LIMOM January 22, 2016 Share January 22, 2016 Thanks for sharing your background. No wonder you are so good at research. So were you employed by one law firm? And what type of education/experience do you need to do that job? 4 Link to comment
zoeysmom January 22, 2016 Author Share January 22, 2016 Thanks for sharing your background. No wonder you are so good at research. So were you employed by one law firm? And what type of education/experience do you need to do that job? I was a freelance person that worked for attorneys that were taking cases to trial. Initially, I worked for one attorney and he had three death penalty cases and it is mandatory that the Court (at that time) appoint two attorneys. So after the cases were over I would often do work for co-counsel or work with the appellate attorneys. The web kind of grew from there. My initial education was a social worker, from there I became a paralegal and finally law school. Since I had worked with gifted orators and brilliant wordsmiths, I felt my efforts would best be in a supporting role. Long before the "dream team" there have been support staff essentially doing the grunt work and most importantly getting the information to the attorney. I still do research from time to time for attorneys and prep witnesses. I had a tendency to get totally involved and it clashed with having a family. We haven't heard Erika say it yet but here goes-"the law is a jealous mistress". If you are interested the best start is being a paralegal as you learn the practical side of law and less emphasis on theory. Working for good attorneys they will soon recognize where your talents lie and use them. If you enjoy working with people a paralegal is often the first person in the firm to interact with perspective clients. Paralegals also have the time generally to get to know the client and the case early on and it is invaluable to attorneys. I learned early on to keep an open mind and not be judgmental of the case (defendant) at hand because I could very well be advocating for the other side of the issue on the very next case. 6 Link to comment
Umbelina January 22, 2016 Share January 22, 2016 (edited) As a foreigner, I have of course heard of this case but never really got deeper than a few jokes or reference on tv shows I watch. Is there a good documentary that you all recommand for this case please? Like The Staircase or Making a Murderer ? A real good one? I'm not counting the Murphy's tv show which is coming a little bit later this year as a documentary. Maybe he will do a good job but I would prefer some things with actual footag, that kind of things! ETA: Grammar etc. It was endless, kind of like a very very long reality TV show. Cameras were in the courtroom the whole time, you could see everything except the jury. I'm sure there are some You Tubes up, probably bad quality. There are several books out there written by some of the principals in the case, and by other lawyers or crime reporters examining it. I hope FX does a good job on the mini-series, I really do. I don't think I can watch it. I was there the first time, and it was absolutely horrible. Faye WAS talked about on the record. Ito may have told the jury to disregard some of it, but you really can't unring a bell. As noted above, at least some jury members had read Faye's book. It was so much crap during that trial. Do I think Faye got OJ off? NO. Does that make her any more forgivable or likable for capitalizing on the horrific murder of Nicole? HELL NO. She was nobody, but became famous, and made money because her friend was murdered. Nicole was barely cold when she began writing that book. The people in LA didn't trust the police or DA office. Remember, this wasn't too long after Rodney King. This trial was about race and celebrity through and through. It was dirty, it had a judge who just seemed to adore his new celebrity. The slow car chase, OJ's fame, the fun sex stuff, the white wife black husband, all of it happening in Hollywood, it was a circus. Mark Furman's racism. Ugh. Did the prosecutors rush that trial? Probably. With more time, they might have had their ducks in a row. The jury did hate Marcia, many, many reporters commented on it, and they could see the jury, which the television cameras could not. The whole "Darden is an Uncle Tom" stuff broke my heart, and I think it did contribute to his idiotic move of letting OJ pretend the shrunken, wet then dried gloves over fucking surgical gloves did not fit. I watched that live, and I couldn't believe it. I ended up reading almost all the books. Only because about 3 years later they started showing up in the dollar store. I debated, but ended up buying them and reading them a few years later. I loved reading Dominick Dunne's "letters from LA" about the case as well. One thing I will always wonder about. I was seeing a detective who occasionally worked with the LA detectives, even though he was now in another city. The day after the murder he talked to some of the detectives and I don't remember much of what he told me, but one thing has always stuck with me, and it was never admitted as evidence. He told me they found blood residue in the OJ's sink drain (it had been taken apart.) Maybe it was too degraded, maybe the cops thought they already had plenty to convict on, who knows? "Blame the victim" was indeed part of the trial. Was it a deciding factor? I don't think so, but I do believe it played a small role. That defense team basically wiped the floor with the prosecution, but jury selection played a huge part. Ito played a huge part. Race played the biggest part. Complete distrust of the LA police about race played an even bigger part. I remember hearing many comments about OJ getting off being fair, because of all the black men who were wrongly treated, beaten, or convicted before him. It was such a huge divide when that verdict came in, and all through the trial. One group of people thrilled and celebrating, the other side shocked and heart broken. I said earlier that OJ was the beginning of reality TV, and he was. People watched that trial every day, instead of the soaps. They watched specials at night instead of scripted drama. Someone in TV land realized what they were seeing, that they didn't need to pay writers, or stars, that they could make a fortune with "reality." It hasn't been the same on TV since. Edited January 22, 2016 by Umbelina 14 Link to comment
Yours Truly January 22, 2016 Share January 22, 2016 There was some ambiguity regarding Nicole and Ron Goldman. They seemed to be acquaintances. The night of the murders, Nicole's family had been at the restaurant where Ron worked. When Nicole's family left, her mother's glasses had been left behind. Nicole called up the restaurant, and Ron was delivering the glasses when he was murdered. Where it gets a little murky - Nicole was presumedly opening the outer gate when she was murdered (she was found outside her front door, but within her gated entrance). She was expecting Ron. She was found dead in a black negligee. A conclusion is that it was really a booty call. It came up during the trial that once before OJ had stood outside and watched Nicole making out with a man on the couch. Whether OJ was laying in wait and attacked when Ron entered the scene, or Ron came upon the scene and tried to save Nicole, depends on who you ask. I'm pretty sure the Goldman family prefers the theory that Ron tried to save Nicole. I thought the prosecution missed the opportunity to use jealousy of Ron as the motive. OJ was already peeved because he felt slighted by the Brown family at Sydney's ballet recital earlier in the day. I don't think it would impugn either Nicole's or Ron's character by suggesting it was a booty call. They were both of age and single. I never understood that missed opportunity. Regarding F. Lee Bailey and the glove story. I heard that recently and found it very detailed and believable. The glove was laying out all day, and it would have been foolish if the defense didn't use the opportunity to ascertain how the glove fit. Bailey taunted Darden with more subtlety than the sighted article upthread, and Darden certainly didn't have anyone's approval or permission to impulsively ask that OJ try it on. Marcia Clark seemed clearly shocked when Darden went there. The first rule in law is never ask a question you don't know the answer to. If the DA had fed the line to Darden, I believe someone else on the prosecution team would have already checked out and tried on the gloves Anyone should have figured out that the leather would have shrunk from the blood and dew, and it's almost impossible to slide anything over a hand in a latex glove. It was an absolute disaster, many think that was the final blow in the case, and I've always felt for Darden (who seemed really close to the Goldman family). I read the book written by Vincent Bugliosi (Manson prosecutor and author of Helter Skelter) on how Simpson should have been prosecuted. One of his points was the prosecution was afraid to demonize OJ*. The trial took something like nine months, and so many things went wrong that were outside of prosecution's control. Marcia Clark - who I believe had a 100% win record at the time - had a somewhat unexpected custody battle going on regarding her children. Her co-counsel had a heart attack and had to leave the case. The jury took an almost immediate hate of Clark, and she was told to have a beauty makeover. The lead detective turned out to be a closet racist. And even though the DNA evidence was conclusive, Barry Scheck of Project Innocence was able to make the forensic team look like bumbling contaminating idiots. *I don't cry sexism a lot, but I really don't think Bugliosi is able to understand that Marcia Clark wasn't able to stomp around and pound her fist on the table, etc. He says Clark was too gentle in her closing argument. He said she should have been calling OJ a murderer, a monster, etc. But the jury hated her on site. They thought she was a bitch the minute they clapped eyes on her, and acting tough would have made it worse. I remember really feeling for her. Women are simply judged differently, even back then, and even today. In comparison, I watched court coverage of the Jody Arias murder trial, and I was disgusted by her prosecutor, Juan Martinez. He was an angry little man. He would stomp, and pace, and rock, and he reminded me of a bull when they paw at the ground before charging. He was unnecessarily aggressive, showing absolute disgust and shouting at the witnesses - sometimes even his own. I thought he was just a horrid nasty little man. The world apparently loved him. But Marcia Clark's a nasty bitch because she wasn't soft and attractive enough. How do you win against that? One thing that I will never forget is that Judge Ito took time to compliment Clark on her new hairstyle. Like really? It was one air and it when they were about to begin for the day. All that did was make Clark an object even more. I'm no feminist by any means but I hate when men find the need to behave this way toward women in a professional setting. I don't mind a compliment here or there but they are in a court of law in the middle of a murder trial for Crying Out Loud! Time and place, Time and Place! 11 Link to comment
