The BS Alert: Discuss "Liberties" The Show Takes

[meep.meep]

One liberty that will be taken is removing one of the co-counsils, Gerald Uelman, prof of law at Santa Clara Univ.  He wrote this article about the trial.

 

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/resources/the-five-lessons-of-the-oj-trial/

[Dev F]

I can see using someone's reactions as a mirror for society. But I'd hope that could be done with true reactions rather than invented (or at least totally unsubstantiated) ones.

 

(shrug) Invented moments are standard operating procedure for this sort of biopic. It's not a documentary with scrupulous reenactments; it's a docudrama that uses the facts of the case as a foundation but fills in the blanks as necessary to flesh out the character arcs and reinforce the producers' chosen themes.

 

And even though Ryan Murphy receives most of the criticism for being responsible for the show's inventions and silly asides, to me the fingerprints of writers Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski are much more conspicuous. Alexander and Karaszewski have been writing high-profile biopics for twenty years -- Ed Wood, The People vs. Larry Flynt, Man on the Moon -- and what I've seen of the show thus far is exactly what I've come to expect from one of their stories. It's exhaustively researched, such that you can often identify highly specific moments or even direct quotes from various source materials, but at the same time those moments are shuffled around and reimagined so as to convey the most dramatic impact. Real people become highly crafted characters, distilled to their apparent essence to serve a concise and sometimes reductive dramatic purpose. Even the big events are sometimes heavily fictionalized in service of some larger thematic point.

 

And, yeah, it's sometimes frustrating -- Ed Wood is one of my favorite movies of all time, but it still bugs me that Bela Lugosi gets a redemptive final scene right before he goes off and kills himself -- but that's always been the price of admission for this kind of story.

Edited February 11, 2016 by Dev F

[RemoteControlFreak]

Also the trial  happened during a racially tense peiod in America .

Has there been any time in America that was not racially tense?  I can't think of one.

[ennui]

I remind myself that this is not a documentary.

[charmed1]

Kato said he felt his portrayal in this movie was more similar to Garth in Wayne's World. That made me cackle. He also said the movie version of himself was eating burgers and Kato doesn't eat red meat. No one cares, Kato.

[Tdoc72]

To be fair, Kato eating a burger would be a liberty that Murphy & team took. I don't know what he testified to in the criminal trial but in the civil deposition, he was clear that he had chicken.

(I have a lot of empathy for Kato. Nicole's friendship with him had chilled due to the fact that she thought OJ was buying all her friends and then he gets stuck in the middle of this mess. IMO he got a rep for being goofy/weird that he didn't deserve.)

[Coffeecup]

I.m really enjoying this series. I think the characters are great and mostly, it's well done, however, I feel that the actor who portrays O.J. is so dissimilar to him in appearance, that I find it distracting.  Normally, that kind of thing doesn't bother me in biographical productions, but it does here.  When he appears on screen the spell is broken.  I really wish some other actor could have been cast,  

 

I feel the same way. I love the show, but Cuba Gooding looks way too different from O.J.  I start getting absorbed in the story, then see a scene with Cuba and think "Oh well, this is just a TV show, and that's an actor." It breaks my concentration.

[Tdoc72]

I feel the same way. I love the show, but Cuba Gooding looks way too different from O.J. I start getting absorbed in the story, then see a scene with Cuba and think "Oh well, this is just a TV show, and that's an actor." It breaks my concentration.

Me too. And I thought it would happen w/David Schwimmer too, because during all the previews for this, I would always yell, "That's Ross!" But he's doing a good job as Robert K.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Tdoc72

[Umbelina]

 

This was in the episode thread but it seems a better fit here, or in the Kardashian thread.  Kris talking about the episode, and saying she was pregnant at the time, and of course the kids/TV thing didn't happen, I think that was simply added in to eventually bring out the two sides thing, mom on the prosecutors side, dad on the defense side.

[RedheadZombie]

I know that Gary Scheck was the DNA expert on the case, but making Shapiro look like a moron on the subject gives a false impression that your average American wasn't familiar with the term.

 

In 1985, a woman named Kathleen Crowell Webb came forward to state that she had lied when accusing Gary Dotson of rape in 1977.  She had been a sixteen year old foster kid, and had lied to cover up a consensual sex encounter.  Kathleen came forward with the assistance of her pastor, but prosecutors did not believe her, and refused to take action.

 

After Dotson's attorney involved the media, public sympathy forced the Governor of Illinois to act, and he held a three day hearing of the evidence.  These proceedings were televised, including close up shots of Kathleen's panties.  I was still in high school, but I will never forget watching her big (stained) granny panties being held up for the cameras.  It was on TV constantly.

