S01.E01: From The Ashes Of Tragedy

[RemoteControlFreak]

This trial jump started reality TV in General.  In the media thread I linked some very interesting information, including depositions from the civil trial, which frankly, were much more interesting.

It didn't really jump start reality TV as much as it jump-started 24-hour TV news, which existed but not with the fervor that it grew to.

[mytmo]

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 ;)

Sorry I don't have this quote thing down so thought I'd repost in hopes of CeeBeeGee sharing insight

Edited February 5, 2016 by mytmo

[rho]

I have nothing to add that hasn't already been addressed, except that I am thrilled to see Billy Magnussen in this. I know the cast is stacked and he's a guppy amongst the sharks but I've loved him in everything so far. I always thought he suffered from a debilitating case of good looks; he's too attractive to be taken seriously even though he's also incredibly talented.

 

Count me in with everyone else who is glued to the television Tuesday nights. I was a kid when this happened and we were living outside of the US but I still find it fascinating all these years. Even though I loathe anything Ryan Murphy's attached to, I've been looking forward to this and it didn't disappoint...but we'll see how it goes.

[JessePinkman]

I have a question for the people who are old enough to remember the day to day aspect of the case, was it actually riveting on a daily basis? I mean, were people really on the edge of their seat about the latest ruling or motion?

 

Because I was almost on a jury once and it was boring as fuck. And I hear so much about jurors being terribly bored during murder trials (I listened to an episode of the podcast Criminal last week and the host interviewed a court artist and she said that murder trials were the most boring because they were so much about the facts and keeping your composure, civil cases were more entertaining because people were able to display more emotions) And what I've seen of actual live trials on HSN or what have you and they were total slogs.

 

Were the twists and turns enough to keep people coming back? Was the actual watching of a murder case that fascinating? Or was it a combination of celebrity and it being the first televised trial of it's kind?

[7isBlue]

I have a question for the people who are old enough to remember the day to day aspect of the case, was it actually riveting on a daily basis? I mean, were people really on the edge of their seat about the latest ruling or motion?...Were the twists and turns enough to keep people coming back? Was the actual watching of a murder case that fascinating? Or was it a combination of celebrity and it being the first televised trial of it's kind?

I wouldn't say that the testimony every day, on its own, was always riveting. It's just that every single witness' testimony was analyzed and rehashed so much, no matter how minor the witness, that one was immersed in the trial details. I say this as someone who was in her early 30s, with a full-time job. If you notice the cast listing on this show, the witnesses are listed by their full names. To give you an idea of how intense the coverage was, I recognized all of their names the minute I saw them! It brought everything back in a rush. It doesn't seem possible that this was 20 years ago (feeling old!).

Edited February 4, 2016 by 7isBlue

[BBDi]

I have a question for the people who are old enough to remember the day to day aspect of the case, was it actually riveting on a daily basis? I mean, were people really on the edge of their seat about the latest ruling or motion?

Because I was almost on a jury once and it was boring as fuck. And I hear so much about jurors being terribly bored during murder trials (I listened to an episode of the podcast Criminal last week and the host interviewed a court artist and she said that murder trials were the most boring because they were so much about the facts and keeping your composure, civil cases were more entertaining because people were able to display more emotions) And what I've seen of actual live trials on HSN or what have you and they were total slogs.

Were the twists and turns enough to keep people coming back? Was the actual watching of a murder case that fascinating? Or was it a combination of celebrity and it being the first televised trial of it's kind?

What an interesting question. I grew up in a family with criminal defense lawyers, including my father, who was a really colorful litigator. So it was right up my alley.

The crime itself was so well publicized from the beginning, and there were all those twists and turns before it even went to trial. It's hard to overstate how shocking it was to see a pretty much universally admired man accused of such a violent and shocking crime.

There was plenty of day to day interest for most people, I think, in watching the prosecutors lay out the evidence and watching the defense team put on their show. It seemed at first like a slam dunk, but as the trial went on there were plenty of motions and sidebars that didn't go the prosecution's way. Much of the expert testimony was very compelling. And there was such a great mix of the famous, almost famous, and regular people who just happened to be bystanders giving evidence.

It was pretty damn fascinating, and like many things, the more you knew about the details, the more interesting it was.

ETA: Per 7s comment above, yes it was rehashed every evening, and I think having those talking heads to explain every nuance also made the nuts and bolts of the trial more interesting and accessible for the average person.

Edited February 4, 2016 by BBDi

[AndySmith]

 

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.

 

Buddha on a bagel - the fact that the Kardashians provoke that much vitriol says more about them than it does about the comments...

 

Even though I loathe anything Ryan Murphy's attached to, I've been looking forward to this and it didn't disappoint.

 

I wonder if this will follow the usual Ryan Murphy pattern of starting out strong but then collapsing in on itself as one giant clusterfuck.

[SFoster21]

Buddha on a bagel - the fact that the Kardashians provoke that much vitriol says more about them than it does about the comments...

I wonder if this will follow the usual Ryan Murphy pattern of starting out strong but then collapsing in on itself as one giant clusterfuck.

The reviewers have seen several episodes and liked the show very much. In one article or another, the point was made that RM neither wrote nor directed any episodes, so his involvement is minimal.