LIMOM January 22, 2016 Share January 22, 2016 I was a freelance person that worked for attorneys that were taking cases to trial. Initially, I worked for one attorney and he had three death penalty cases and it is mandatory that the Court (at that time) appoint two attorneys. So after the cases were over I would often do work for co-counsel or work with the appellate attorneys. The web kind of grew from there. My initial education was a social worker, from there I became a paralegal and finally law school. Since I had worked with gifted orators and brilliant wordsmiths, I felt my efforts would best be in a supporting role. Long before the "dream team" there have been support staff essentially doing the grunt work and most importantly getting the information to the attorney. I still do research from time to time for attorneys and prep witnesses. I had a tendency to get totally involved and it clashed with having a family. We haven't heard Erika say it yet but here goes-"the law is a jealous mistress". If you are interested the best start is being a paralegal as you learn the practical side of law and less emphasis on theory. Working for good attorneys they will soon recognize where your talents lie and use them. If you enjoy working with people a paralegal is often the first person in the firm to interact with perspective clients. Paralegals also have the time generally to get to know the client and the case early on and it is invaluable to attorneys. I learned early on to keep an open mind and not be judgmental of the case (defendant) at hand because I could very well be advocating for the other side of the issue on the very next case. Fascinating!Thanks for sharing and taking the time to write such a detailed answer. I am actually interested in the sociological study of the work place. ala Studs Terkel. Anyways, it is a pleasure to read your posts. 7 Link to comment
kokapetl January 22, 2016 Share January 22, 2016 For eleven years I worked full time in the criminal justice system finding expert witnesses, interviewing expert witnesses, getting them ready for trial and most of all, getting the attorney trying the case to get the expert's testimony to a level the jury could understand. In the days before the internet it meant having to do a lot of research. I found two experts from 60 Minutes segments, another from a dental journal at my dentist's office and a very kindly old small town medical examiner who allowed me to pick his brain and use his library. In the OJ trial there were two witnesses, one for the defense and for the prosecution (at one time the worked together and I might add zero animosity between the two of them) that helped me get my start and there just aren't enough words to describe what incredibly professional, generous individuals these witnesses were when I was working. I also attended a seminar pre-OJ with one of the attorneys that was brought in to help with the DNA evidence. Attorneys from both sides of the aisle attend seminars and workshops that featured OJ trial participants. It is an adversary system but for the most part attorneys on both sides manage to maintain a cordial relationship with one another. Every attorney had an opinion of what went wrong in the prosecution of OJ Simpson. Another part of my job was to interview jurors post trial. Regardless of the verdict, good attorneys want to know how they performed and were perceived by the jury. Three such jury interviews resulted in reversals and new trials due to jury misconduct. The most egregious was one juror consulting a veterinarian about an expert's testimony and reporting back to the jury. The criticism of one young attorney was he held a cup of water in his hand. The juror found it distracting and a prop. I passed it on to the attorney who told me-I do it so they can't see my hands shaking. He never again used the prop again. Other attorneys it was sort of satisfying to deflate their huge egos and tell them the jury verdict was favorable-in spite of their general demeanor and asshattery. Believe me these attorneys want specifics. So I apologize for my nitpicking what was submitted to the jury as evidence and what is general information and argument by attorneys. I am use to making a record. Not to speak down to anyone, even if gross jury misconduct had been in the OJ trial there was nothing that could be done to retry the case. It always seems like an unfair standard but it is at the very cornerstone of our justice system. My position on Faye is she overshared. In no way did she cause the acquittal of OJ anymore than Marcia Clark's custody hearings caused the acquittal. I don't attach any judgment to her timeline to when she made her disclosures nor the fact she was paid. Faye didn't make her statements at Nicole's funeral. Her anti-OJ statements came at time when the inner circle of OJ friends weren't very forthcoming as to the incredible flaws in his character, let alone his violence and guilt. Everyone seemed to get a piece of the OJ pie. Had Faye's statements been favorable to or excused OJ's behavior OJ, then I would think she was a bad friend. It was a 200 + page as told to book and I do believe that her underlying theme was OJ did it and he was a repeat offender in battering Nicole and the poor woman predicted her death at the hands of her children's father. Her statements regarding Kathryn Allen were inappropriate and she and Nicole did not know the woman or know if the woman was aware of the alleged affair. So her comments about turning a blind eye were mere conjecture. She should apologize for a huge overstepping of decency. She may not be sorry but she was indecent to Kathryn and her marriage and for that she owes the woman an apology. I do think much of her fervor was fueled by wanting justice for her friend. If all the world takes away from the life of Nicole Brown Simpson is she had a friend make uncomplimentary reflections about her life then we are kind of living in a sad world. What I have taken away from the inner circle in the OJ saga, is this a group of people who live their lives with a lot of concessions to maintain status and a very comfortable way of living. I am hoping there is some clarity as to where these players were coming from 22 years later in the next installment of the OJ saga next month. Is it true that jurors are selected for their suggestibility and their inability to read between the lines? 4 Link to comment
Avaleigh January 22, 2016 Share January 22, 2016 (edited) I'm just popping in to say how much I am enjoying reading this thread. I was in middle school when they read the verdict and we were allowed to watch in class because the teachers all wanted to see it. I grew up in and still live in LA and I don't really think it can be stated how huge the trial was here let alone for the rest of the country. Everyone had an opinion and everyone had the most minor peripheral story or at least knew someone that did. It was something that interested I'd say anyone over the age of ten or eleven who had access to a television. Re: Marcus Allen, I wonder how he feels to have his name put back out there in connection with all of this? I feel like I can see both sides of the Faye thing. I think what ultimately rankles though and makes me lean against being too sympathetic to her (apart from the obvious reasons) is that she doesn't seem to have any regrets, any shame, any acknowledgement of 'you know, I wish I'd maybe handled things a little differently.' There's something about her that comes across as a bit self righteous when she's criticizing Bravo for airing any of this stuff at all (not that she has criticism for Kyle for asking Kathryn) when she seemed almost eager to profit off of her friend's death. The idea that she claimed money was going to Sydney and Justin only for that to not be backed up feels like the icing on the morally corrupt cake. Oh, and since Kim is being brought up in terms of being forgivable or whether or not she's worse than Faye--for me personally I've seen way more of Kim's interactions so I feel like I have more material to help me form my opinion. If I had to go on a long car ride with Kim Richards or TMCFR then I'd go with Faye in a heartbeat. Kim is nasty more often than she's not. Take away the OJ stuff for a second and Faye isn't an embarrassment to have around the way Kim is. Faye is willing to be polite even when the person is going for her. (See Camille's.) When she tells somebody about themselves she doesn't lose her shit the way that Kim does. I haven't seen Faye lie repeatedly the way I've seen Kim lie. (Again though, I'm sure that if Faye were a regular cast member that there'd be plenty of things to criticize.) I don't see Faye consistently treating her family like shit the way I see it with Kim. Faye has been able to own up to her addiction issues. This is something that Kim is still unable to do. Faye isn't going around being an irresponsible dog owner to a freaking pitbull. At least four people were bitten because of her irresponsibility. Kim was more than likely responsible for that dog being put down yet she wants to blame it on everyone else. That's just a handful of reasons why I find Faye to be more tolerable than Kim. Back to OJ It's shocking to me how many people were (and still are) convinced that OJ didn't do it. Musing about OJ after all of these years makes me wonder what a narcissist like him thinks he'd be doing if he hadn't done the unthinkable. I also think about the OJ factor on pop culture and wonder if we would still be where we are with reality television if this trial hadn't helped kick off 24 hour cable news and various reality soap operas. (I've always marked the decline of daytime soaps with the start of the OJ trial.) Would OJ have washed up on reality TV? I wonder what he thinks of the Kardashian silliness or Bruce's transformation into Caitlyn. It's not that I care what this asshole thinks in terms of it mattering to me, I just sort of wonder what observations or insights he'd make. I wonder what sort of woman Nicole would be. Would she have remarried and had a quiet(ish) life with her kids? Would she and OJ have continued their on again off again thing? Edited January 22, 2016 by Avaleigh 12 Link to comment
