sentence OJ to the 30 years. I never disputed the legality of the sentence. But there's a reason why sentences for any particular crime is given in ranges. (I.e. 10 to 20 years, 25 years to life, etc.) It, as you said, allows the judge or jury to take into account other factors. I just have a hard time believing that if this was anyone other than OJ the exact same sentence would have been handed down. I mean, actual murderers dont get that much time.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously the judge was well within the law to sentence OJ to the 30 years. I never disputed the legality of the sentence. But there's a reason why sentences for any particular crime is given in ranges. (I.e. 10 to 20 years, 25 years to life, etc.) It, as you said, allows the judge or jury to take into account other factors. I just have a hard time believing that if this was anyone other than OJ the exact same sentence would have been handed down. I mean, actual murderers dont get that much time.

On the other hand, if any other celebrity who hadn't most likely murdered two people s/he would have received a much less harsh sentence than John Q Public.  Especially if said celebrity was white.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

In 2013 Nevada officials granted him parole on several of his 2008 convictions for kidnapping and armed robbery stemming from his attempt to retrieve sports memorabilia. He still stayed in prison since his sentences  were ordered to run consecutively. The Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners noted in its decision Simpson's "positive institutional record" and his participation in addressing his "behavior that led to incarceration."

 

Will see what happens next year if they grant him parole he will be released.

Edited by ShadowHunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

One of the things I found interesting from the autopsy was no evidence of cocaine use per Nicole's nasal septum. If she was using as has been put out there, autopsy did not show it.

 

 

I have a hard time believing that someone who ran 9 miles every morning (per the autopsy special) was using. I have never done hard drugs but that seems to indicate a level of personal discipline that would preclude regular drug use, no? I'm going to ask the ex if he knew anything about that.

 

I'm so going to have nightmares tonight after watching both the Scandal and especially Autopsy.

 

In the first, I found it very offputting, that two psychologists? psychiatrists? talking about Simpson as if they had been his shrink...urgh, I'm not saying it clearly, but let's just say, talking out of their asses as if they knew him, when I doubt they even sat down and spoke with him to get a sense of who he was.  And then there was the narrator, with his script, pretty much saying that Simpson was a killer to begin with was so "destined" since he was from, you know, the ghetto.  Then again, this show was Scandal, so salaciousness, I guess, was to be expected? Doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with how they were able make their assumptions.  I think he was a narcisstic, abusive asshole, who killed his ex-wife and poor Ron was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I didn't like the implication that it was Simpson's "ghetto roots" as the main reason he killed them.  That's the way it sounded to me.

 

I found the parts going over the case and how ridiculous the part where Simpson tried to put on the gloves, over latex gloves he was already wearing (!) as proof he didn't do it. Well, of course not! I'd have problems putting on my own gloves if I'd done the same thing.

 

But the scariest part for me, was seeing him turn into an apparently charming, charismatic nice guy, into a cold-blooded, scary killer. It's all in the eyes.

 

Interesting fact: in the Scandal show, Ron Shipp is described as Former Friend, and in Autopsy as Family friend.

 

I will say this is the first time I've watched the show Autopsy, and I'm not a fan of the reenactments. But it was eerie, that the actress playing Nicole looks so much like her.  I also didn't like how the director had this actress and the actor playing Ron, give each other these hither looks, pretty much sexing each other up in the restaurant.  It gave me the vibe that they were thinking they couldn't wait to be alone to have sex. I'm sure that's not the show was going for, but that's the way it looked.

 

And the worst was the forensic pathologist showing me in detail, how the knife was thrust into Nicole and Ron. Like I said, I'm gonna have nightmares tonight. I don't think I'll sleep tonight.

 

Yes, the narration for the Scandal special was awful. His actions that night are enough to characterize him as a vicious POS. Don't bring his upbringing into it--the projects had nothing to do with this. If anything his previous incredible success proved he had overcome whatever disadvantages he'd had growing up. And who knows if he was "bad" all along? What do we know about his marriage to his first wife--did he beat her?

 

I don't know a whole lot about the Nevada strong-arm robbery case, ArizonaGrown, but while I agree that the sentence is a very long one, I'm not sure it can be classified as "bending the rules." They probably just gave him the maximum penalty, not one actually beyond the limitations of ten or so felony convictions he received.