[CeeBeeGee]

Sorry I don't have this quote thing down so thought I'd repost in hopes of CeeBeeGee sharing insight

 

Well, one thing he said was that he and his then-wife, plus another couple, plus Nicole and OJ, plus a fourth couple (Sandy Duncan and her husband--ex worked with the guy) all had a dinner party one evening. Apparently a LOT of vodka was drunk by OJ (and others). Afterward they played charades and my ex bonded quite a bit with him. (Vomit) OJ, as everyone has said, was huge ("his hand could crush my head with one squeeze") and very charismatic. And he bragged to ex about Nicole's breast job, said that he made her get them. (VOMIT) X saw Nicole every Sunday, and his kids knew Sydney and Justin. Said she was "CRAZY beautiful."

 

When the news was heard on the radio that two bodies were found on South Bundy, X knew it was Nicole, and 10 minutes later SD's husband called X and said "did you hear? OJ killed Nicole."

[reggiejax]

I have a question for the people who are old enough to remember the day to day aspect of the case, was it actually riveting on a daily basis? I mean, were people really on the edge of their seat about the latest ruling or motion

 

Speaking for myself, I mainly followed in the newspapers, on the nightly news and on talk shows. I felt I was able to retain my interest far better with daily summaries, rather than watching the proceedings as they aired. Frankly, with the exception of the reading of the verdict, the live proceedings themselves I found to be deadly dull.

 

On a different note, while I certainly understand the disgust at the inclusion of any Kardashian besides Robert, I can't say it has done anything to lessen the show in my eyes. Personally I think it would be more noticeable if they omitted mentions of Kim, Kourtney and Khloe. It might make it more enjoyable for a lot of people, but I think even they would admit it would be a big, unmentioned, Matzo ball hanging in the air.

 

As it stands, none of the mentions have really detracted from the plot. By all accounts, OJ was staying in Kim Kardashian's bedroom. And showing Kourtney and Khloe horsing around (as youngsters do) at the funeral is no big deal. Honestly, unless they portray something like young Kim being the one to coin the phrase "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit", I don't think I will have any problem with it at all.

Edited February 4, 2016 by reggiejax

[starri]

The reviewers have seen several episodes and liked the show very much. In one article or another, the point was made that RM neither wrote nor directed any episodes, so his involvement is minimal.

He at least directed this first episode.

[SFoster21]

He at least directed this first episode.

I dunno. Read it somewhere. I barely know why he's such a household name.

[Milk-Eyed Mender]

It didn't really jump start reality TV as much as it jump-started 24-hour TV news, which existed but not with the fervor that it grew to.

I always associate the birth of 24-hour news as must-see television with Wolf Blitzer hunkered down in a hotel while bombs rained down on Bagdhad. Desert Storm as riveting "entertainment" was something to behold. I truly cannot even imagine the Simpson trial in today's interconnected world. If Kim's bare butt is all it takes to break the Internet, the not guilty verdict may well have jolted the Earth clear off its axis.

[CeeBeeGee]

I don't think those jurors were thinking about dismantling systemic racism.  One guilty verdict wouldn't accomplish that.  1 million verdicts wouldn't accomplish that.  If we're assuming the jury voted not guilty solely because of the racial climate of the time and more specifically as retribution for the racist actions of the LAPD in the past (and not because the prosecution fucked it up) then that's exactly what it was.  As one poster put it a giant fuck you to the LAPD.  Nicole and Ron were just collateral damage.  

 

I imagine a lot of black people were saying, "you know, OJ probably did kill those people, but so what?  Finally, FINALLY we score one.  Finally "they" know what it feels like."  On a much much smaller scale, similar things were being said here in NYC when that guy walked up to a parked police car and killed two cops who were sitting inside.  The killer tried to make it a racial thing in his postings on Facebook earlier that day (even though it was two minorities he killed).  But I heard many people say, now "they" (meaning the cops) know what it feels like.  This mind you, was after Eric Gardner had been choked to death on camera by police among a host of decades long abuse and murders at the hands of the NYPD.  When people have been oppressed and damn near terrorized by a group of people, logic flies out the window.  That's what happens when emotions are involved.   Those jurors probably all had their own (negative) experiences dealing with the LAPD, and most certainly saw what happened to Rodney King.  I think it would have been incredible if not impossible to expect these people to look at this trial and in particular the LAPD in a vacuum.  It just wasn't going to happen...not at that time, and not in that city.     I think it was a great shot to include Cochran listening to the radio while the host and callers were talking about how the city was still on fire (figuratively speaking) over the Rodney King beating and subsequent acquittals of those police officers.  Brilliant move on his part to make this trial a race issue and hammer how corrupt and racist the major players in the LAPD were.    

 

You make some good points and they even occurred to me as I was writing my post, that outrage has a way of sidestepping logic and fairness. I was so upset by the acquittal in Simi Valley that when I first heard of the riots, I was cheering them on, until I saw the footage and realized hey, this is much, much worse than a few broken windows. But it's just heart-breaking to me that this case is always, always seen as a referendum on race and nothing else. The fact that OJ got a slap on the wrists for his abuse of Nicole, and that she openly predicted her murder by him, is sickening. 

 

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.

