S01.E01: From The Ashes Of Tragedy

[RemoteControlFreak]

 It was a circus all right--the biggest one in U.S. history until OJ came along.   

If we're rating circus-like trials in U.S. history, you have to go further back than Manson. How about Tennessee v. Scopes for starters?

[Ms Blue Jay]

Thank you so much for all the book recommendations (which is why I tried to "like" most or all of them).

Edited February 4, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[ghoulina]

For some reason I thought this was coming out later this year, so I'm glad I stumbled across a later showing and was able to DVR it. I'm in, I'm entirely in. I was a freshman in high school when the murders happened; I believe a sophmore when the verdict was given. I remember watching it come in on TV in our economics or world history class. But I was young and wrapped up in a million other things, so I didn't follow the case regularly. Now I am someone who loves crime stories - true and fictional - so I've been very interested to finally learn more about this case. I really appreciate all the book recommendations as well, because I'd like to get a deeper insight. I think I'd especially like to read Bugliosi's; Helter Skelter was my first true crime novel. 

 

The casting is hit or miss with me. I think Paulson, Vance, and Brown are killing it. Selma Blair was a surprise, but struck me as just perfect. Travolta is a hot mess and I can't stop looking at his crazy, plastic face. I'm not loving Schwimmer. Contrary to others, all *I* do see is Ross. Not loving Cuba either. I've just, honestly, never cared for him as an actor; I've always found him way too over the top. When his voice cracks, it really takes me out of the moment. But there have been a few moments where he terrified me, so I'll give him time to possibly grow on me. 

 

I also agree that the Kardashian references are intentional and OTT. "This is Kimmy's room!" Oh please. Ridiculous. 

 

Anyhow, I'm thrilled with this forum because a lot of you know a lot more about this case than I do, so it's been nice to be able to read through the posts and glean how accurate this all is. I'm one of those endlessly naive people who still gets outraged about miscarriages of justice, even though they happen every day. So there will be a lot of me yelling at the TV, trying to figure out how they could have ever acquitted this dude. It's really unfortunate that the political climate of the time cause the Browns and Goldmans to basically be victimized all over again. 

[AndySmith]

I also agree that the Kardashian references are intentional and OTT. "This is Kimmy's room!" Oh please. Ridiculous.

 

Maybe we'll get a scene of Lil' Kanye watching the trial?

[lovinbob]

I'm going to try to word this correctly and hopefully it makes sense. I also am not trying to be offensive and hope no one is offended by this:

I was in middle school when the trial happened and while I remember plenty & I've read some books about the case, I don't remember Robert Shapiro's mannerisms, etc. The way Travolta is playing him in this role reads to me as an actor "playing the role gay," if that makes sense - like the actor decided himself on the character's bio/backstory & that the character is gay and he is playing the character with hand/arm gestures/movements etc that we often see used to present stereotypical gay characters in film/TV/plays/etc. Robert Shapiro was straight, so I'm not sure why an actor would chose to play this character of a well-known straight person as gay. Was Shapiro a straight man who just had mannerisms that the media often uses when portraying stereotypical gay men? Or is Travolta really that bad of an actor these days?

 

I guess I'm the party of one who doesn't hate Travolta's portrayal. I don't see Travolta as acting stereotypically gay; I'd call it "mannered." I don't have any memory of how Shapiro behaved other than he did appear to be a fairly vain Hollywood type—I don't think you end up an attorney to the stars without being a little full of yourself. I think Travolta is doing a good job of contributing to the circus atmosphere. Right now (in the story) OJ's legal team/strategy is a mess. I didn't realize Robert Kardashian actually had to renew his license to get on the team! You can see how Johnnie Cochrane is going to prove himself necessary and end up being OJ's savior.

[poeticlicensed]

I just wanted to say that almost all of the books mentioned by posters on this forum are still available at your local library.

 

I agree, with the exception of OJ's If I Did it. I'm a librarian, and this book caused a furor in the library community when it was published. Many librarians refused to buy it for their collections, as they felt that acquiring it would be financially supporting a murderer. So it's kind of hit or miss with that one. Many of the other titles were widely acquired by libraries, based on the public interest in the case. 

[Slider]

 

I just wanted to say that almost all of the books mentioned by posters on this forum are still available at your local library.

 

That's where I went to get a copy of the "Morally Corrupt" (tm Housewives) Faye Resnick's book.  I didn't want her to get another dime just because I wanted to skim through the trash she wrote.  I'm on a hold list to get Darden's book, and I'm about to add a bunch more; thanks for the recommendations everyone!

[vibeology]

I also agree that the Kardashian references are intentional and OTT. "This is Kimmy's room!" Oh please. Ridiculous. 

 

I didn't mind either mention. The first at the funeral was clearly about establishing to the audience who Selma Blair was in as quick a manner as possible. I don't think it was the most believable moment (those girls were friendly with the Simpson kids and I don't think at their age they'd been running around wildly while their friends mom was in a casket a few feet away) but it quickly established Kris. 

 

The second mention above was far more realistic for me. Bob was trying to stop his friend from committing suicide. That her tried to personalize the moment to snap OJ out of shooting himself was something I could easily see a person do. Reminding OJ that the room he was in belonged to a real young person who OJ cared about could have snapped him out of killing himself.