 

I'm not going to address your post point-by-point, but I will note that juries absolutely can vote for conviction in criminal trials, even if they're not absolutely sure of the defendant's guilt. They only have to believe in it "beyond a reasonable doubt," not beyond all doubt. I never had really strong feelings either way in this case and have always been open to both sides, so I don't feel I have a bias. With that said, the evidence AS A WHOLE points to his guilt. The issues with the blood work indeed indicate sloppiness, but those wouldn't cause false positives. And intentional planting of blood evidence would have required a) an immediate decision by the first officers on the scene to frame OJ--before they even knew if he had a rock-solid alibi or not, and b) an agreement/conspiracy by a dozen or more officers and lab technicians to frame a man who was extremely charming and one of the most likable sports/film/TV celebs in L.A., a man so liked by the LAPD in fact, that they'd brushed his previous crimes under the carpet, so....why??? He hadn't even arrived back from Chicago when the blood collection was happening, so did they just gamble on the chance that they'd have the opportunity to draw blood from him to later add to the sealed samples somehow when, for all they knew, he'd been seen by dozens or even hundreds of people during the time frame of the murders? That's a lot of trouble to go to for a man so well-liked

But OJ really convicted himself. The day after the murders, detectives asked him how he got those multiple cuts on his hand, and he answered, "I don't know. You guys haven't told me anything." What person doesn't recall the event that caused them to bleed heavily (and undoubtedly caused pain) and was severe enough to leave lasting scars? And when he was fleeing in Cowlings' Bronco with a disguise, a passport, over $9,000 in cash, and a gun, why would he say (on the car phone while threatening to commit suicide), "I deserve this"? That's practically an admission of guilt in and of itself. And why did he lie so much? He denied owning a pair of Bruno Magli shoes (because shoe prints at Nicole's matched those shoes as well as his exact size), and later over 30 photos were found in numerous print sources of him wearing those same shoes! Many were published months before the murders even occurred. And yet, when confronted with this fact, he insisted that all of the photos had been tampered with. Did all of those reporters have ESP and decide to also frame him in advance of the crime?     

 

I know this post seems like I'm all gung-ho prosecution--and I'm not, but real life is not like a CSI episode. The pieces never fall perfectly into place, and imperfect humans are the ones in charge of evidence. But you pair what did go right with Simpson's own behavior, both past and present (who else had ever been violent toward Nicole? And why would he trash talk Ron Goldman, someone who heroically tried to save the mother of Simpson's children from death, if he had no personal animosity toward him? An innocent person would have been grateful for Goldman's efforts)--and it all points squarely to Simpson and to no one else.

 

Four words--If I Did It. In a way I was so relieved when that came out--finally we can stop pretending he's "not guilty." He just admitted he did it. And whoever said what a terrible thing to put his kids through (again)--yes! If you were innocent, why would you drag all that up again? I can't imagine how messed up those poor kids must be, under it all. I know they're adults now but it's heartbreaking. They lost both parents. And then he took them away from their mother's family as well,

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I don't understand how he was able to explain writing that book to Sydney and Justin. I'm sure they probably believe their father is innocent. (Knew a really nice guy in college whose dad killed his mom, and was convicted, and he and his sisters unwaveringly believe in his innocence, and there all Ivy League educated doctors. Denial runs deep). So fucked up. He doesn't care about his kids other than as a reflection of himself. Classic narcissist.

Apparently, OJ did not keep the kids away from the Brown family. They almost co-raised the kids, which required the Browns to continue talking to OJ to schedule visits and deal with any issues the kids were having. That is another 10 episode miniseries, right there. (Except I do wish the kids could have privacy).

Edited by VanillaBeanne
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I have a hard time believing that someone who ran 9 miles every morning (per the autopsy special) was using. I have never done hard drugs but that seems to indicate a level of personal discipline that would preclude regular drug use, no? I'm going to ask the ex if he knew anything about that.

 

 

Yes, the narration for the Scandal special was awful. His actions that night are enough to characterize him as a vicious POS. Don't bring his upbringing into it--the projects had nothing to do with this. If anything his previous incredible success proved he had overcome whatever disadvantages he'd had growing up. And who knows if he was "bad" all along? What do we know about his marriage to his first wife--did he beat her?

 

 

Four words--If I Did It. In a way I was so relieved when that came out--finally we can stop pretending he's "not guilty." He just admitted he did it. And whoever said what a terrible thing to put his kids through (again)--yes! If you were innocent, why would you drag all that up again? I can't imagine how messed up those poor kids must be, under it all. I know they're adults now but it's heartbreaking. They lost both parents. And then he took them away from their mother's family as well,

Also remember OJ's vow to "find the real killer" after his acquittal. Yet he never hired an investigator, nothing, nada. If your spouse, even an ex that you claim to still have a good relationship with, the mother of your children was brutally murdered, wouldn't you want to see the real killer brought to justice? As far as the If I did it book, take a read if you haven't, he basically outlines how he committed the crime, step by step. Um, really? What an odd thing for an innocent man to do, particularly for one who had been accused and many believe was guilty despite the acquittal. 

 

I believe he did it. I think he was a man with rage, fueled by drugs, who was endlessly pissed that the woman who he thought was his forever, had the gall the spurn him that day. Remember, Nicole was very young and came from nothing. OJ supported not only Nicole, but her entire family. Then she had the nerve to dump him and enter into other relationships in a public way. Add in coke or whatever and you have a timebomb just waiting to explode.