 

 

 

Respectfully, I differ with you on most of this. I've read the entire transcripts of both cases, and while Simpson was certainly no walk in the park, the Manson case was incredibly complex. Bugliosi had to try the case mostly on his own--he was the lead prosecutor and after his assistant prosecutor was dismissed from the trial, he had only Stephen Kay to help him, a prosecutor who was pretty inexperienced at the time (I don't believe he'd ever been on a murder case before). Bugliosi was trying not only Manson but three other defendants alongside him, who all had their own defense attorneys who were shuffled around at Manson's whim. One of those defense attorneys went missing during the trial (he was later found dead) and had to be replaced. As soon as he finished simultaneously trying those four defendants, he immediately went into another trial of a fifth defendant involved in the case. 

There were also seven murder victims instead of two, which meant evidence and exhibits up the wazoo, and Bugliosi had to sell the jury on a complicated motive involving Manson's plans for a race war while simultaneously arguing for both Manson's psychological hold over the other defendants as well as their own culpability and willing participation in the murders.

 

And even though cable TV wasn't around in 1970, the media circus was as extensive and pervasive as it could possibly be at the time. The case also involved celebrities (on the victim side) who were well-connected in Hollywood. Paparazzi captured footage of all the celebs in attendance at the funeral; some of it is available on YouTube. Wild rumors began circulating, and Angelinos began buying guns in record numbers and locking their doors for the first time. It was considered the trial of the century at the time and was on the TV news constantly as well as in every newspaper. As with the Simpson trial, jurors had to be sequestered for months because there was so much talk. In fact, it was such a circus that President Richard Nixon was asked his opinion on it during an unrelated press conference (unheard of and presumptuous at the time) and almost caused a mistrial when, after he opined that Manson was guilty, newspapers around the country splashed the headline "Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares!" on their front pages. It was a circus all right--the biggest one in U.S. history until OJ came along.   

 

OMG I so agree with this. Bugliosi is a genius for securing Manson's conviction--just trying to explain that mess of a motive alone would be daunting. ("They wanted to start a race war? And...wait it out in the desert? And they thought the Beatles were onboard with this? Are you kidding me?") it probably helped that Ron Hughes "disappeared" (one of the saddest aspects of the case--Hughes was very sympathetic to hippies and the alternative lifestyle and genuinely wanted to help the Family, which decency got him murdered). And Linda Kasabian agreeing to testify and being the only decent person along those two nights was a huge stroke of luck. Still though. Bugliosi was a fantastic prosecutor.

 

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

[psychoticstate]

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

 

 

I didn't see this but I'll never forget Daniel Petrocelli arguing during the civil trial that if Simpson were indeed innocent, Ron Goldman would be a hero to him for attempting to save the mother of his children.  The fact that he allowed his attorney to smear Ron's character so much and belittle him told you mountains about Simpson's guilt. 

 

And Linda Kasabian agreeing to testify and being the only decent person along those two nights was a huge stroke of luck.

 

 

I would say Kasabian was maybe the most decent person along that night . . . which may not be saying much.

 

Regardless, Manson was a much harder person to convict than Simpson.  Simpson should have been a relatively open and shut case.  I lived in the area and I still remember callers into a radio program, when posed with the question on whether or not they could sit on a jury, stating they would not convict him even if they saw a film of him doing it and he admitted it because of "everything he had done for football" and "everyone makes mistakes."  I still feel sick just thinking about that kind of mindset.

Edited February 4, 2016 by psychoticstate

[BBDi]

Wrt the racial angle, I think maybe the prosecutor's office looked at OJ and saw a celebrity first and a black man second. Perhaps they thought everyone would feel outrage at the thought of a celebrity getting away with murder, and that women in particular would feel outrage at

a famous, privileged man who held all the power killing his exwife and the mother of his children.

Maybe it didn't dawn on them that some people would instead see the prosecution as a bunch of white people trying to tear down a successful black man. That his very success made him vulnerable.

They had their fingers on the wrong pulse or something.

[psychoticstate]

Well, one thing he said was that he and his then-wife, plus another couple, plus Nicole and OJ, plus a fourth couple (Sandy Duncan and her husband--ex worked with the guy) all had a dinner party one evening. Apparently a LOT of vodka was drunk by OJ (and others). Afterward they played charades and my ex bonded quite a bit with him. (Vomit) OJ, as everyone has said, was huge ("his hand could crush my head with one squeeze") and very charismatic. And he bragged to ex about Nicole's breast job, said that he made her get them. (VOMIT) X saw Nicole every Sunday, and his kids knew Sydney and Justin. Said she was "CRAZY beautiful."

 

When the news was heard on the radio that two bodies were found on South Bundy, X knew it was Nicole, and 10 minutes later SD's husband called X and said "did you hear? OJ killed Nicole."

 

Thank you for this info.  Clearly Simpson was a narcissistic fuckwit for years before he became a murdering narcissistic fuckwit.

[iwasish]

In the first days of the case, didn't OJ have Howard Weitzman as his attorney? I recall him at the scene of OJs house when he returned from Chicago. I remember reading somewhere that Weitzman figured OJ for guilty and called in Robert Shapiro who was known to be a great negotiator of plea bargains. They had OJ take a lie detector test and he failed miserably. Neither of them wanted him to go to trial, not sure who brought Cochran and F Lee Baily in, but Weitzman wanted out.