 

I was 8-9 when all of this took place. I used to get home from school on the East Coast and watch the afternoon of the trial every single day. I admired Marsha Clarke as a woman who was in court against all those men. I also remember thinking Johnnie Cochrane was my favourite defense lawyer because he seemed to be the most interesting. I can imagine how a jury was swayed to listen to his points. I'm looking forward to this because at 8, I know some of this went right over my head, even though I do remember all the names, the timeline and some details. For example, how did Kato know OJ Simpson? Why was he living in his guest house? It never occurred to me to wonder at the time, but that dumb stoner kid was friends with the Simpsons? Why?

[partofme]

I just wanted to say that almost all of the books mentioned by posters on this forum are still available at your local library.

 

Well in ebook format, which is the only format I read these days unless it's a book that I have to get out immediately, the only one the NYPL has is the one this show is based on.  I have it on hold but was disappointed they didn't have any of the others.  I really wanted to read "His Name Is Ron".

[suomi]

This is my favorite Bugliosi analogy:

 

“I think that counsels’ problem is that they misconceive what circumstantial evidence is all about. Circumstantial evidence is not, as they claim, like a chain. You could have a chain spanning the Atlantic Ocean from Nova Scotia to Bordeaux, France, consisting of millions of links, and with one weak link that chain is broken.

 

“Circumstantial evidence to the contrary, is like a rope. And each fact is a strand of that rope. And as the prosecution piles one fact upon another we add strands and we add strength to that rope. If one strand breaks – and I’m not conceding for one moment that any strand has broken in this case – but if one strand does break, the rope is not broken. The strength of the rope is barely diminished. Why? Because there are so many other strands of almost steel-like strength that the rope is still more than strong enough to bind these two defendants to justice. That’s what circumstantial evidence is all about.”

 

He cut and polished this one specifically for the Simpson trial:

 

“I wonder if any of you folks have read Victor Hugo’s account of the octopus. He tells us of how it doesn’t have any beak to defend itself like a bird, no claws like a lion, nor teeth like an alligator. But it does have what could be called an ink bag, and to protect itself when it is attacked it lets out a dark fluid from this bag, thus making all of the surrounding water dark and murky, enabling the octopus to escape into the darkness.

 

“Now I ask you folks, is there any similarity between that description of the ink bag of the octopus and the defense in this case? Has the defense shown you any real, valid, legitimate defense reasonably based on the evidence, or has it sought to employ the ink bag of the octopus, and by making everything dark around Mr. Simpson, tried to let him escape into the darkness.

 

“I intend to clear up the water which defense counsel have sought to muddy, so that you folks can clearly see the evidence, the facts, the issues in this case, so that you can behold the form of the retreating octopus and bring this defendant back to face justice.”

Edited February 4, 2016 by suomi

[AndySmith]

The first at the funeral was clearly about establishing to the audience who Selma Blair was in as quick a manner as possible

 

They could have just had one character or random extras or whoever see her from across the room and ask someone else "Hey, isn't that Kris Jenner, Robert's ex-wife?" or something. No need to name her kids.

[lovinbob]

They could have just had one character or random extras or whoever see her from across the room and ask someone else "Hey, isn't that Kris Jenner, Robert's ex-wife?" or something. No need to name her kids.

 How is that less awkward than name-dropping the kids?

[larapu2000]

That's where I went to get a copy of the "Morally Corrupt" (tm Housewives) Faye Resnick's book.  I didn't want her to get another dime just because I wanted to skim through the trash she wrote.  I'm on a hold list to get Darden's book, and I'm about to add a bunch more; thanks for the recommendations everyone!

Uh, I wouldn't want anyone to misquote a Housewife, but I believe it's the "Morally Bankrupt" Faye Resnick.  (LOL)

 

Okay, who posted those links to the depositions?  My boss is angry with you, because my productivity has been about a zero since then.  Fascinating stuff.  My favorite part so far is when Kato is describing the trip to McDonald's to OJ, making sure everyone is aware he's not a fan of McD's, and then how OJ eats the entire Big Mac in like, seconds, and one of the lawyers repeats that and there's a blurb of "Mr. Simpson:  Oh, God."  It's the most sympathetic thing about him in those depositions, the idea that he's embarrassed that he could wolf a sandwich that quickly.

[AndySmith]

How is that less awkward than name-dropping the kids?

 

The kids wouldn't be name dropped? I mean, if they're that bound and determined that they need to let us know THIS IS KRIS JENNER EVERYONE!!!, no need to name drop the other Ks in the family.

Edited February 4, 2016 by AndySmith

[ghoulina]

I guess I'm the party of one who doesn't hate Travolta's portrayal.

 

I actually don't think his acting, itself, is problematic - it's his appearance. His face is like a wax doll. It's very unnatural and disconcerting, and I find myself focusing more on how he looks than what he's saying. 

 

. For example, how did Kato know OJ Simpson? Why was he living in his guest house? It never occurred to me to wonder at the time, but that dumb stoner kid was friends with the Simpsons? Why?

 

LOL, I want to know this as well. I was almost twice your age during the trial, but I probably didn't know much more about it. I remember all the Kato jokes, but watching this now, it really strikes me as odd that there's this spaced out, surfer looking dude living with the wealthy pro-football player. 

 

They could have just had one character or random extras or whoever see her from across the room and ask someone else "Hey, isn't that Kris Jenner, Robert's ex-wife?" or something. No need to name her kids.

 

 

I agree. At the time, the kids were not noteworthy. Dropping their names twice in the first episode just seems intentional and pandering. 

[Princess Sparkle]

I was a little hesitant to watch, since Ryan Murphy has disappointed me so many times in the past, but I really, really enjoyed this.  I was riveted for the entire time, and I'm liking everyone's portrayals, even if the makeup on John Travolta is distracting.  I wasn't entirely sold on Cuba Gooding Jr in the first scene, because the voice was just so off, but when he started letting loose later, I totally bought into his casting as OJ.  I'm just keeping my fingers crossed that since it's based off a true story, Ryan Murphy can't go all..."Ryan Murphy" with it.  