Midnight Cheese January 22, 2016 Share January 22, 2016 (edited) Gosh, it's not like Faye is "prostituting" her own children, poisoning them, starving them (1 almond and a bowl of poisonous supplements), or being a lying racist faker. I guess I have a different definition of how low you have to go to be morally corrupt. I'm quoting you but not picking on you. Selling stories out of school, while sober by her own account, of her recently gruesomely murdered friend, who left behind a couple of kids, is a fuckton worse than having screwy ideas about food and pressing them onto your kids (hello many moms/kids across recent time!) or being able to identify the dick of a married man and goddamn, do I not care about these spurious allegations of her catting around, and if they were true? SFW? More to the point, if we think life isn't zero-sum, both Yoyo and Faye can be despicable and holy fucking Cheezits, do I find trying to get a Vaseline-lensed-shot cooter spread 3 years after your friend became HEADLESS on the express basis of the 'celebrity' you gained due to her murder worse than Yoyo's Lemon-Lime-Busted-Implant Tour, 2013-2016. I mean, nothing's dead in Yoyo's world except her marriage. suomi a thousand slices of double-layer cake to you for your synopses. Thank you in particular for clearing up what Nicole was wearing when she was murdered. She almost had her head taken off by Orenthal The Gotdamned Murderer, and no credible evidence exists nor has ever existed to show she was getting ready to sleep with Ron Goldman, and even if she were sleeping with Ron Goldman and Rona Goldman and 10 other people simultaneously, it would change nothing. Faye is a slowly melting shitsack and beneath contempt. She and Taylor are on the sociopath spectrum IMO and fuck both of their exploitative selves and I only wish I believed in hell and that they would be rotisserie chickens for eternity, instead of just looking like them. That ENTIRE 90s rings of besties - Kris K, the Hilton/Richards crew, Faye the feline monster - are the worst humanity has to offer, and I'm not exaggerating AFAIC. Edited January 22, 2016 by Midnight Cheese 8 Link to comment
Cranky One January 22, 2016 Share January 22, 2016 (edited) That trial was a joke. Ito was so star struck that he let the defense run the whole show. I also think the jury wanted payback for Rodney King and even if they actually saw OJ do the killing right in front of them, they still wouldn't have convicted him. At times, it seemed like poor Nicole was on trial. From what I've read, all the the lawyers thought he was guilty except for F. Lee Bailey. I went to the same high school as Nicole (Dana Hills), but she was about 7 years ahead of me. Her sister, Dominique, was probably a grade ahead. She's has her issues with DUI and mental health. The youngest, Tonya, is pretty active on FB as she wrote a book about depression and suicide. Here is Tonya's page https://www.facebook.com/TanyaBrownSpeaker/ I think Camille said on WWHL that she and Faye are friends now, so I guess Faye is no longer morally corrupt in Camille's eyes anymore! Edited January 22, 2016 by Cranky One 7 Link to comment
Lisin January 22, 2016 Share January 22, 2016 Changed the title of this topic only so it didn't start with Kathryn since it was getting mildly confusing if you were actually looking for the Kathryn topic. 5 Link to comment
Cranky One January 22, 2016 Share January 22, 2016 Musing about OJ after all of these years makes me wonder what a narcissist like him thinks he'd be doing if he hadn't done the unthinkable. Did you watch the deposition interviews from the civil trial that were on shown on TV a few months ago? Made me angry all over again that he got away with double murder. 7 Link to comment
Avaleigh January 22, 2016 Share January 22, 2016 (edited) I hope to see most of you RHBH posters over in the American Crime Story forum once the show starts. I'm really looking forward to it and I can see why RHBH would want to take advantage of the OJ connection since people are going to start talking about it again because of this new show. That trial was a joke. Ito was so star struck that he let the defense run the whole show. I also think the jury wanted payback for Rodney King and even if they actually saw OJ do the killing right in front of them, they still wouldn't have convicted him. At times, it seemed like poor Nicole was on trial. From what I've read, all the the lawyers thought he was guilty except for F. Lee Bailey. I completely agree. I think they'd say that it was a doctored film. I too never understood why her relationship with Ron Goldman would matter. I don't care if OJ saw them fucking that night, it's no excuse. It's sickening that the jurors didn't feel more empathy for this murdered woman who was also a longtime victim of abuse. Did you watch the deposition interviews from the civil trial that were on shown on TV a few months ago? Made me angry all over again that he got away with double murder. I didn't see that. What made me angry just now though was being reminded of Lon Cryer saluting OJ. That is some truly horrible shit. I have to agree that the prosecution really dropped the ball on jury selection. Imagine if Scott Petersen had got off and some juror had done some shit like that? Ugh, I'm seriously disgusted. I'm also fully prepared for a lot of OJ defending once the show starts. There are actually people who are upset that he's still in jail for the theft. While I agree that he got the max because he's OJ--so the fuck what? He's lucky to be alive, it's more than the mother of his children and Ron Goldman are allowed to do. He still gets to have a life, I don't care that it's behind bars. He still gets to have updates on his kids and family. Edited January 22, 2016 by Avaleigh 12 Link to comment
Cranky One January 22, 2016 Share January 22, 2016 Avaleigh, A&E, as well as Lifetime showed them. I can't remember what the show was actually called, but try googling OJ with Lifetime or A&E. Maybe they are online. 2 Link to comment
zoeysmom January 23, 2016 Author Share January 23, 2016 Is it true that jurors are selected for their suggestibility and their inability to read between the lines? I don't want to offend anyone with this in the event you fall into this category-for the defense a Catholic, married, school teacher was considered a good defense selection. From time to time attorneys and judges will speculate and wonder if just the first 12 people randomly picked would be any different than a carefully selected jury. I do not know about reading between the lines as there is so much emphasis placed on basing the verdict on what was admitted into evidence. One question that is almost always asked of a potential juror regarding prior jury experience during voir dire is- "without telling the verdict were you able to reach a verdict?" So I guess in a way the participants want to know if a person can make up their mind. In OJ's case there would have been a long questionnaire required to have been filled out by the jurors and most of the individual questioning revolves around the answers on the questionnaire. Here is the present Judicial Council Form for use in California criminal cases and Capital cases. As you can see they are fairly thorough. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/mc002.pdf We always tried to predict who the foreperson of the jury would be. There are some people that just strike you as a natural leader. 2 Link to comment
RedheadZombie January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Some examples have played out here-one poster described Nicole as wearing a negligee and waiting for Ron Goldman for a booty call. Another description is that she was wearing the same dress (she had been video taped in earlier in the evening) she wore to the restaurant. I am going to go with the dress because it was documented by the medical examiner. That was me, but I only stated that a booty call was a sensible alternate conclusion. I don't think I was impugning either of the victim's character. I'm happy to be corrected that Nicole was wearing a little mini-dress. My opinion that it was a negligee was due to how she looked in the crime scene photos. I don't even know how I stumbled upon them, but they're online (and gruesome). She was curled up at the bottom of the steps. I too never understood why her relationship with Ron Goldman would matter. I don't care if OJ saw them fucking that night, it's no excuse. It's sickening that the jurors didn't feel more empathy for this murdered woman who was also a longtime victim of abuse. I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I did speculate on a possible relationship. Not because there would be anything wrong with it, but because it would go to motive - jealousy. It also always seemed a little strange that the wait staff would personally deliver the glasses, and not to their owner, but to their owner's daughter. I guess it may have been Nicole's connection to celebrity. It's all the more tragic how random Ron's death was. If he'd been five minutes earlier or later, it looks like he'd still be alive. I do think that some people viewed Ron as the more sympathetic victim. The Goldman family was careful how they spoke about the crime, but I always got the opinion that they were pissed that Ron stumbled upon this murder, and that the Brown family had always looked the other way regarding OJ's violence because he was the gravy train. 6 Link to comment