I thought too that the two older cops, Lange and especially VanNatter, though basically good cops, were sloppy with the evidence. VanNatter, I think actually took stuff home in the trunk of his car and they didn't always follow protocol.

I read that VanNatter enjoyed the spotlight being on him and the celebrity angle. (He had been involved in arresting Roman Polanski years before for rape).

In their minds they probably figured it was so obvious he was guilty that he'd take a plea, if he didn't kill himself first.

Edited February 5, 2016 by iwasish

[GHScorpiosRule]

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

 

Taking my response to the 'discuss the case' thread.

[BBDi]

In the first days of the case, didn't OJ have Howard Weitzman as his attorney? I recall him at the scene of OJs house when he returned from Chicago. I remember reading somewhere that Weitzman figured OJ for guilty and called in Robert Shapiro who was known to be a great negotiator of plea bargains. They had OJ take a lie detector test and he failed miserably. Neither of them wanted him to go to trial, not sure who brought Cochran and F Lee Baily in, but Weitzman wanted out.

I believe Weitzman told OJ not to make any public statements or talk to the police and he did.

True story - before this happened he asked one of my relatives to assist him on the case (she had worked with him before). That would have been some inside scoop for me.

[Constantinople]

Regardless, Manson was a much harder person to convict than Simpson.  Simpson should have been a relatively open and shut case.  I lived in the area and I still remember callers into a radio program, when posed with the question on whether or not they could sit on a jury, stating they would not convict him even if they saw a film of him doing it and he admitted it because of "everything he had done for football" and "everyone makes mistakes."  I still feel sick just thinking about that kind of mindset.

Don't the radio callers prove the exact opposite of the assertion that it was much harder to convict Manson than OJ?

To put it another way, in assessing the degree of difficulty, there are a number of factors to consider, such as

 

1. the complexity of the evidence, and difficulty of tying it to the defendant,
2. the likability of the defendant
3. the biases and limitations of the jurors

 

I think the people arguing it's more difficult to convict Manson are focusing on the first point. I think the people arguing it's more difficult to convict OJ are focusing on the latter two points.

[savannah1985]

My library system bought a few copies of "If I Did It" and they immediately disappeared...theft by either staff or the public. It's hard for some libraries to keep certain books on the shelves, they're so prone to theft. Anything on witchcraft or Harley Davidson's come to mind.

Edited February 5, 2016 by savannah1985

[TattleTeeny]

Maharincess, on 03 Feb 2016 - 02:52 AM, said: 

I know all of that,I'm just saying that we didn't need the reminder that that family is involved and to me that is all that line was.

 

 

Er...what? That makes no sense. Robert Kardashian was OJ's defense attorney. And like it or not, Kris was close friends with Nicole. How could there be a movie about the OJ crime/trial and not have the Kardashians involved?

 

I am guessing that Maharincess is referring more about how shoehorned in that particular line was, and not that the K's are present for the story--and it was delivered pretty clunkily too, as was "Your ex is here." She knows who her own ex is! (Haha, you guys are two of my favorite posters here, so I felt I must jump in.)

 

​The fact that he was the only one that saw the blood evidence on ojs car and the glove could be due to his superior detective skills (skills he showed he indeed had later through his detective work in the moxley trial) but it could also be due to him convincing himself oj was guilty (rightly so) and helping to make case by planting evidence. Both theories are plausible to me.

 

Your whole post is awesome but this part, man. I can't even explain how much it bugs me--a big true-crime fan--that a truly good detective (which is not to say I think he is generally a good person) pretty much irreparably screwed up his own career with his own....lesser qualities. I mean, come on now! The world needs good detectives.

Edited February 5, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[Jade Foxx]

I don't think those jurors were thinking about dismantling systemic racism.  One guilty verdict wouldn't accomplish that.  1 million verdicts wouldn't accomplish that.  If we're assuming the jury voted not guilty solely because of the racial climate of the time and more specifically as retribution for the racist actions of the LAPD in the past (and not because the prosecution fucked it up) then that's exactly what it was.  As one poster put it a giant fuck you to the LAPD.  Nicole and Ron were just collateral damage.  

 

I imagine a lot of black people were saying, "you know, OJ probably did kill those people, but so what?  Finally, FINALLY we score one.  Finally "they" know what it feels like."  On a much much smaller scale, similar things were being said here in NYC when that guy walked up to a parked police car and killed two cops who were sitting inside.  The killer tried to make it a racial thing in his postings on Facebook earlier that day (even though it was two minorities he killed).  But I heard many people say, now "they" (meaning the cops) know what it feels like.  This mind you, was after Eric Gardner had been choked to death on camera by police among a host of decades long abuse and murders at the hands of the NYPD.  When people have been oppressed and damn near terrorized by a group of people, logic flies out the window.  That's what happens when emotions are involved.   Those jurors probably all had their own (negative) experiences dealing with the LAPD, and most certainly saw what happened to Rodney King.  I think it would have been incredible if not impossible to expect these people to look at this trial and in particular the LAPD in a vacuum.  It just wasn't going to happen...not at that time, and not in that city.     I think it was a great shot to include Cochran listening to the radio while the host and callers were talking about how the city was still on fire (figuratively speaking) over the Rodney King beating and subsequent acquittals of those police officers.  Brilliant move on his part to make this trial a race issue and hammer how corrupt and racist the major players in the LAPD were.    