Edited February 4, 2016 by Princess Sparkle

[SFoster21]

I didn't mind either mention. The first at the funeral was clearly about establishing to the audience who Selma Blair was in as quick a manner as possible. I don't think it was the most believable moment (those girls were friendly with the Simpson kids and I don't think at their age they'd been running around wildly while their friends mom was in a casket a few feet away) but it quickly established Kris.

The second mention above was far more realistic for me. Bob was trying to stop his friend from committing suicide. That her tried to personalize the moment to snap OJ out of shooting himself was something I could easily see a person do. Reminding OJ that the room he was in belonged to a real young person who OJ cared about could have snapped him out of killing himself.

I was 8-9 when all of this took place. I used to get home from school on the East Coast and watch the afternoon of the trial every single day. I admired Marsha Clarke as a woman who was in court against all those men. I also remember thinking Johnnie Cochrane was my favourite defense lawyer because he seemed to be the most interesting. I can imagine how a jury was swayed to listen to his points. I'm looking forward to this because at 8, I know some of this went right over my head, even though I do remember all the names, the timeline and some details. For example, how did Kato know OJ Simpson? Why was he living in his guest house? It never occurred to me to wonder at the time, but that dumb stoner kid was friends with the Simpsons? Why?

IIRC, Kato was a baby sitter for Nicole. OJ, in his controlling way, offered his guesthouse to K in exchange for some duties, some think to piss on Nicole. He was not friendly to or friends with Kato, which is why the murder night visit to McDonald's seemed odd to K.

[absnow54]

They're going to have to add an "Actor looking exceedingly worried to be in this mini-series or made for television movie" award for the next Emmy's between all of David Schwimmer's concerned terror and Paul Dano's utter confusion throughout the War and Peace adaptation.

 

The Kardashian pandering didn't annoy me too much, but it definitely took me out of each scene. Like is it really important to know that Robert Kardashian was divorced other than to give the audience context about Kris already being a Jenner, or to know that Selma Blair is KRIS JENNER and not just one of Nicole's friends who was aware of Nicole's abuse (like I had no idea who Connie Britton was supposed to be playing, but I understood her role,) or the fact that OJ was in KIMMY'S room when in any other show "not my daughter's room" would have been enough.

 

I don't know how I feel about John Travolta's performance, but watching him go up and down the hall while twisting his entire body because he seemingly had no range of motion in his neck dramatically calling out "Juice" was a highlight for me.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I LOVE Vincent Bugliosi! Or I should say, loved, may he rest in peace.  I saw Helter Skelter first, then read his book; amazing book. The movie scared the bejesus out of me-I swear when I first saw it, I really thought those three women were the actual Manson's women and not actresses.

 

Let me say that I hate anything Kardashian--don't watch their shows, don't give a fuck about them; That said, I didn't have a problem with the call out to Khloe and Kourtney?  I thought Selma looked eerily like Kris, before Kris botoxed her face so that's it resembles a Joker mask. And the only way I know that is because of that clip above-the interview with Barbara Walters.

 

All I knew of Cochran at the time, was that he was Michael Jackson's attorney.  The only name that was familiar to me was F. Lee Bailey.  It's too bad that E.G. Marshall is gone; he would have been perfect to play Bailey. Okay, he would have been waaaay too old, but for a long time, I always got the two confused, they looked so much alike! 

 

Anyway, I know the actual trial was a mess; that Ito was an incompetent boob-you couldn't get away from how he was mocked on late night.  But since this series is more about what happened behind the scenes that the public wasn't privy to, I will admit, I am now interested to see that play out.  And I know I'll be wondering "is that how it really happened?" because well, we didn't see that stuff.

[TV Diva Queen]

Sorry to be nitpicky, but it's still wrong. His name is Al Cowlings, or AC. No one called him AC Cowlings.

My husband called him that when AC walked in OJ's door last night.  So someone calls him AC Cowlings.  

[Dejana]

The Kardashian pandering didn't annoy me too much, but it definitely took me out of each scene. Like is it really important to know that Robert Kardashian was divorced other than to give the audience context about Kris already being a Jenner, or to know that Selma Blair is KRIS JENNER and not just one of Nicole's friends who was aware of Nicole's abuse (like I had no idea who Connie Britton was supposed to be playing, but I understood her role,) or the fact that OJ was in KIMMY'S room when in any other show "not my daughter's room" would have been enough.

No spoilers, but there's probably going to be a scene where Robert and Kris argue about the case, possibly as the kids overhear. Sure, OJ had a Dream Team and Nicole had more than one friend, but how many other OJ lawyers and Nicole BFFS were a divorced couple on opposing sides, in the thick of the Trial of the Century? It was a pretty dramatic scenario that might have been exploited (to a lesser degree, granted) even if the Kardashians hadn't gone on to notoriety.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Dejana

[poeticlicensed]

If we're rating circus-like trials in U.S. history, you have to go further back than Manson. How about Tennessee v. Scopes for starters?

The Lindbergh baby also. That was a circus. 

What about Lizzie Borden?

 

Honestly I don't think Katrina will get the ratings that this season will. As others have noted, it's intersection of Hollywood, fame, money sex, race. Katrina was an epic failure on a lot of levels, but there is nothing salacious about it, other than the govt being ill prepared and frankly, not making the people affercted a priorty because they were black and poor

I didn't mind either mention. The first at the funeral was clearly about establishing to the audience who Selma Blair was in as quick a manner as possible. I don't think it was the most believable moment (those girls were friendly with the Simpson kids and I don't think at their age they'd been running around wildly while their friends mom was in a casket a few feet away) but it quickly established Kris. 