zoeysmom January 23, 2016 Author Share January 23, 2016 That was me, but I only stated that a booty call was a sensible alternate conclusion. I don't think I was impugning either of the victim's character. I'm happy to be corrected that Nicole was wearing a little mini-dress. My opinion that it was a negligee was due to how she looked in the crime scene photos. I don't even know how I stumbled upon them, but they're online (and gruesome). She was curled up at the bottom of the steps. I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but I did speculate on a possible relationship. Not because there would be anything wrong with it, but because it would go to motive - jealousy. It also always seemed a little strange that the wait staff would personally deliver the glasses, and not to their owner, but to their owner's daughter. I guess it may have been Nicole's connection to celebrity. It's all the more tragic how random Ron's death was. If he'd been five minutes earlier or later, it looks like he'd still be alive. I do think that some people viewed Ron as the more sympathetic victim. The Goldman family was careful how they spoke about the crime, but I always got the opinion that they were pissed that Ron stumbled upon this murder, and that the Brown family had always looked the other way regarding OJ's violence because he was the gravy train. I can see from one looking at the crime scene photos that her attire could be easily described as a negligee. That might have made an interesting jury deliberation question. According to this article and Ron Goldman's friends-Ron liked life in the fast lane and growing closer to Nicole. For example he had borrowed her Ferrari. I would say that transcends the waiter/patron relationship. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oj-anniv-goldman-story.html So I think your speculation about a relationship was well within the bounds of credulity. 5 Link to comment
Umbelina January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 (edited) I feel horrible for both Nicole and Ron Goldman. Neither deserved to be butchered by that lunatic. Nothing they could have done, past or present justifies that. At all. Love the title change Lisin, it was a bit confusing. Edited January 23, 2016 by Umbelina 9 Link to comment
lunastartron January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 With the concerted efforts by Cochran to obliquely suggest that Nicole was a slut who got what she deserved, I don't think that an effort by the prosecution to establish a romantic liaison between her and Goldman as a motive would have been productive. I mean, the jury saw a Polaroid selfie that Nicole had taken after an assault by OJ and secreted away in a safety deposit box. They heard multiple witnesses recount that, post-separation, OJ had stalked Nicole to the point of literally standing in her front yard and looking through her windows. The motive of escalating classical abusive domestic domination was already explicitly demonstrated by various testimony during the trial. But between Lon Cryer, the juror who lamented that 'they were out to get him from the beginning,' and the third member who said 'I believed he was innocent from the beginning,' the absolute best for which Clark could have hoped was a deadlock. It is also noteworthy that multiple jurors were dismissed during the proceedings to the point that only two alternates remained at the end of the proceedings. Those removed included the defense's biggest problem - a white woman who was the most educated of the pool. An anonymous letter supposedly written by an editorial assistant at a book publisher materialized in Judge Ito's mail alleging that the juror in question had already agreed to vote for conviction and pen a tell-all entitled A Verdict for Nicole. The accusation was unverified but the juror had an ailing husband and did not actively protest dismissal. 9 Link to comment
zoeysmom January 23, 2016 Author Share January 23, 2016 With the concerted efforts by Cochran to obliquely suggest that Nicole was a slut who got what she deserved, I don't think that an effort by the prosecution to establish a romantic liaison between her and Goldman as a motive would have been productive. I mean, the jury saw a Polaroid selfie that Nicole had taken after an assault by OJ and secreted away in a safety deposit box. They heard multiple witnesses recount that, post-separation, OJ had stalked Nicole to the point of literally standing in her front yard and looking through her windows. The motive of escalating classical abusive domestic domination was already explicitly demonstrated by various testimony during the trial. But between Lon Cryer, the juror who lamented that 'they were out to get him from the beginning,' and the third member who said 'I believed he was innocent from the beginning,' the absolute best for which Clark could have hoped was a deadlock. It is also noteworthy that multiple jurors were dismissed during the proceedings to the point that only two alternates remained at the end of the proceedings. Those removed included the defense's biggest problem - a white woman who was the most educated of the pool. An anonymous letter supposedly written by an editorial assistant at a book publisher materialized in Judge Ito's mail alleging that the juror in question had already agreed to vote for conviction and pen a tell-all entitled A Verdict for Nicole. The accusation was unverified but the juror had an ailing husband and did not actively protest dismissal. From your post: 'the third member who said, 'I believed he was innocent from the beginning,' . . . "(I can't get the bold function to work.) Since this obviously came from another source since it was quoted within a quote I am assuming the writer was absolutely ignorant of the Principle of Law that is read to each and every juror at the beginning of a trial and a juror must accept: CALCRIM No. 130 reads THE FOLLOWING IS A PRINCIPLE OF LAW AND APPLIES TO ALL CRIMINAL CASES: A defendant in a criminal action is presumed to be innocent. The presumption requires that the People prove each element of the crime [and special allegations]beyond a reasonable doubt. Whenever the judge tells you the People must prove something the judge means they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt (unless the judge specifically tells you otherwise]. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to possible or imaginary doubt. In deciding whether the People have proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt you must impartially compare and consider all the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial. Unless the evidence proves the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt he is entitled to an acquittal and you must find him not guilty. Again since you are citing a source I think the statement was hyperbole as this is read and must be agreed to by the jurors in every case in California. Indeed presumption of innocence is the basis of our entire criminal justice system. All prosecutors go in with this burden of proof. Don't know why Marcia could only hope for a deadlock. This is quoted in the criminal case questionnaire and the prospective juror must check yes the understand or no. The questionnaires are signed under penalty of perjury. Here is some OJ jury stuff: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Jurypage.html#Sample%20Jury Breaks down the jurors. Has a links to some other OJ Jury selection stuff. Here is a breakdown of impaneled jurors by age, sex, race and reason for dismissal: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/index/nns5.htm I don't see where the woman dismissed was the most educated of all the women. The woman juror who went home was a telephone company employee. Link to comment
savannah1985 January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Whenever the subject of the OJ trial comes up, I think of Ron's father, Fred and his sister, Kim. That young man may have liked living in the fast lane a bit, but he was loved. Really loved. And Fred and Kim will never get over what happened to him. 8 Link to comment
LIMOM January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 I don't want to offend anyone with this in the event you fall into this category-for the defense a Catholic, married, school teacher was considered a good defense selection. From time to time attorneys and judges will speculate and wonder if just the first 12 people randomly picked would be any different than a carefully selected jury. I do not know about reading between the lines as there is so much emphasis placed on basing the verdict on what was admitted into evidence. One question that is almost always asked of a potential juror regarding prior jury experience during voir dire is- "without telling the verdict were you able to reach a verdict?" So I guess in a way the participants want to know if a person can make up their mind. In OJ's case there would have been a long questionnaire required to have been filled out by the jurors and most of the individual questioning revolves around the answers on the questionnaire. Here is the present Judicial Council Form for use in California criminal cases and Capital cases. As you can see they are fairly thorough. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/mc002.pdf We always tried to predict who the foreperson of the jury would be. There are some people that just strike you as a natural leader. I was told that in the NYC area, young college educated Asians were the preferred prospective jurors.Could it be regional? 1 Link to comment
lunastartron January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 The final jury included a former Black Panther who, as noted in multiple posts above, raised his fist in solidarity with the defendant at the conclusion of the proceedings. Considering that and accounts that the social dynamics of the rest of the jury were contentious and fractured with reports of cliqueishness and conflict, I would reason that a unanimous conviction was off the table from early on in the proceedings if not at the outset - ergo, the best for which Clark could have hoped were holdouts for a "guilty" return. As for the Gina Roxborough quote, sure, one can interpret that as a nod to the bedrock of the American judicial system; one can also read it in the context as an example of confirmation bias. The link above does not note the educational pedigrees of the dismissed jurors or note which members of the final 12 originated as alternates; Francine Florio-Bunten was purportedly the only juror among those with which she served prior to removal to vocally protest the moratorium on browsing in bookstores. And speaking of Shapiro, if he confoundingly denied that the defense undertook a campaign of slut-shaming Nicole despite Cochran's opening, he asserted in an interview with Barbara Walters post-acquittal, "not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck," and vowed to never work with Cochran or Bailey again. 7 Link to comment
RedheadZombie January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Whenever the subject of the OJ trial comes up, I think of Ron's father, Fred and his sister, Kim. That young man may have liked living in the fast lane a bit, but he was loved. Really loved. And Fred and Kim will never get over what happened to him. I saw a recent interview with Kim Goldman. When OJ went to prison, she sent him a card that said, "Hope you enjoy your new digs!". 7 Link to comment