 

Thank you Furious, for this magnificent post. You nailed it. 

Edited February 5, 2016 by Jade Foxx

[JennyMominFL]

Came here to say the same thing. Bugliosi was a MASTER at his profession, winning 105 of his 106 prosecutorial cases, 21 of which were murder trials. Not only is his book fascinating, clearly explained, and--yes--a trip to the woodshed, but it also gives the reader a glimpse of his incredibly wry sense of humor, which I adore. Highly recommend.

 

Respectfully, I differ with you on most of this. I've read the entire transcripts of both cases, and while Simpson was certainly no walk in the park, the Manson case was incredibly complex. Bugliosi had to try the case mostly on his own--he was the lead prosecutor and after his assistant prosecutor was dismissed from the trial, he had only Stephen Kay to help him, a prosecutor who was pretty inexperienced at the time (I don't believe he'd ever been on a murder case before). Bugliosi was trying not only Manson but three other defendants alongside him, who all had their own defense attorneys who were shuffled around at Manson's whim. One of those defense attorneys went missing during the trial (he was later found dead) and had to be replaced. As soon as he finished simultaneously trying those four defendants, he immediately went into another trial of a fifth defendant involved in the case. 

There were also seven murder victims instead of two, which meant evidence and exhibits up the wazoo, and Bugliosi had to sell the jury on a complicated motive involving Manson's plans for a race war while simultaneously arguing for both Manson's psychological hold over the other defendants as well as their own culpability and willing participation in the murders.

 

And even though cable TV wasn't around in 1970, the media circus was as extensive and pervasive as it could possibly be at the time. The case also involved celebrities (on the victim side) who were well-connected in Hollywood. Paparazzi captured footage of all the celebs in attendance at the funeral; some of it is available on YouTube. Wild rumors began circulating, and Angelinos began buying guns in record numbers and locking their doors for the first time. It was considered the trial of the century at the time and was on the TV news constantly as well as in every newspaper. As with the Simpson trial, jurors had to be sequestered for months because there was so much talk. In fact, it was such a circus that President Richard Nixon was asked his opinion on it during an unrelated press conference (unheard of and presumptuous at the time) and almost caused a mistrial when, after he opined that Manson was guilty, newspapers around the country splashed the headline "Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares!" on their front pages. It was a circus all right--the biggest one in U.S. history until OJ came along.   

 

Lets not forget that convicting Manson himself was tough. He was not  alleged to be at the Tate Home and he left the killers at the LaBIanca residence. There was a big question about whether or not you could convict someone who wasn't at the crime scene. 

[Kromm]

Like it or not the Kardashian family were friends with OJ and Nicole. OJ really did try to kill himself in Kim's bedroom. I thought it was a good way to get any references out of the way.

 

And yes he did try to kill himself in Kim's bedroom. Not sure if she really had a Joey Lawrence poster thojugh.

I think it would be more accurate to say "the Kardashians say he tried (or more accurately threatened to) kill himself in Kim's bedroom". Stating it as if it's fact is no more certain than anything else that doesn't have outside confirmation.

 

Could it have happened?  Sure. But like a lot of this, it could just be part of the mountain of uncertainty that surrounds anything that's been the subject of so many books, anecdotes on talk shows, stories people told at parties, stuff developed in scripts for movies and TV shows... it makes for a good story, but it's not like anybody recorded it happening.

 

Undeniably Robert K. was close to OJ though, OJ was in that house at various times. OJ had his gang of sycophants and Kardashian was one of them.  Kris knew Nicole, etc. All of that is certainly fact.  And none of it proves anything about what OJ did or didn't do in Kim's bedroom.

[Kromm]

I wonder if this will follow the usual Ryan Murphy pattern of starting out strong but then collapsing in on itself as one giant clusterfuck.

Here's why that's much more unlikely than usual: while minor parts/pieces of this are made up (the behind the scenes/private moments stuff), the bulk of it is a matter of record, and the "story" of this can't be interpreted all that much. There's a beginning, a middle, and an end (of sorts). There are lots of potential subplots, sure, but none that could affect the main story in a way that doesn't enhance it (unlike subplots Murphy adds to his fiction). 

 

The success or failure of this hangs on things that Murphy, with his own ego and peculiarities as a storyteller, can't screw up as easily. That's not saying this is easier to make than his fiction... just that the things we HAVE seen Murphy fail at in the past aren't part of telling a non-fiction story (and a well known one). 

[cattykit]

I am old enough to remember OJ as a star at USC, OJ as a star in the NFL, OJ as a post-NFL star.  He did TV shows and commercials and movies and football commentary and it didn't matter whether he had a talent for them, people *loved* OJ.  His whole public persona was that he was a good guy.  He wasn't just a celebrity and he wasn't just a sports star; everyone somehow could relate to him.  It was very challenging for people suddenly trying to wrap their head around the idea that this apparently really good guy might now be a murderer.  And I didn't get any sense of that challenge in the dramatization.  Just a celebrity who suddenly brought the cray-cray.  And yes, for me, CGJ was playing Rod Tidwell playing OJ Simpson.  Who had nothing in common but football.