 

The second mention above was far more realistic for me. Bob was trying to stop his friend from committing suicide. That her tried to personalize the moment to snap OJ out of shooting himself was something I could easily see a person do. Reminding OJ that the room he was in belonged to a real young person who OJ cared about could have snapped him out of killing himself.

 

I was 8-9 when all of this took place. I used to get home from school on the East Coast and watch the afternoon of the trial every single day. I admired Marsha Clarke as a woman who was in court against all those men. I also remember thinking Johnnie Cochrane was my favourite defense lawyer because he seemed to be the most interesting. I can imagine how a jury was swayed to listen to his points. I'm looking forward to this because at 8, I know some of this went right over my head, even though I do remember all the names, the timeline and some details. For example, how did Kato know OJ Simpson? Why was he living in his guest house? It never occurred to me to wonder at the time, but that dumb stoner kid was friends with the Simpsons? Why?

Drugs, maybe? They tend to make strange bedfellows. 

[ghoulina]

IIRC, Kato was a baby sitter for Nicole.

 

Whoa, I'm going to stop you right there. Babysitter??? I really need to know what qualifications Kato Kaelin has to watch someone's kids. Damn, that made me chuckle. 

[BW Manilowe]

Here's another book people might wanna look into, especially anyone who believes OJ is (somehow) actually innocent of the murders--other than just because that's what the jury found.

O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It by William Dear. Published in 2012.

Dear has been studying/following the case all this time & claims to have the murder weapon & other evidence which he says will exonerate OJ of involvement in the killings.

I posted about this in the Media thread--so if you're interested, you can go read the source article, from The Hollywood Reporter, I linked to there--because this guy, a PI in Dallas, has been shopping around a proposal for a multipart miniseries based on his book in Hollywood & he's being aided in this by legendary actor Martin Sheen. I wanted to get the name of the book & author over here too, since some posts here are recommending books related to the case.

The guy's probably a crackpot, but I also wanted to bring this up because there are at least 2 sides to every story so I thought I'd mention this in that spirit, if you will.

Edited February 4, 2016 by BW Manilowe

[Umbelina]

I'm only tagging stuff because I'm a bit unsure of both the forum rules, AND of what may be shown in the future on this show.  If you have any questions, in the media thread I've posted the deposition links, and I can answer questions there, since I'm almost through all of them now.

Are there really people today though, who still believe OJ was innocent?

Yes, there are.

The conviction in civil court after changed some minds.

<snip>

I do remember all the names, the timeline and some details. For example, how did Kato know OJ Simpson? Why was he living in his guest house? It never occurred to me to wonder at the time, but that dumb stoner kid was friends with the Simpsons? Why?

Actually he was NIcole's friend. 

They met casually through friends/parties, and then met again, through friends at Nicole's house, same type of thing.  They hit it off as friends.  Kato jokingly suggested moving into her guest house because he loved her place, and Nicole said "sure."  He was shocked, checked back the next day and they worked out an arrangement.  Kato had a daughter as well.  Anyway, he moved in to her guesthouse in the back for $500 a month, and sporadic babysitting for her, a bit less per month when he did more babysitting. 

 

He became really close with Nicole, bonding mostly through their children.  She began to confide in him, at one point telling him she thought she was falling in love with him.  He didn't have romantic feelings for her, and though it was a bit awkward, they got back to their "just pals" thing.  OJ didn't like having a man live at Nicole's place, and eventually offered him a rent free place at Rockingham, and Kato said sure, it had a pool, and no rent.  They were in no way friends, didn't hang out at all until the night of the murders.  Nicole was very upset that Kato left, telling him OJ bought and took away all her friends, she was very cool to him after that.

 

I know they painted him as a drug dealer, but I really don't think he was, not now.  His deposition was very believable to me (the civil case deposition.)  My overall feeling was that he has a learning disability that's not uncommon.  If given time to think and form his thoughts he sounds quite reasonable and very believable, but when "on the spot, rapid fire" his brain freezes up.  He said in the deposition he'd never taken drugs in his life, and he wasn't a drinker either.

 

Not sure if I need to spoiler tag any of that from the pinnned rules, but did, just in case.  Not really show spoilers I don't think.

 

Uh, I wouldn't want anyone to misquote a Housewife, but I believe it's the "Morally Bankrupt" Faye Resnick.  (LOL)

 

Okay, who posted those links to the depositions?  My boss is angry with you, because my productivity has been about a zero since then.  Fascinating stuff.  My favorite part so far is when Kato is describing the trip to McDonald's to OJ, making sure everyone is aware he's not a fan of McD's, and then how OJ eats the entire Big Mac in like, seconds, and one of the lawyers repeats that and there's a blurb of "Mr. Simpson:  Oh, God."  It's the most sympathetic thing about him in those depositions, the idea that he's embarrassed that he could wolf a sandwich that quickly.

Ha!  We have a thread in RHBH where we are discussing Marcus Allen's wife Kathryn (and new member this year, gee, wonder why?) and also The Morally Corrupt Faye Resnick, you may want to check it out. 

 

That was me, and thanks.  Yes, I haven't been getting to bed at a reasonable time all week, because I've become obsessed with those wonderful depositions, SO much more informative than the criminal trial testimony! 

No crappy judge shutting everything down, or grandstanding, Ito you asshole.