Pollock January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 I'm just popping in to say how much I am enjoying reading this thread. I was in middle school when they read the verdict and we were allowed to watch in class because the teachers all wanted to see it. I grew up in and still live in LA and I don't really think it can be stated how huge the trial was here let alone for the rest of the country. Everyone had an opinion and everyone had the most minor peripheral story or at least knew someone that did. It was something that interested I'd say anyone over the age of ten or eleven who had access to a television. It baffles me, really. I knew it was a big thing in America's recent history but I would have never suspected the extent of that fascination. It's really bizarre to me that the trial was live on tv. Is there some channels in the US where you can see different trials all day long or was OJ a exception due to his celebrity status? I assume the filming is a good thing because all parties can rely on it in case of an appeal maybe, seeing a person talk being better than just reading the transcript but I don't get why anybody would allow that to go on live tv. Has the defense any right to refuse that sort of thing? Anyway, thanks for this thread, it's interesting too read and it has me a little bit more excited for the Faye storyline because really I was asking myself why I should care about a 20 years old story I know nothing about! Thanks for the recommendation for the documentary LIMOM. Thank you Suomi for the books recommendation. I'll see if I can read some pages online before going further because if reading those boards, tons of comic books and Harry Potter in english isn't a problem anymore, a serious adult book is a whole other story! 4 Link to comment
lunastartron January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 It's somewhat confusing about where to post certain information since certain topics are germane to this thread, Kathryn's, and the episode 08 one. But, firstly, Faye asserts in her books that Marcus tried to fuck/proposition her, Faye, on multiple occasions while he was engaged to Kathryn, both directly and through Nicole, who is basically portrayed as acting upon a long-simmering sexual tension with Marcus that originated during her marriage only after Faye declined Marcus's advances (funny how this little formulation nicely highlights Faye's own sexual desirability). As for the question of motive/Kyle's assertion that the revelation about Marcus's and Nicole's fling it "what set OJ off," OJ learned of it prior to Kathryn and Marcus's wedding (so a year before the murders). He supposedly doesn't tell Kathryn about the affair because he doesn't want to jeopardize his pal's upcoming marriage ceremony - which Kathryn might have canceled even though she knew all about her fiancee's infidelity. 4 Link to comment
lunastartron January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 And as for the premise that Faye just wanted to raise awareness about OJ's likely guilt and that her testimony was undesired by the prosecution: Faye herself writes that Marcia Clark asked her to testify and that she agreed. Her book is replete with pages and pages of assaults, extended altercations, and direct threats that she herself claims to have witnessed firsthand. Call me crazy, but reasoning would seem to dictate that eyewitness accounts of such incidents, many of which occurred in the weeks leading up to June 1994 according to Faye, might have been germane to the trial. Faye also claims that OJ virtually confessed to her at the burial. If Faye so wanted to highlight the abuse Nicole suffered, I would think the stand could have been the most helpful place to share that information, not a co-written, hastily composed book. 9 Link to comment
Umbelina January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 (edited) It baffles me, really. I knew it was a big thing in America's recent history but I would have never suspected the extent of that fascination. It's really bizarre to me that the trial was live on tv. Is there some channels in the US where you can see different trials all day long or was OJ a exception due to his celebrity status? I assume the filming is a good thing because all parties can rely on it in case of an appeal maybe, seeing a person talk being better than just reading the transcript but I don't get why anybody would allow that to go on live tv. Has the defense any right to refuse that sort of thing? Anyway, thanks for this thread, it's interesting too read and it has me a little bit more excited for the Faye storyline because really I was asking myself why I should care about a 20 years old story I know nothing about! Thanks for the recommendation for the documentary LIMOM. Thank you Suomi for the books recommendation. I'll see if I can read some pages online before going further because if reading those boards, tons of comic books and Harry Potter in english isn't a problem anymore, a serious adult book is a whole other story! IIRC this trial spawned "Court TV" as well as damaging pretty much every scripted show out there since Reality TV was cheaper to make. OJ got the ratings. I think it was on regular channels, but can't remember, I know it was on all day, and as I said, many specials at night. It began with the car chase through LA, everyone was glued to that spectacle. I wish he would have just shot himself, not at the time, but now. I never read Faye's book, but OF COURSE she would be the one hit on first. Gahhhhh I thought she said Marcus cheated with Nicole during his marriage to Kathryn? Anyone read the whole thing? Thanks for the excepts on Amazon of Shapiros' book, that was interesting. According to him, the defense thought about objecting to the trial being televised, then changed their minds. This one looks interesting. http://www.amazon.com/Helped-O-J-Away-With-Murder-ebook/dp/B001974DH4/ref=pd_sim_351_5?ie=UTF8&dpID=51Ek12RWQ-L&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR110%2C160_&refRID=1FNT6C2Y4V2TAG3E1TVA#reader_B001974DH4 He says OJ told him he did it, and a bunch more. LOTS of mentions of Kathryn in the free excepts. This seems to say that Marcus and Nicole did have a thing. He also says he helped OJ and Marcus cover up their affairs with others. How I Helped O.J. Get Away With Murder: The Shocking Inside Story of Violence, Loyalty, Regret, and Remorse http://nypost.com/2008/05/11/if-she-hadnt-opened-that-door-with-a-knife-in-her-hand-shed-be-alive/ He said Simpson had smoked pot, took a sleeping pill and was drinking beer when he confided at his Brentwood home weeks after his trial what happened the night of June 12, 1994. Simpson said he went to his ex-wife’s condominium, but did not bring a knife with him. Simpson told him Nicole Brown Simpson had one in her hand when she opened the door. In a soft mumble, Simpson told him: “If she hadn’t opened that door with a knife in her hand … she’d still be alive.” One of hundreds of books about OJ. Everyone wants to make a buck. Edited January 23, 2016 by Umbelina 2 Link to comment
Granimal January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 From Toobin, The Run of His Life, page 275 in a passage about Johnny Cochran's opening statements during the trial: "Cochran then regaled the jury with tales of Nicole's fast life . . . ran with a catalogue of her sexual exploits. Sex on a couch with Keith Zlomsowitch while the children slept upstairs . . . Sex with one of Simpson's best friends . . . One man 'sitting astride Mis Nicole Brown Simpson, giving her a massage or something in her shoulders.' 'Miss Nicole Brown Simpson came over to Rockingham house and said she had found a boyfriend, somebody different than Keith.' But with these examples, Cochran was just warming up for his main point about Nicole's sordid personal life - that the sinister figure of Faye Resnick was at the center of it. 'Let me say this about Faye Resnick,' Cochran said gravely. 'They ran in this circle out in Brentwood. And when she was put out on June third . . . she then moved over and lived with Nicole Brown Simpson. Because they were friends, they would go out at night. The evidence will be these ladies would go out two, three, four nights a week and stay out until five o'clock in the morning. Nobody was controlling these women. They go out dancing, they would do whatever they would do, and we know that Faye Resnick was using drugs during this period of time.' Cochran then said Faye's drug problem got so bad that on June 8, her ex-boyfriend and ex-husband forced her to enter a drug treatment facility. 'One of the people that called Miss Nicole Brown Simpson on the night of June 12, perhaps after nine o'clock, that particular night, from this drug treatment facility. We will be talking about her role in this whole drama.'" Wow. I'm shocked by the rampant sexism in Cochran's opening statements. Who is supposed to be "controlling" these two adult women? The connections between control, promiscuity, and abuse that were oh-so-subtly implied make my stomach turn. Such a subtle turn of phrase... yet powerful in what it meant to this case. It's ridiculous to me the impact that the victim's perceived character has in these types of cases. Whether Suzie Homemaker who spends her time building orphanages is murdered, or Addict Adulteress who spends her time having sex for money is murdered, there should be no difference in the conviction and sentencing of the defendant. Murder is murder. Domestic violence is domestic violence. (Unfortunately that will never be the case, the victim's past will always come into play.) Anyways, back to OJ, it truly was the trial of the century. I was in preschool towards the end of the trial, and I still remember hearing it/watching it, and my feelings after the verdict. It was huge. I was too young to know or understand many of the intricacies, such as the racial aspects or the mistrust of law enforcement, but it truly was a time of innocence lost for me personally, as well as on a much larger scale. I have absolutely nothing of value to add to this topic, so perhaps this post doesn't belong here. Yet I am drawn to it, as it shaped many of my earliest memories and personality traits. 6 Link to comment