 

I remember RK, but simply as one of the lawyers in the back seats and nothing more, and to this day I have no idea how that morphed into his ex-wife and his ex-spawn becoming this monstrosity of celebrity. 

[Kromm]

I remember RK, but simply as one of the lawyers in the back seats and nothing more, and to this day I have no idea how that morphed into his ex-wife and his ex-spawn becoming this monstrosity of celebrity. 

It didn't--at least directly. I think indirectly, perhaps. Indirectly because I think Kim got her job with Paris Hilton (as... believe it or not, her Personal Assistant) because her Daddy was now "famous" as "that guy who sat next to OJ in the trial". 

 

I mean it's hard to think of Kim as anything but this ego monster, but she basically did stuff like clean out Paris' closets, or walk behind her carrying her extra stuff. Then Kim made her sex tape and that went the early 2000s version of viral.

[VCRTracking]

Undeniably Robert K. was close to OJ though, OJ was in that house at various times. OJ had his gang of sycophants and Kardashian was one of them.  Kris knew Nicole, etc. All of that is certainly fact.  And none of it proves anything about what OJ did or didn't do in Kim's bedroom.

 

Robert Kardashian was the one who first told Barbara Walters in an interview in 1996. There's no way he or anybody else could have predicted that in 20 years any of his daughters were going to be these ridiculously famous celebrities.  I don't think him mentioning it was Kim's bedroom was some way to get her press back then.

 

I also thinking mentioning "Khloe" and "candy" together sounded like a little shade thrown.

Edited February 5, 2016 by VCRTracking

[Kromm]

 

It was very challenging for people suddenly trying to wrap their head around the idea that this apparently really good guy might now be a murderer.  And I didn't get any sense of that challenge in the dramatization.  Just a celebrity who suddenly brought the cray-cray.

I hadn't really been thinking on that while watching, but in retrospect I think you are right. I don't know how they'd work it better into a fairly tight script (that had very little time for an "intro" to OJ), but if it had been possible, even some exposition might have done it. Robert K. was kind of the voice of that here, but frankly he came off as such an OJ sycophant (which he was) it didn't really convey what the man on the street might feel. 

Robert Kardashian was the one who first told Barbara Walters in an interview in 1996. There's no way he or anybody else could have predicted that in 20 years any of his daughters were going to be these ridiculously famous celebrities.  I don't think him mentioning it was Kim's bedroom was some way to get her press back then.

It clearly wasn't about getting Kim press back then, that's true. But Robert wasn't adverse to getting his own name out there and telling a good story to boost the idea that his pal OJ was a good man in a bad circumstance. Saying OJ tried to kill himself didn't necessarily communicate a man who felt guilt, it arguably communicated a man depressed by how he was being hounded and villainized, and who was also suffering over the death of his beloved wife.

[Kromm]

I am guessing that Maharincess is referring more about how shoehorned in that particular line was, and not that the K's are present for the story--and it was delivered pretty clunkily too, as was "Your ex is here." She knows who her own ex is! (Haha, you guys are two of my favorite posters here, so I felt I must jump in.)

"There's your ex" indeed.  Hah. That entire scene with little Kim and Khloe running around in the background, and Kris' alleged conversation with that other woman was eye rolling in the extreme. It's another one of those things that's MORE than possible it actually happened, but Kris certainly hasn't told that story (not that we'd necessarily believe it if she had) and so it's likely just totally made up for this show.

[chlban]

I recall that immediately after the murders most of us were far from convinced of his guilt. Yes, in part because he was such a nice guy. What I also recall, and maybe this was only true in my life, but every single man I knew was adamant that OJ was innocent. That is until the infamous Bronco chase. That was the defining moment for people I knew and it certainly was for me.

Edited February 5, 2016 by chlban

[Kromm]

I will say this.  This is Emmy bait for Sarah Paulson. I'm really enjoying her in this, and unlike Travolta and Schwimmer I'm only seeing the character with her and not the famous actor.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Kromm

[rho]

I am old enough to remember OJ as a star at USC, OJ as a star in the NFL, OJ as a post-NFL star.  He did TV shows and commercials and movies and football commentary and it didn't matter whether he had a talent for them, people *loved* OJ.  His whole public persona was that he was a good guy.  He wasn't just a celebrity and he wasn't just a sports star; everyone somehow could relate to him.  It was very challenging for people suddenly trying to wrap their head around the idea that this apparently really good guy might now be a murderer.  And I didn't get any sense of that challenge in the dramatization.  Just a celebrity who suddenly brought the cray-cray.  And yes, for me, CGJ was playing Rod Tidwell playing OJ Simpson.  Who had nothing in common but football.

 

I remember RK, but simply as one of the lawyers in the back seats and nothing more, and to this day I have no idea how that morphed into his ex-wife and his ex-spawn becoming this monstrosity of celebrity. 