 

ETA, not sure these spoiler tags are working, drat, they are tagged correctly, but?

Also, betterworldbooks.com or abesbooks has a lot of the books about the OJ trial too, good prices, used.  I also read Bugliosi's and was it Garcetti?  Some name like that on the prosecution side...I'm blanking.

 

ETA, trying to fix tags again.  They just aren't working completely.  Sorry mods, the HTML is correct, but they are partially showing, at least to me. 

Edited February 4, 2016 by aethera
We fixed your tags :)

[Umbelina]

My husband called him that when AC walked in OJ's door last night.  So someone calls him AC Cowlings.  

He was usually called A.C.  For Allen Cowlings.  OJ sometimes called him Allen.  No one really called him AC Cowlings since the C is for Cowlings, but it makes it clearer, so in the trial and press he was called that. 

 

His deposition kind of broke my heart a bit, showing not only the different ways men relate to each other from women, but also, I really believe the man lived in denial.  I believe he loved Nicole, not sexually, but as a person, and I believe her death was devastating for him, on many levels.  At one point in his deposition he bursts out unprompted, saying that if he had known she was being beaten or called names, even by OJ, he would have stopped it.  I think the evidence he saw during the deposition, especially her diary, just wrecked him.  His "don't interfere in a marriage" was falling apart during that deposition.

[Milk-Eyed Mender]

They're going to have to add an "Actor looking exceedingly worried to be in this mini-series or made for television movie" award for the next Emmy's between all of David Schwimmer's concerned terror and Paul Dano's utter confusion throughout the War and Peace adaptation.

LOL, now I have to watch War and Peace! I think Schwimmer captures Kardashian's "concerned terror" perfectly. Robert Kardashian from 1994 onward always appeared somewhere between shell-shocked and on the verge of losing his lunch. At the time I also found him to be one of the least slimy, most dignified characters from Simpson's inner circle/legal team (which may not be saying much). It still amazes me that three of the famiest famewhores to ever famewhore sprung from his loins.

[Umbelina]

LOL, now I have to watch War and Peace! I think Schwimmer captures Kardashian's "concerned terror" perfectly. Robert Kardashian from 1994 onward always appeared somewhere between shell-shocked and on the verge of losing his lunch. At the time I also found him to be one of the least slimy, most dignified characters from Simpson's inner circle/legal team (which may not be saying much). It still amazes me that three of the famiest famewhores to ever famewhore sprung from his loins.

I agree.

 

I wasn't a huge "Friends" fan, so maybe that's why.  He's completely caught the deer-in-headlights/ what the hell is going on vibe I felt from him the whole time, from the car chase through the trial, and he was the person OJ stayed with before the Bronco fiasco.  I really wish he'd let OJ shoot himself, but oh well.

 

I also really didn't mind the way they established Kris in the part, or the mention of Kimmy's bedroom (which did happen.)  It didn't strike me as pandering, and I can't stand the Kardashian's either.  In addition, Kris ended up at the center of the whole Faye/Hilton/Kris/ (etc) contingent of the "friends of" that believed OJ did it side. 

[psychoticstate]

See that is what bugs me about the oj verdict. People think the black jurors would have acquitted anyway. i know one juror basically stated this but there were 11 others, 8 of them black and I believe they were acting in good faith.

I don't get your speculation point. Both sides speculated as to what happened, and provided evidence to support their speculations.

I think oj did it but the verdict was reasonable because the defense raised reasonable doubt based on the specifics of the case, and not on systemic racism in the LAPD.

I agree that the jury, regardless of makeup, would have acquitted. They had their bags packed before beginning deliberations so they had no intent of spending much time deliberating guilt or innocence. I think they were also afraid of riots, given what had happened in LA 2 years prior. Furthermore, one member of the jury stated afterward that they did not understand the DNA evidence and so tossed it out when deliberating.

That is galling and shocking. The DNA evidence should have closed the case up. How can Simpson (or anyone) explain how Ron Goldman's blood got in his Bronco? Sure, they can come up with some tale about how Nicole's blood got there; they were married, had children, blah, blah, blah. But Simpson had no previous connection with Ron. And Simpson's blood from the crime scene to the street and then from his Bronco to his front door? And a serious and deep cut to his left hand - - matching evidence at Bundy - - that he could not explain?

Judge Ito didn't help matters either. He was a p*ssy and awestruck with celebrity. Who else would have a VIP section in their courtroom and court the media? He also allowed things into evidence that had no place there, like race. These murders had zero to do with race. Zero. It was domestic violence, plain and simple.

As far as reasonable doubt, I disagree. I think the defense threw everything they could at the wall to see what would stick. It made no sense to me that the same cops that were invited over to Simpson's to hang out and who walked away after numerous domestic violence calls would then plot to frame him. It was pure speculation with no basis and to me, it shows the defense was more desperate than crafty. Simpson had no alibi, he had a history of domestic abuse and things were tense between him and Nicole at the time she was killed - - so blame the police for planting evidence.

That's not to say that the prosecutors did a flawless job. They abandoned Fuhrman on the stand when they should have stuck behind him and proven how impossible it would be for him to conspire (along with two other detectives he had never worked directly with before) to frame Simpson. (And why would he have done this? At that point, none of the detectives knew where Simpson was or what his alibi might have been.) They dropped Jill Shively like a hot potato once she sold her story to the Enquirer. Shouldn't have mattered; she still saw Simpson racing from Nicole's condo at the time of the murders. They also kept people on the stand too long - - the DNA expert should have been there for a day, not five.