lunastartron January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 The story according to Faye is that Marcus and Nicole started a second fling after her reconciliation with OJ ended (he made her tell him every guy with whom she'd slept after their divorce at the beginning of said reconciliation). Faye didn't exactly seem sympathetic on that count (this might not be an exact quote but it's definitely close): "It's the rule every woman knows: you just don't 'do' your man's best friend." (Even though OJ wasn't Nicole's "man" anymore) Faye also presents herself in the book as imploring Nicole to stop seeing Marcus but contends that Nicole was "ruined" by OJ because, after him, no white man could satisfy her sexually - so she basically couldn't help her sexual appetite for virile black men. There's also a passage in which Faye claims that, post-divorce, Nicole makes eyes at an engaged black neighbor and initiates fellatio on him while he's sleeping after she and a group of girlfriends stopped by his house for a nightcap after walking home from a night out clubbing. 5 Link to comment
GreatKazu January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 (edited) I worked as a paralegal for a couple of firms. I then later moved to working in our county courthouse. I had several positions including working at documenting and recording crime scene evidence including those items from death row cases which I found pretty damn fascinating, intriguing, and many times sad when specifically dealing with crimes against children. My last position was as a judicial assistant. I recall the O.J. Simpson murder trial being the talk among many in law offices. I recall one attorney who worked in the building where I was employed having received an original photo of O.J.'s mug shot from someone in the police department. Apparently when O.J. was being photographed for his mug shot, there were at least three different photos taken. One of those was the one that would later be released. The attorney received one of the other two. He shared the photo with me and a few others in the office. Holding that photo in my hands, I saw this monster. I no longer saw O.J. Simpson the former NFL player who appeared in all those Hertz commercials. The Simpson I grew up watching was just a memory. IIRC this trial spawned "Court TV" as well as damaging pretty much every scripted show out there since Reality TV was cheaper to make. OJ got the ratings. Actually, it was the Betty Broderick trial and the Menendez Brothers (Erik and Lyle) that brought Court TV to the forefront. O.J. Simpson's trial was later in 1995. By the way, I once worked with a woman whose son was Erik Menendez's best friend. Her son was the one who helped write a screenplay with Erik. He ended up testifying for the prosecution. That screenplay seemed to mirror the murder case. Wow. I'm shocked by the rampant sexism in Cochran's opening statements. Not only that, but he lied. He claimed one of Simpson's best friends had sex with Nicole. That best friend was Marcus Allen. Mr. Allen later denied under oath that he never had sex with Nicole. He said under oath how Simpson wanted him to lie and say he did have sex with Nicole. That request came from Simpson while he was in jail. Edited January 23, 2016 by GreatKazu 8 Link to comment
crgirl412 January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 (edited) I was channel surfing a few weeks ago and came upon Keeping Up with the Kardashians. In one scene Kris Jenner (who was married to the late Robert Kardashian, one of OJ's lawyers) was meeting Faye for lunch and you could tell that they are still very good friends. Edited January 23, 2016 by crgirl412 3 Link to comment
kokapetl January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 I don't want to offend anyone with this in the event you fall into this category-for the defense a Catholic, married, school teacher was considered a good defense selection. From time to time attorneys and judges will speculate and wonder if just the first 12 people randomly picked would be any different than a carefully selected jury. I do not know about reading between the lines as there is so much emphasis placed on basing the verdict on what was admitted into evidence. One question that is almost always asked of a potential juror regarding prior jury experience during voir dire is- "without telling the verdict were you able to reach a verdict?" So I guess in a way the participants want to know if a person can make up their mind. In OJ's case there would have been a long questionnaire required to have been filled out by the jurors and most of the individual questioning revolves around the answers on the questionnaire. Here is the present Judicial Council Form for use in California criminal cases and Capital cases. As you can see they are fairly thorough. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/mc002.pdf We always tried to predict who the foreperson of the jury would be. There are some people that just strike you as a natural leader. Would it be accurate to say that answering yes to questions on that juror questionnaire would be a red flag most of the time? 1 Link to comment
suomi January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 The final jury included a former Black Panther who, as noted in multiple posts above, raised his fist in solidarity with the defendant at the conclusion of the proceedings. Considering that and accounts that the social dynamics of the rest of the jury were contentious and fractured with reports of cliqueishness and conflict, I would reason that a unanimous conviction was off the table from early on in the proceedings if not at the outset - ergo, the best for which Clark could have hoped were holdouts for a "guilty" return. [snip] And speaking of Shapiro, if he confoundingly denied that the defense undertook a campaign of slut-shaming Nicole despite Cochran's opening, he asserted in an interview with Barbara Walters post-acquittal, "not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck," and vowed to never work with Cochran or Bailey again. Even after all these years my mind is boggled when someone denies the race card shenanigans. To me, it was so blatant that someone not seeing it means that they choose not to see it. And the absolute icing on that nasty cake was when Cochran began being escorted to and from court by members of Louis Farrakahn's Nation of Islam, which in the 90s was profoundly anti-white and anti-semitic. Never before then or since then was he seen in their presence, but the jurors saw it. Gahhhh! 9 Link to comment
suomi January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Ron had known Nicole for about 6 or 7 weeks. They ran or jogged together sometimes and also went dancing at clubs. Their personalities meshed and they enjoyed each other's company, which in no way mandates that their interaction was sexual. And yes, he borrowed her Ferrari one afternoon when he took a friend to lunch. His shift at Mezzaluna ended that night at 9:30 and he sat at the bar with a bottled water for another 15 minutes before he left. While he was sitting there he overheard the manager on the phone with Nicole who was asking about her mother's eyeglasses. Juditha had phoned Nicole because she thought she left them at their dining table and she asked Nicole to check for her. Nicole's parents lived about 70 miles and 90 minutes away in Orange County and Nicole's place was about 10 minutes away. After a futile search inside they were found outside at the curb where the Browns got into their car. So Ron volunteered to take the envelope containing the glasses to Nicole. He had plans to go out with a co-worker, another waiter or a bartender IIRC, and stopped by his apartment to change clothes and then went to Nicole's condo. The neighbors remembered a wailing dog at about 10:15, which lines up with Ron leaving Mezzaluna around 9:45. Ron was murdered because he was a nice guy doing a favor for a friend, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. I agree that the Goldman family has always been good about not expressing their resentment but I believe it exists. Which is only human nature. Their son/brother, while perhaps not a resoundingly successful person, was definitely a nice guy. 10 Link to comment
LIMOM January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 He might not have been a success at the time but he was in his early twenties and working toward an acting career. I still remember his sister crying in the court room. She was so young and they were vilifying her brother... Unreal.... 9 Link to comment
zoeysmom January 23, 2016 Author Share January 23, 2016 It baffles me, really. I knew it was a big thing in America's recent history but I would have never suspected the extent of that fascination. It's really bizarre to me that the trial was live on tv. Is there some channels in the US where you can see different trials all day long or was OJ a exception due to his celebrity status? I assume the filming is a good thing because all parties can rely on it in case of an appeal maybe, seeing a person talk being better than just reading the transcript but I don't get why anybody would allow that to go on live tv. Has the defense any right to refuse that sort of thing? Anyway, thanks for this thread, it's interesting too read and it has me a little bit more excited for the Faye storyline because really I was asking myself why I should care about a 20 years old story I know nothing about! Thanks for the recommendation for the documentary LIMOM. Thank you Suomi for the books recommendation. I'll see if I can read some pages online before going further because if reading those boards, tons of comic books and Harry Potter in english isn't a problem anymore, a serious adult book is a whole other story! Trials have always been public so a televised trial is an extension of the principle that trials be made held public and not held in secrecy. Did it add to fanfare absolutely, but this case would have attracted media attention and the daily transcripts would have been part of the evening news or even Court TV. Would it be accurate to say that answering yes to questions on that juror questionnaire would be a red flag most of the time? Prior jury experience isn't a red flag. Since the goal of any trial is to reach a verdict if a potential juror was on a jury and unable to reach a verdict it might signal indecisiveness. Contrary to claims an author made about Marcia Clark, she was in it to win it. Trial attorneys don't go into a trial hoping for a hung jury, they might hope for a lesser included but prosecutors go in wanting to win on the top charge and defense attorneys want a walk. 3 Link to comment