 

You make a really good point! I was a kid when this happened and my family was living outside of the states. When I look back on my childhood, Selena's murder made more of an impression than the 14 months of OJ trials. But now that I think of it, my cousin who was like 8 at the time was obsessed. He knew every angle and analysed every piece of evidence, probably regurgitating whatever his dad said, but still. I always forget how adored OJ was at the time because I don't think of him as anything other than a criminal. I definitely didn't get that from the show either. It seems they are taking the prosecution's angle in this one.

[Kromm]

You make a really good point! I was a kid when this happened and my family was living outside of the states. When I look back on my childhood, Selena's murder made more of an impression than the 14 months of OJ trials.

While I don't want to underplay Selena's murder, I don't think ANYTHING in the US was a bigger news story than the Brown/Goldman murders and the eventual OJ trial. It was literally a 24/7 story for over a year. it was inescapable. If you flipped channels or picked up a newspaper chances are you'd stumble across an OJ story every day.

 

So it probably must relate to where you were in the world at that time. I imagine if you were in Mexico, or Central or South America, then Selena's murder would be bigger news. Europe might be a tossup.  Asia? No clue.  Remember the world was not unified on the same newscycle back then. "Internet news" wasn't a concept at all (heck in 1994-95 the vast majority of news outlets didn't have ANY on-line presence--zero--because web browsers were barely used at that point), and TV news likely didn't get seconded as strongly to places outside the US.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Kromm

[Kromm]

I recall that immediately after the murders most of us were far from convinced of his guilt. Yes, in part because he was such a nice guy. What I also recall, and maybe this was only true in my life, but every single man I knew was adamant that OJ was innocent. That is until the infamous Bronco chase. That was the defining moment for people I knew and it certainly was for me.

What's faded is the cult status Police Squad/Naked Gun developed. I mean actually after the trial they became even MORE cult-like in popularity, but there was more hesitation to air them, so that faded. 

 

And it's hard to explain to Young-Uns how ever-present Hertz commercials with OJ were in the day. To give a good comparison, think about Jared Fogle and his role in Subway commercials a few years ago, and think of it on that level. 

 

In the 70s...

 

In the 80s...

 

And in the 90s... (the second one, from 1993, might have even still been on the air by the time of the murders)

Edited February 5, 2016 by Kromm

[rho]

While I don't want to underplay Selena's murder, I don't think ANYTHING in the US was a bigger news story than the Brown/Goldman murders and the eventual OJ trial. It was literally a 24/7 story for over a year. it was inescapable. If you flipped channels or picked up a newspaper chances are you'd stumble across an OJ story every day.

 

So it probably must relate to where you were in the world at that time. I imagine if you were in Mexico, or Central or South America, then Selena's murder would be bigger news. Europe might be a tossup.  Asia? No clue.  Remember the world was not unified on the same newscycle back then. "Internet news" wasn't a concept at all (heck in 1994-95 the vast majority of news outlets didn't have ANY on-line presence--zero--because web browsers were barely used at that point), and TV news likely didn't get seconded as strongly to places outside the US.

 

I don't disagree but what I'm saying is that I wasn't overexposed to OJ leading up to Nicole's murder. I never saw his Heinz commercials or TV appearances. He wasn't a household name to us. I know that now because everyone keeps saying it in the media and on this board, but ACS doesn't give me that impression. Based on the pilot, he seems like kind of a washed up recluse. And there was no effort made to explain why he's got Spiccoli living in the guest house.

[Kromm]

LOL. I think you mean "Hertz" not "Heinz"!

 

His fame was odd. Very mainstream in one way (the Hertz commercials were EVERYWHERE and for decades). But also cult-like (which is usually smaller and more passionate) in other ways (for Police Squad & Naked Gun--a badly rated brief TV show and a movie that did pretty well, but only became REALLY famous on home video vs. in the theaters--although it's sequel--also with OJ--WAS big in theaters by the time it came out).

 

Then there were the football fans. I'd say that ANY football fan, every last one, knew him.  Not a single exception. But also he was on that similar level to Joe Namath (and these days Peyton Manning) where most non-football fans knew him too, as a kind of ambassador of the sport to the non-fans. It would be like 99.9% of football players would ultimately be totally interchangable to non-fans, but OJ was one of the two or three exceptions.  

Edited February 5, 2016 by Kromm

[Kromm]

Man, I'd almost forgotten how ludicrous the whole Slow-Speed Bronco Chase was. Looking forward to that next episode. I hope they portray the news footage too. I SO want to see this represented....

 

Yes, it was terribly racist and crude.  But... it's history.  Weird fucking history.  Baba-booey indeed.

Edited February 5, 2016 by Kromm

[chlban]

Don't forget the people on the freeways holding up signs saying things like run,OJ, run. It was a circus. I was going to go into work late that day but as it turned out, I never made it in at all. It really was a spectacle. But, it was also when I knew he did it. Then, of course, the evidence just kept mounting.

[J-Man]

 

I believe Weitzman told OJ not to make any public statements or talk to the police and he did.

This was covered in the episode, wasn't it?

 

Don't know if this has been mentioned, but Gil Garcetti (being portrayed here by Bruce Greenwood) was (and is) the Consulting Producer for "The Closer" and "Major Crimes." He's also the father of the current mayor of Los Angeles.

 

He at least directed this first episode.

 

I dunno. Read it somewhere. I barely know why he's such a household name.