Regardless, Simpson's acquittal is one of the worst miscarriages of justice I've heard.

But about the show - - I was worried when I saw Ryan Murphy's name attached but I thought the first episode was done well.

[Carolina Girl]

I never said he admitted to planting evidence in the OJ trial. I was referring to the furman tapes where I thought he did. If he didn't specifically say planting evidence, he admitted to police misconduct so egregious towards blacks that the defense could conceivably and reasonably argue that the glove was planted by him.

It's been 20 years so the planting evidence detail might be technically wrong but all the other other admissions of racially motives police misconduct in the furman tapes were just as damning. Not just because of the racism but because Furhman admitted to breaking the law as a cop.

 

What "Furman tapes" are these?  I've never heard of them.

[BitterApple]

I agree that by the end of the trial, the jury was fed up, over it and wanted to go home. I just remember feeling so horribly for Ron Goldman Sr. and Kim Goldman after the verdict was read. They were completely shattered and it was painful to watch.

[Umbelina]

What "Furman tapes" are these?  I've never heard of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuhrman_tapes (The pinned post says we aren't supposed to get ahead of the show here, so I'm trying!)

 

Basically Fuhrman was taping with an author about a crime book.  He used the n-word and talked about police planting evidence, and other typical crime novel stuff.  The prosecution used that to as evidence he was a "liar" for saying he never used the N-word.  His book is good.  His position was that using in in a fiction story does not mean he would use it in real life.  Cochran tore him apart.

[BW Manilowe]

I agree that by the end of the trial, the jury was fed up, over it and wanted to go home. I just remember feeling so horribly for Ron Goldman Sr. and Kim Goldman after the verdict was read. They were completely shattered and it was painful to watch.

Ron & Kim Goldman's dad is named Fred, not Ron, Sr. Robert Kardashian's the figure in the case with a namesake son.

[Carolina Girl]

Ito, Clark, Darden, et al were woefully unprepared for the reality of trying the case against Cochran with his flair for the dramatic and playing to not only the jury but the worldwide TV audience. 

I agree with Bugliosi about the bumbling of the case by the DA's office., though convicting Charles Manson is a lot easier than convicting OJ Simpson.  Bugliosi had a great track record but there was never anything like the televised circus of the Simpson trial with the combination of celebrity and race played out on live TV.

 

And that's where brilliant prosecutorial ability comes in.  For Bugliosi, he had NO physical evidence against Manson, but literally had to weave a rope of circumstantial evidence to hang him with - in fact, he admits in "Helter Skelter" that prior to the start of the trial, most criminal lawyers thought his case against Manson was so weak that it would be dismissed after the prosecution rested.

Edited February 4, 2016 by aethera
Fixed the quoting issues, I think. Let me know if not!

[reggiejax]

I agree with Bugliosi about the bumbling of the case by the DA's office., though convicting Charles Manson is a lot easier than convicting OJ Simpson.  Bugliosi had a great track record but there was never anything like the televised circus of the Simpson trial with the combination of celebrity and race played out on live TV.

 

That Manson was easier to convict than OJ is only true in the literal sense. Manson was convicted, OJ was not. But in truth, the case against Manson was much harder to prove than the one against OJ.

 

It is a common remark about the Manson case that it couldn't have been that hard to convict him. After all, he's Charles Manson, he's nuttier than a fruitcake. But Manson wasn't on trial for being crazy. He was on trial for murder. Conspiracy to murder to be exact. Even a prosecutor as lame as Marcia Clark or Christopher Darden will tell you that conspiracy is one of the harder charges to obtain a conviction on. But conspiracy was what Bugliosi had to work with if he wanted to put Manson away for good. Manson, as his imbecilic acolytes like to mention at every turn, didn't kill any of these people. And with exception of tying up the LaBiancas, and then leaving them, he was not even at the scene of the crime. Definitely not present at the time the murders were committed. Bugliosi had to prove that Charles Manson, who spent the trial in "Crazy Charlie" mode (karma dancing, spouting gibberish, and basically being a nuisance in court), was able to exert such complete control over his fellow defendants to the point that they would commit murder for him.

 

When it came to OJ, as Bugliosi so expertly put it, you couldn't gift wrap a more damning case against him. In a bit of braggadocio, (the type that Bugliosi detractors liked to call him on), Bugliosi claimed in Outrage that the case was so damning that he could have convicted OJ based on OJ's initial interview with the police, all by itself. Granted, that is boasting of the highest order, but the overall point stands. OJ Simpson should have been convicted, and it should not have been all that hard. A bad judge, a worse jury, and most of all, prosecutorial incompetence of the worst kind gave us the exact opposite.

 

The funny part is, in the show, we are shown Marcia Clark being incredibly critical of the police while she listens to the tape of OJ's interview. This was clearly the first of what no doubt will be many obstacles shown to be in Clark's way. Never mind that OJ was tripping all over himself in that interview, and exhibiting guilty behavior, and more importantly, telling provable lie after provable lie. But I guess we have to be shown Clark being dismissive of the interview, because incredibly it was not introduced at trial by the prosecution. A very costly blunder. But I guess we can't have our heroine looking as stupid as she did in real life.

 

I know it sounds like I hate Marcia Clark, but I don't. But this was a miscarriage of justice, and I am of the mind that it all comes back to the prosecutor. Bad judges, dumb juries, and unscrupulous defense attorneys are all things a prosecutor has to deal with. The OJ case was not special in those regards. That Clark puts the blame anywhere else than on her shoulders, is unconscionable.