 

Did the police screw up?  Oh yes, Furhman should have never been allowed to be a cop after everything he did prior to the case, the crime lab were a bunch of keystone cops, the trial was a media circus with a starstruck judge and a prosecutor's office that was outmoneyed and outgunned.   Add that to terrible longstanding racial tensions that had been exacerbated by the Rodney King beating and trial and who could be surprised at the verdict? 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Well, there's the rub.  He wasn't given an illegally excessive sentence.  And unlike in the actual guilt phase, prior bad acts are allowed to be part of the conversation on appropriate sentencing.

 

And frankly, if someone was killed or injured during the robbery, he would have faced even more charges and with a death, a probable capital murder charge.

Not only that, OJ was able to use his charisma and celebrity to charm or coerce his friends and hangers on into going along with him and participating in that robbery. That says a lot about his character.

 

 

There's no way that AC and probably Robert Kardashian Sr, didn't know that OJ had a violent side and I'm betting they well knew that he beat up NIcole . But turned a blind eye to it because  he was "the Juice" and it made them important and special cause they could tell others stories about hanging out with "Juice" and getting photographed in Juice's company etc. They weren't going to risk having the Juice be mad at them or cut them off as friends, after all didn't she keep going back?

 

Even Kris Jenner was quoted as saying how sad it was because they not only lost Nicole but also lost OJ. (Reading that quote from her kind of explains her weird attachment/loyalty to Lamar)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently, OJ did not keep the kids away from the Brown family. They almost co-raised the kids, which required the Browns to continue talking to OJ to schedule visits and deal with any issues the kids were having. That is another 10 episode miniseries, right there. (Except I do wish the kids could have privacy).

 

Seriously?! I can't even imagine how her family dealt with that. They must have superhuman levels of self-control.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

Prior to the OJ trial, Marcia Clark was the prosecutor in the Rebecca Schaeffer case, an actress who was stalked and murdered by a "fan." Clark got him put away for life and the case led to an increase in privacy laws to protect those in the public eye, although I'm not sure how involved Clark was with that. I think the similarity in the cases may have been a factor in landing her the job. But it does seem like she looks at it as an open/shut case.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Umbelina , I just wanted to thank you for posting the link and encouraging people to read Kato's deposition if they're interested. I'm only about half way through the first one (they're long!) but I have to say that it makes for some compelling reading. I hang my head in shame when I admit to that it's pretty entertaining.

I'll acknowledge that I find the exchanges between the lawyers and judge and Kato to be pretty funny. It's just uncomfortable to find anything funny about this since it's all connected to murder at the end of the day, but I feel like I'd have to be made of stone to not find some of this stuff funny.

A few examples---

Petrocelli in general comes across like a bulldozing prick. I love the way the judge smacks him down from time to time like over the way he constantly interrupts the witness.

Or Petrocelli saying something like 'Now you're going to object?'

Kato admitting that he doesn't know how to use a jacuzzi. (I think I had the jets figured out by the time I was nine.)

Kato getting offended when he thinks that Petrocelli is saying that he's not in shape and defensively replying that he's still in shape.

Kato saying that he answered the phone at OJs like an effeminate hair dresser.

Petrocelli commenting for the record about Kato's manner of speaking in a way that would make anyone self conscious.

Imagine some of this stuff SNL style.

ETA:

The judge having to remind Petrocelli that he's the one in the robe and Petrocelli making it seem like he wouldn't want the job.

In the civil depositions there IS no judge.  Lawyers are objecting, and the witness must still answer all questions.  So, those other names are probably OJ's lawyers, and what they say means absolutely nothing.  A judge later decides what's admissible, which is why they are SO much more informative than the criminal trial, where Ito grandstanded and was fame-struck, and where most of these conversations were private between judge/attorney.

 

They do have the criminal trial transcripts up at the top of that page.  For anyone who many not know, obviously not guilty at the criminal trial, but guilty at the civil trial.  OJ testified at the civil trial, not the criminal trial.  His lawyers knew better than to put him and his ego on that stand.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know where the "golf ball" theory originated from but I was skimming the depositions (thanks for the links Umbelina!) and I think that reasoning negates a lot of what was already established. First of all, it's ludicrous that he would hit golf balls directly as his daughter's bedroom, he also indulged Kato and suggested they walk around to investigate. Really curious to know where that originated from, or if it was even part of the trial at all. 

 

To clear things up, the theory is Kato heard OJ coming back over the fence of his property, stashed some evidence and then pretended like he'd been home the whole time. My question is, did OJ walk/run to Bundy? I don't remember anyone seeing his cars leave or enter the driveway and it appears a limo was waiting there for quite a while.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×