zoeysmom January 23, 2016 Author Share January 23, 2016 I worked as a paralegal for a couple of firms. I then later moved to working in our county courthouse. I had several positions including working at documenting and recording crime scene evidence including those items from death row cases which I found pretty damn fascinating, intriguing, and many times sad when specifically dealing with crimes against children. My last position was as a judicial assistant. I recall the O.J. Simpson murder trial being the talk among many in law offices. I recall one attorney who worked in the building where I was employed having received an original photo of O.J.'s mug shot from someone in the police department. Apparently when O.J. was being photographed for his mug shot, there were at least three different photos taken. One of those was the one that would later be released. The attorney received one of the other two. He shared the photo with me and a few others in the office. Holding that photo in my hands, I saw this monster. I no longer saw O.J. Simpson the former NFL player who appeared in all those Hertz commercials. The Simpson I grew up watching was just a memory. Actually, it was the Betty Broderick trial and the Menendez Brothers (Erik and Lyle) that brought Court TV to the forefront. O.J. Simpson's trial was later in 1995. By the way, I once worked with a woman whose son was Erik Menendez's best friend. Her son was the one who helped write a screenplay with Erik. He ended up testifying for the prosecution. That screenplay seemed to mirror the murder case. Not only that, but he lied. He claimed one of Simpson's best friends had sex with Nicole. That best friend was Marcus Allen. Mr. Allen later denied under oath that he never had sex with Nicole. He said under oath how Simpson wanted him to lie and say he did have sex with Nicole. That request came from Simpson while he was in jail. Only in Hollywood would there be outtakes of a mug shot. To me, the issue wasn't if Allen and Nicole had sex, it was Nicole claiming she had sex. Since this defense case wasn't a case based on the defendant claiming he had lost it over the discovery of his wife having an affair, it was kind of extra fodder giving a hint why disgusting OJ went off the rails. 4 Link to comment
suomi January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 He might not have been a success at the time but he was in his early twenties and working toward an acting career. I still remember his sister crying in the court room. She was so young and they were vilifying her brother... Unreal.... Yes. I should have expanded my reference to that. At some point, during the civil trial IIRC, Ron's finances were introduced and presented as being unfavorable. To lessen his value. 5 Link to comment
kokapetl January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 (edited) Trials have always been public so a televised trial is an extension of the principle that trials be made held public and not held in secrecy. Did it add to fanfare absolutely, but this case would have attracted media attention and the daily transcripts would have been part of the evening news or even Court TV. Prior jury experience isn't a red flag. Since the goal of any trial is to reach a verdict if a potential juror was on a jury and unable to reach a verdict it might signal indecisiveness. Contrary to claims an author made about Marcia Clark, she was in it to win it. Trial attorneys don't go into a trial hoping for a hung jury, they might hope for a lesser included but prosecutors go in wanting to win on the top charge and defense attorneys want a walk. The questions I found interesting are the one that ask about jobs/duties/decision making/membership of organizations/contact with courts or police. You mentioned the ideal juror for the defence is a Catholic, married schoolteacher, which to me seems like a preference for people who are conservative motherly types who are peripheral and compliant in the public sphere, who would be passive and okay deferring to others. A lot of the questions seemed to be probing the assertiveness of jurors, where "yes = assertive". No offense is intended to Catholics, people who are married, schoolteachers or mothers. Edited January 23, 2016 by Kokapetl 2 Link to comment
LIMOM January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 The questions I found interesting are the one that ask about jobs/duties/decision making/membership of organizations/contact with courts or police. You mentioned the ideal juror for the defence is a Catholic, married schoolteacher, which to me seems like a preference for people who are conservative motherly types who are peripheral and compliant in the public sphere, who would be passive and okay deferring to others. A lot of the questions seemed to be probing the assertiveness of jurors, where "yes = assertive". No offense is intended to Catholics, people who are married, schoolteachers or mothers. It is not that black or white IMO and each trials call for different type of jurors.Mothers might be preferred when the offender is young as that would awaken their motherly instincts for instance. I understand that newly naturalized citizens are often chosen as well. And let's not forget the way, the location of the trial is so often manipulated. For instances, in NYC lawyers love to get their cases in the Bronx. Apparently, people there are more generous when it comes to settlement.... 4 Link to comment
kokapetl January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Money being tight vs money being no object can certainly shake things up. I would imagine poor man's lawyer would use the answers as simple red flags, but a rich man's lawyers seem like an entire different thing. Dr Phil met Oprah when she hired his company to provide psychological profiling of jurors and strategies to win over each individual jury member. 5 Link to comment
TexasGal January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Hearing where some of y'all were when the verdict happened is making me feel very old! I was in law school, and most of the trial happened during my first year. My criminal law professor, who btw was a terrible teacher, had worked on a number of high profile defense teams. So we got his perspective on the trial as it was ongoing (sadly, can't remember any details any more) which was very interesting. He was certain all along that OJ would not be convicted. The verdict came in during my second year and was announced during a down time between classes. I can't remember which class I was in when they announced the verdict had been reached but that professor knew it wouldn't be good for the prosecution that it had come back so quickly. All that to say, looking back I feel like I lived that trial in a bubble in a way that most people didn't. As law students we were just obsessed with analyzing everything that was happening and the procedural stuff. It didn't really hit me until years later what a miscarriage of justice it all was. 8 Link to comment
LIMOM January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 ^^ I had just graduated from college that June. So you are not that old to me. :-) I was a com major and we dissected the whole role of television in one of my mass media classes. I had just started working in NYC when the verdict happened and it was surreal. I lived on the UES at the time and the race division was obvious. 1 Link to comment
Almost 3000 January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 It baffles me, really. I knew it was a big thing in America's recent history but I would have never suspected the extent of that fascination. It's really bizarre to me that the trial was live on tv. Is there some channels in the US where you can see different trials all day long or was OJ a exception due to his celebrity status? I assume the filming is a good thing because all parties can rely on it in case of an appeal maybe, seeing a person talk being better than just reading the transcript but I don't get why anybody would allow that to go on live tv. Has the defense any right to refuse that sort of thing? Anyway, thanks for this thread, it's interesting too read and it has me a little bit more excited for the Faye storyline because really I was asking myself why I should care about a 20 years old story I know nothing about! Thanks for the recommendation for the documentary LIMOM. Thank you Suomi for the books recommendation. I'll see if I can read some pages online before going further because if reading those boards, tons of comic books and Harry Potter in english isn't a problem anymore, a serious adult book is a whole other story! Yes, Court TV was a channel and I used to be glued to it. Best reality TV ever. OJ, Scott Peterson and the Casey Anthony cases were like crack as was Nancy Grace's almost full time reporting of them. There was such a circus quality to those cases and I found myself savoring every new bit of information. A bit of real reality crept in when there was an impromptu road side memorial on the meridian of the main road to my home for Ron Goldman. Ron's family lived in my area during that time and I used to see his father at a park where I walked my dog. Everyone in and around L.A. seemed to have a connection however tenuous to something around OJ and the murders at the time. 7 Link to comment
LIMOM January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Yes, Court TV was a channel and I used to be glued to it. Best reality TV ever. OJ, Scott Peterson and the Casey Anthony cases were like crack as was Nancy Grace's almost full time reporting of them. There was such a circus quality to those cases and I found myself savoring every new bit of information. A bit of real reality crept in when there was an impromptu road side memorial on the meridian of the main road to my home for Ron Goldman. Ron's family lived in my area during that time and I used to see his father at a park where I walked my dog. Everyone in and around L.A. seemed to have a connection however tenuous to something around OJ and the murders at the time. I understand that Court TV was repackaged as Tru tv. 2 Link to comment