 

I'll say one thing positive about Marcia Clark, if she really did have a Jim Morrison poster framed in her office, then she went up a bit in my book.

[lovinbob]

He was usually called A.C.  For Allen Cowlings.  OJ sometimes called him Allen.  No one really called him AC Cowlings since the C is for Cowlings, but it makes it clearer, so in the trial and press he was called that. 

I remember him being called Al Cowlings.

 

I'm not a mod, so it's probably none of my business, but shouldn't this thread be dedicated to discussion of the episode? There is a thread for the actual case here. Nobody's talking in it yet, but it seems like a lot of this discussion belongs there.

[Umbelina]

I remember him being called Al Cowlings.

 

I'm not a mod, so it's probably none of my business, but shouldn't this thread be dedicated to discussion of the episode? There is a thread for the actual case here. Nobody's talking in it yet, but it seems like a lot of this discussion belongs there.

Agree! 

 

Sorry for my part, and I completely missed that thread, so thanks!

[TV Diva Queen]

I'm 51 - and was glued to the TV when this was playing out live.  Kris Kardashian Jenner was a very good friend of Nicole and I have NO PROBLEM with her saying her kids name in the Chapel.  None.  

 

/small voice here....I think Travolta is doing an OK Shapiro.  Bob really wasn't that charismatic, all he wanted was fame.  

 

I know where I"ll be on Tuesday nights for the next 9 weeks.  So far, so good.  

[RemoteControlFreak]

I agree. At the time, the kids were not noteworthy. Dropping their names twice in the first episode just seems intentional and pandering. 

Right. And it assumes that the viewer would be able to identify that the woman as Kris Jenner and Robert Kardashian's ex-wife merely by her yelling to her kids by name at a funeral.  Also, who yells across a church at a funeral?

I agree that the jury, regardless of makeup, would have acquitted. They had their bags packed before beginning deliberations so they had no intent of spending much time deliberating guilt or innocence. I think they were also afraid of riots, given what had happened in LA 2 years prior. Furthermore, one member of the jury stated afterward that they did not understand the DNA evidence and so tossed it out when deliberating.

That is galling and shocking. The DNA evidence should have closed the case up. How can Simpson (or anyone) explain how Ron Goldman's blood got in his Bronco? Sure, they can come up with some tale about how Nicole's blood got there; they were married, had children, blah, blah, blah. But Simpson had no previous connection with Ron. And Simpson's blood from the crime scene to the street and then from his Bronco to his front door? And a serious and deep cut to his left hand - - matching evidence at Bundy - - that he could not explain?

The defense all but outright stated that the police planted the blood evidence.  

 

The jury was far too unsophisticated to grasp what DNA was, let alone understand the complex testimony about it.

That Manson was easier to convict than OJ is only true in the literal sense. Manson was convicted, OJ was not. But in truth, the case against Manson was much harder to prove than the one against OJ.

Absolutely true, which makes the acquittal of Simpson all the more galling.

Edited February 4, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[psychoticstate]

I guess I'm the party of one who doesn't hate Travolta's portrayal. I don't see Travolta as acting stereotypically gay; I'd call it "mannered." I don't have any memory of how Shapiro behaved other than he did appear to be a fairly vain Hollywood type—I don't think you end up an attorney to the stars without being a little full of yourself. I think Travolta is doing a good job of contributing to the circus atmosphere. Right now (in the story) OJ's legal team/strategy is a mess. I didn't realize Robert Kardashian actually had to renew his license to get on the team! You can see how Johnnie Cochrane is going to prove himself necessary and end up being OJ's savior.

 

Add me to your party.  I find Travolta's performance fascinating.  I would never have pegged him to play Shapiro but I think he's got his slick moves down pat.  I can't wait to see him object to Cochran's decision to play the race card (dealing from the bottom of the deck, for sure.)

 

I agree, with the exception of OJ's If I Did it. I'm a librarian, and this book caused a furor in the library community when it was published. Many librarians refused to buy it for their collections, as they felt that acquiring it would be financially supporting a murderer. So it's kind of hit or miss with that one. Many of the other titles were widely acquired by libraries, based on the public interest in the case.

 

I bought this book because the Goldman family acquired rights to it.  So any proceeds do not go to the killer, they go toward the judgment he owes the Goldmans.

 

And it's a mindblowing look into the mind of a narcissistic fuckwit.  What innocent person would even entertain the idea of speculating how it went down if they did it?  No one.  This is Simpson pretty much admitting his guilt.  The only difference is that I don't think there was anyone else with him.  Just him deciding that if he couldn't have Nicole, no one would.  And poor Ron, showing up at the wrong time and trying to defend her. 

[ghoulina]

I agree that by the end of the trial, the jury was fed up, over it and wanted to go home.

 

Not to get too off topic, but I feel like that is the case in a lot of cases - both where widely believed innocent men are convicted and widely believed guilty men are acquitted. It seems like after a lengthy, ghastly, and/or confusing trial, jurors just want to go home. So they might easily give into the other side, even if they don't agree. Or they just might not even care. I don't know what can be done, but I feel somehow the system has to adjust somehow, to prevent this from happening. It's just not fair that killers walk free and innocent men rot in jail because someone was too tired to take the case seriously.

[mytmo]

Removed because I'm quote challenged and I reposted

Edited February 5, 2016 by mytmo

[poeticlicensed]

Add me to your party.  I find Travolta's performance fascinating.  I would never have pegged him to play Shapiro but I think he's got his slick moves down pat.  I can't wait to see him object to Cochran's decision to play the race card (dealing from the bottom of the deck, for sure.)