Let's see: Glee, Nip/Tuck, four seasons of American Horror Story, The Normal Heart ...

Edited February 5, 2016 by J-Man

[helenamonster]

I dunno. Read it somewhere. I barely know why he's such a household name.

 

He's created/written/directed/produced some very well known television series, such as Nip/Tuck, Glee, and American Horror Story. However, he'd probably be less of a household name if his projects didn't have the reputation of starting out fantastically with a stellar concept and eventually devolving into a raging dumpster fire. The likelihood of that happening with this show is slim as it's based on true events (less opportunity for him to get messy) and he didn't write a single word of a single episode.

 

I always associate the birth of 24-hour news as must-see television with Wolf Blitzer hunkered down in a hotel while bombs rained down on Bagdhad. Desert Storm as riveting "entertainment" was something to behold. I truly cannot even imagine the Simpson trial in today's interconnected world. If Kim's bare butt is all it takes to break the Internet, the not guilty verdict may well have jolted the Earth clear off its axis.

 

Would the Casey Anthony trial be the internet generation's OJ trial? I know she wasn't famous before the trial but that whole thing felt like it went on for an eternity with near constant media coverage and generated a lot of online discussion. Also like the OJ trial, it was terribly botched with a verdict that was understandable given all the conflicting factors but which most people know is probably horseshit.

 

I will say this.  This is Emmy bait for Sarah Paulson. I'm really enjoying her in this, and unlike Travolta and Schwimmer I'm only seeing the character with her and not the famous actor.

 

I've began campaigning for her Emmy as soon as I saw the trailer. I don't even know who her competition would be at this point (this show will be submitted in the miniseries category, correct?) but I'm already prepared to rage about how she was robbed if she loses. If this series seems like it's leaning sympathetically towards Clark, I feel like it has more to do with her excellent portrayal than it does with the way the show is structured. I know it's only been one episode so far but damn if I'm not kind of rooting for her (despite knowing how it all turns out and how she contributed to botching things).

[rho]

He's created/written/directed/produced some very well known television series, such as Nip/Tuck, Glee, and American Horror Story. However, he'd probably be less of a household name if his projects didn't have the reputation of starting out fantastically with a stellar concept and eventually devolving into a raging dumpster fire. The likelihood of that happening with this show is slim as it's based on true events (less opportunity for him to get messy) and he didn't write a single word of a single episode.

 

 

Would the Casey Anthony trial be the internet generation's OJ trial? I know she wasn't famous before the trial but that whole thing felt like it went on for an eternity with near constant media coverage and generated a lot of online discussion. Also like the OJ trial, it was terribly botched with a verdict that was understandable given all the conflicting factors but which most people know is probably horseshit.

 

 

I've began campaigning for her Emmy as soon as I saw the trailer. I don't even know who her competition would be at this point (this show will be submitted in the miniseries category, correct?) but I'm already prepared to rage about how she was robbed if she loses. If this series seems like it's leaning sympathetically towards Clark, I feel like it has more to do with her excellent portrayal than it does with the way the show is structured. I know it's only been one episode so far but damn if I'm not kind of rooting for her (despite knowing how it all turns out and how she contributed to botching things).

 

Off the top of my head, I'd guess she's up against Gillian Anderson (X Files) or Lady Gage in AHS. Competition is stiff but she could take the Golden Globe next year too. Maybe Ryan Murphy intentionally staggered the ACS premiere to give both his leading ladies a chance. I'm gunning for her but at the end of the day it's a popularity contest.

 

I also feel like the show is intentionally framing Clark as the "good guy." Just because Marcia Clark didn't win the case, doesn't mean Sarah Paulson can't do a fantastic job of playing the role.

[starri]

I've began campaigning for her Emmy as soon as I saw the trailer. I don't even know who her competition would be at this point (this show will be submitted in the miniseries category, correct?) but I'm already prepared to rage about how she was robbed if she loses

Felicity Huffman, Regina King, and Lili Taylor from American Crime and probably Kirsten Dunst for Fargo.

[savannah1985]

I think John Travolta looks more like Arnold Swartzegger (sp?) than Robert Shapiro.

[BitterApple]

On a completely unrelated note, I love Regina King. I think she's long been underrated as an actress.

Back to OJ, I think most people thought he was innocent up until the Bronco chase and reading of the "suicide" note. I was a freshman in high school then, but remember my parents not believing a guy like OJ was capable of murder. At that point the public didn't even know about his history of stalking and abusing Nicole.

[rho]

Felicity Huffman, Regina King, and Lili Taylor from American Crime and probably Kirsten Dunst for Fargo.

Regina and Lili would probably be in the "supporting" category. Actually, Sarah Paulson could also bump herself to supporting, it's really a toss up

[Aethera]

Hey folks - generally, we've gotten away in some places from discussing the episode, and into discussing the case generally. There are other places for that :)  Please try to stick to actual episode happenings in here. Thanks!

[Fable]

I think John Travolta looks more like Arnold Swartzegger (sp?) than Robert Shapiro.

I really have no problem with Travolta as Shapiro.  I know it has been a lot of years, but my recollection of Shapiro was that he always looked like a wax mannequin, and I think Travolta is pulling that off.