zoeysmom January 23, 2016 Author Share January 23, 2016 The final jury included a former Black Panther who, as noted in multiple posts above, raised his fist in solidarity with the defendant at the conclusion of the proceedings. Considering that and accounts that the social dynamics of the rest of the jury were contentious and fractured with reports of cliqueishness and conflict, I would reason that a unanimous conviction was off the table from early on in the proceedings if not at the outset - ergo, the best for which Clark could have hoped were holdouts for a "guilty" return. As for the Gina Roxborough quote, sure, one can interpret that as a nod to the bedrock of the American judicial system; one can also read it in the context as an example of confirmation bias. The link above does not note the educational pedigrees of the dismissed jurors or note which members of the final 12 originated as alternates; Francine Florio-Bunten was purportedly the only juror among those with which she served prior to removal to vocally protest the moratorium on browsing in bookstores. And speaking of Shapiro, if he confoundingly denied that the defense undertook a campaign of slut-shaming Nicole despite Cochran's opening, he asserted in an interview with Barbara Walters post-acquittal, "not only did we play the race card, we dealt it from the bottom of the deck," and vowed to never work with Cochran or Bailey again. Gina's statement kind of stands on its own. If you are required to have a presumption of innocence then you can't fall back on - bias. The instruction isn't keep an open mind. it is all about the prosecution having to prove each element. Was Gina a final juror in the OJ Simpson trial? Or was she dismissed? I have a hard time with Shapiro-he was part of the team-if he didn't like the way the defense was headed he could have resigned. I am going by quotes from here. Where one quote was about how the defense team didn't want to impugn Nicole Simpson, but were handed an gift when Faye's book came out. Of course it was the defense that subpoenaed Faye, while she was playing with co-counsel's daughter Khloe. It is not as if there was a shortage of defense attorneys. Oh and to keep things in perspective - Robert Shapiro is on the Hilton family payroll-just recently making an appearance on behalf of the snotty Hilton kid who acted up on the airplane. So I have a hard time with him trying to take the high road. It will be interesting to see how he is portrayed by John Travolta in the upcoming mini-series. The questions I found interesting are the one that ask about jobs/duties/decision making/membership of organizations/contact with courts or police. You mentioned the ideal juror for the defence is a Catholic, married schoolteacher, which to me seems like a preference for people who are conservative motherly types who are peripheral and compliant in the public sphere, who would be passive and okay deferring to others. A lot of the questions seemed to be probing the assertiveness of jurors, where "yes = assertive". No offense is intended to Catholics, people who are married, schoolteachers or mothers. I left out democrat-it should have read, Catholic, democrat, married, school teachers. 5 Link to comment
LIMOM January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 ^ This described a friend who just did jury duty last summer. Lol 1 Link to comment
suomi January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Oh, joy! A link which contains Dominick Dunne's body of work for Vanity Fair, including the Letters From Los Angeles. But of course. Enjoy. http://www.vanityfair.com/search?q=dominick+dunne 7 Link to comment
LIMOM January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Here is the jury: Profiles: Who are the O.J. Simpson jurors? Jurors 28-year-old married black woman, works for the post office, high school graduate; said as a young child, she watched her father beat her mother and "as an adult I don't go for any man being abusive to me''; said she wasn't familiar with DNA; was "shocked'' to hear Simpson was a suspect. 24-year-old single black woman, works at a Los Angeles hospital, one year of college; said she has had no experience with domestic violence; said of both sides in the case: "Everybody has a lot to lose or gain.'' 50-year-old divorced black woman who works as a county collections vendor, two years of college; said she "respects (Simpson) as an individual based on his past accomplishments.'' 32-year-old single Hispanic man, delivers Pepsi, high school graduate; said Simpson was "a great football player.'' 37-year-old married black woman, works in a post office, high school graduate; said she doesn't think Simpson "acts too well'' in movies and described the freeway pursuit that ended in Simpson's arrest as "stupid.'' 38-year-old single black woman, environmental health specialist whose father was a police officer, college graduate; said the 911 tapes of Nicole Brown Simpson calling for police help as Simpson broke through her door in October 1993 "sound frightening.'' 52-year-old divorced black woman, postal worker, high school graduate; described Simpson as "only human.'' 22-year-old single white woman who handles insurance claims, college graduate; said she was shocked when she heard Simpson was a suspect. 43-year-old married black man who works as a phone company salesman, high school graduate; said he thought Simpson was a good football player; alternate juror until Jan. 18. 60-year-old divorced white woman who is a retired gas company clerk, one year of college; said she was the lone holdout in another murder case and managed to get other jurors to change their minds; alternate juror until March 17. 44-year-old single black woman who fixes computers and printers for county Superior Court, high school graduate; said Ms. Simpson "wasn't a saint''; had no opinion about whether Simpson is innocent or guilty; said in jury selection, "If I'm not picked, I can look at it and say, they let a good one go;'' alternate juror until April 5. 71-year-old married black woman, retired cleaning worker, completed 10th grade; said of the case: "I haven't come to no conclusion one way or the other. ... I don't know nothing about no O.J. Simpson;'' alternate juror until May 26. Alternates If any more jurors are dismissed or cannot continue service, their replacements would be selected randomly from this list: 72-year-old married black man, security guard. 24-year-old married white woman, receptionist. Dismissed 48-year-old single black man, who does quality control for Hertz Corp., for whom Simpson was a spokesman. 38-year-old Hispanic letter carrier who said she had suffered verbal and mental abuse from an ex-boyfriend. 63-year-old white female who suffers arthritis and was treated by the same doctor who plans to testify about Simpson's health. 46-year-old black courier who was the subject of numerous complaints over several weeks. He denied the allegations, including one that he made a bet with a co-worker before the trial that Simpson would be acquitted. 52-year-old married man, half American Indian and half white, who works as an Amtrak manager. Sources say he was suspected of writing a book about the trial. He said was keeping a journal on his computer and acknowledged he might eventually have turned it into a book, but insisted he did nothing wrong. 38-year-old married black woman who, as an employment counselor, referred domestic violence victims to other agencies. She failed to reveal a past personal experience with domestic violence. Her complaints about racial strife among jurors and preferential treatment by some deputies prompted the judge to investigate. 26-year-old single black woman who works as a flight attendant; told the judge, "I can't take it anymore.'' During jury selection, she said she saw Simpson in "Roots'' and "Naked Gun'' movies and "he seemed like he would have a good sense of humor.'' 38-year-old married white woman who works for a telephone company. Another juror accused her of receiving preferential treatment from deputies guarding the jury and treating black panelists unfairly. It also was reported that her husband had pneumonia and she told the judge she didn't know if she could continue to serve. 54-year-old married black man who works as a postal operations manager; said he was "shocked'' when he first heard Simpson was a suspect; alternate juror until Feb. 7. No reason for dismissal given. 28-year-old single Hispanic woman who works as a real estate appraiser with Los Angeles County assessor's office; about the slow-speed pursuit, she said she "wondered why he ran;'' said Simpson was "the only person who had a visible motive;'' had no opinion about whether Simpson was guilty or innocent; alternate juror until May 1. No reason for dismissal given. By The Associated Press 2 Link to comment
GreatKazu January 23, 2016 Share January 23, 2016 Even after all these years my mind is boggled when someone denies the race card shenanigans. To me, it was so blatant that someone not seeing it means that they choose not to see it. And the absolute icing on that nasty cake was when Cochran began being escorted to and from court by members of Louis Farrakahn's Nation of Islam, which in the 90s was profoundly anti-white and anti-semitic. Never before then or since then was he seen in their presence, but the jurors saw it. Gahhhh! It still pisses me off to this day. Here were his attorneys who were using his black skin to push their agenda, but the asshole was not known for embracing his black heritage. I watched a documentary about this whole race card thing being played out by the attorneys as they hoped to influence the jury. This documentary went into detail about Simpson's "white privileged life". I wish I could remember the finer details of that documentary. There were a couple of articles that also went into detail about Simpson's life. One thing I do recall from one article is how it mentioned how the only time Simpson seemed to be a black man was when he was being chased by the LAPD. According to this article and Ron Goldman's friends-Ron liked life in the fast lane and growing closer to Nicole. For example he had borrowed her Ferrari. I would say that transcends the waiter/patron relationship. From what I gathered from various sources that I read back in the day when this all happened, Ron enjoyed what Nicole's lifestyle offered him. I am not at all saying he used Nicole. He truly enjoyed her friendship. It just had perks. She knew well-known people and rich people. She went to the upscale night clubs and other places where Ron enjoyed going to. He loved the attention he received when he was seen with Nicole or using her car. His friends mentioned those two were definitely not dating. Ron was enjoying the lifestyle that being friends with Nicole brought to him. He was a handsome, young man who enjoyed the dating scene in the upscale area that he frequented. 4 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.