 

 

I bought this book because the Goldman family acquired rights to it.  So any proceeds do not go to the killer, they go toward the judgment he owes the Goldmans.

 

And it's a mindblowing look into the mind of a narcissistic fuckwit.  What innocent person would even entertain the idea of speculating how it went down if they did it?  No one.  This is Simpson pretty much admitting his guilt.  The only difference is that I don't think there was anyone else with him.  Just him deciding that if he couldn't have Nicole, no one would.  And poor Ron, showing up at the wrong time and trying to defend her. 

Yes, once the Goldmans got the rights, many libraries went ahead and ordered it. 

[poeticlicensed]

Not to get too off topic, but I feel like that is the case in a lot of cases - both where widely believed innocent men are convicted and widely believed guilty men are acquitted. It seems like after a lengthy, ghastly, and/or confusing trial, jurors just want to go home. So they might easily give into the other side, even if they don't agree. Or they just might not even care. I don't know what can be done, but I feel somehow the system has to adjust somehow, to prevent this from happening. It's just not fair that killers walk free and innocent men rot in jail because someone was too tired to take the case seriously.

This is what gets me about this case. I have been on juries, and I have to say, that most jurors take the job very seriously. They know that someone's life is hanging in the balance. The last case I served on was an attempted murder trial. For days after it was over I couldn't stop thinking about it and replayed it over and over in my brain, wanting to assure myself that we (the jury) did the right thing. And we weren't even divided as a jury. There have actually been studies done where they look at the effects on jury service and it seems that most people had a similar experience. But then again, I have never been sequestered and for months. Plus remember that every time there are motions or a lengthy sidebar, the jury has to get up and leave. It's incredibly boring and frustrating because as a juror you have no idea what's going on, you just have to wait outside. I can  imagine they were done and over it. I think the length of the trial was one of factors in the verdict. It's supposed to be speedy. Didn't it take months? That's crazy. 

[SFoster21]

Whoa, I'm going to stop you right there. Babysitter??? I really need to know what qualifications Kato Kaelin has to watch someone's kids. Damn, that made me chuckle.

My daughter babysat from the time she was twelve. Small children just need someone to play with and feed them a snack for a few hours. He wasn't a nanny or fulltime caretaker; he was an unemployed actor who needed income.

[JessePinkman]

I can't imagine anyone making this show, no matter how classy they claim to be, and resisting the urge to show the Kardashians as kids. We didn't even see their faces, I think everyone is reading a bit too much into their inclusion. It's like an easter egg if anything.

 

This show has put me into research mode, and I was astounded to find out that the verdict was watched by 95-150 million people. The population of the US was only 260 million some odd people at the time. I'm pretty sure that would make it the most watched televised event ever. That's just...wild. Here's an article that goes into more detail.

Edited February 4, 2016 by JessePinkman

[Duke2801]

Christ on a cracker - you'd think that the Kardashians were the ones who murdered Nicole and Ron, as evidenced by some of the vitriol for daring to include them in this show. For what? 10 or 15 seconds? I am NO Kardashian fan.  Can't stand the those vapid egomaniacs. But it just never occurred to me to care that the kids are referenced at the funeral - and once in RK's house. 

 

I'm really enjoying Paulson's portrayal of Marcia Clark, although yeah, Paulson's 'do is 10x more attractive than Marcia's ever was. I saw a picture of present day MC the other day and was like --wow, it's not too often that somebody looks better at age 62 than they did at age 40.  But Marcia does!

 

I'm still seeing and feeling ROSS in David's portrayal of RK. I think you could easily interchange "Juice!" with "Rach!" But I'm not mad at him for it. I hope he does reinvigorate his acting career because of this show.

 

Connie Britton is way too pretty to be the Morally Corrupt Faye Resnick. ;)

 

 

mytmo, on 04 Feb 2016 - 3:26 PM, said:

My ex-BF was casual friends with OJ, and knew Nicole rather well. I texted him last night and got an earful of insight--I'm still hoping he might show up in the series (so is he, I think ;)

Any way you can share? ;)

 

Yes!  This!  Please and thank you.  :)

[BBDi]

IIRC, Kato was a baby sitter for Nicole. OJ, in his controlling way, offered his guesthouse to K in exchange for some duties, some think to piss on Nicole. He was not friendly to or friends with Kato, which is why the murder night visit to McDonald's seemed odd to K.

In the media thread there's a link to Kato's depositions from the civil case. They shed light on how he got to know Nicole and how he came to live first in her guest house and then in OJs. He wasn't a live in babysitter or anything. But he did watch the kids sometimes. It sounds like they liked him.

In response to another poster's question about Kato's babysitting qualifications, I was surprised to glean from the depositions that he was a father. He mentioned his kid coming over sometimes.

[qtpye]

also agree that the Kardashian references are intentional and OTT. "This is Kimmy's room!" Oh please. Ridiculous.

 

Maybe we'll get a scene of Lil' Kanye watching the trial?

 

 

When he sees a passing shot of young Kim at the funeral he can beak out with  "I ain't saying she's a gold digger...".

Edited February 5, 2016 by qtpye

[BitterApple]

My daughter babysat from the time she was twelve. Small children just need someone to play with and feed them a snack for a few hours. He wasn't a nanny or fulltime caretaker; he was an unemployed actor who needed income.

Yeah, I got the vibe that Kato was the type of sitter who watched the kids so Nicole could go to the gym or have dinner with friends. It wasn't like he was providing 24/7 childcare for babies and toddlers. He was liked well enough by the family to have their dog named after him, so he must have been fairly competent in what Nicole needed him to do.