 

The governor commuted Dotson's sentence, but refused to grant him clemency.  At some point DNA evidence was submitted, and in 1988 the results concluded that Dotson was not the DNA source.  The prosecutors and judge were then convinced to drop all charges.  He was pardoned in 2002.

 

Now I'm from the Chicago area, so I probably received greater coverage than the rest of the country.  But OJ's trial was six years later, and attorneys were still confounded by DNA.  I'm just not buying it.

 

Having Shapiro not even understand that DNA is unique and can't be manipulated into another person's is ridiculous.   If they wanted some character to play the confused moron, it should have been OJ or Kato.

[partofme]

I know that Gary Scheck was the DNA expert on the case, but making Shapiro look like a moron on the subject gives a false impression that your average American wasn't familiar with the term.

 

In 1985, a woman named Kathleen Crowell Webb came forward to state that she had lied when accusing Gary Dotson of rape in 1977.  She had been a sixteen year old foster kid, and had lied to cover up a consensual sex encounter.  Kathleen came forward with the assistance of her pastor, but prosecutors did not believe her, and refused to take action.

 

After Dotson's attorney involved the media, public sympathy forced the Governor of Illinois to act, and he held a three day hearing of the evidence.  These proceedings were televised, including close up shots of Kathleen's panties.  I was still in high school, but I will never forget watching her big (stained) granny panties being held up for the cameras.  It was on TV constantly.

 

The governor commuted Dotson's sentence, but refused to grant him clemency.  At some point DNA evidence was submitted, and in 1988 the results concluded that Dotson was not the DNA source.  The prosecutors and judge were then convinced to drop all charges.  He was pardoned in 2002.

 

Now I'm from the Chicago area, so I probably received greater coverage than the rest of the country.  But OJ's trial was six years later, and attorneys were still confounded by DNA.  I'm just not buying it.

 

Having Shapiro not even understand that DNA is unique and can't be manipulated into another person's is ridiculous.   If they wanted some character to play the confused moron, it should have been OJ or Kato.

I don't agree with this. I was 20 at the time of the murders, it was the summer before my senior year of college, I had graduated high school three years earlier, and while I remember learning about the DNA helix in high school, at the time of the murders and trial I had never heard of DNA being used to solve crime. I remember hearing at the time how little blood there was in OJ's car and how there should have been much more if he committed th murders(which I always believed he did). I was surprised recently to realize just how much blood there actually was and that Ron's blood was in OJ's car. What I remember of the DNA portion of the trial was that it was dry and boring and I'm not surprised the jury didn't understand it. It wouldn't surprise me if the lawyers didn't understand it, especially the ones who weren't regularly involved in criminal cases.

[BW Manilowe]

I know that Gary Scheck was the DNA expert on the case, but making Shapiro look like a moron on the subject gives a false impression that your average American wasn't familiar with the term.

In 1985, a woman named Kathleen Crowell Webb came forward to state that she had lied when accusing Gary Dotson of rape in 1977. She had been a sixteen year old foster kid, and had lied to cover up a consensual sex encounter. Kathleen came forward with the assistance of her pastor, but prosecutors did not believe her, and refused to take action.

After Dotson's attorney involved the media, public sympathy forced the Governor of Illinois to act, and he held a three day hearing of the evidence. These proceedings were televised, including close up shots of Kathleen's panties. I was still in high school, but I will never forget watching her big (stained) granny panties being held up for the cameras. It was on TV constantly.

The governor commuted Dotson's sentence, but refused to grant him clemency. At some point DNA evidence was submitted, and in 1988 the results concluded that Dotson was not the DNA source. The prosecutors and judge were then convinced to drop all charges. He was pardoned in 2002.

Now I'm from the Chicago area, so I probably received greater coverage than the rest of the country. But OJ's trial was six years later, and attorneys were still confounded by DNA. I'm just not buying it.

Having Shapiro not even understand that DNA is unique and can't be manipulated into another person's is ridiculous. If they wanted some character to play the confused moron, it should have been OJ or Kato.

It was actually Barry Scheck who was the DNA expert.

[RedheadZombie]

It was actually Barry Scheck who was the DNA expert.

Thanks for the correction. I knew that.

[charmed1]

From black america web:

Johnnie Cochran was the victim of racial profiling by the L.A.P.D.

According to Vanity Fair:

True. But the scene did not take place exactly as depicted. According to his autobiography, A Lawyer’s Life, it was not his two daughters, but his daughter Tiffany and his son, and the scene took place in 1980, not 1982; they were on their way to a drugstore to look at toys, not the Hamburger Hamlet. Getting stopped on the way to buy toys for your kids seems even more shocking and egregious, so the change to a dinner outing seems a bit contrived.

Cochran implied to the press that Darden was hired only because he was black.

True. According to Darden’s memoir, In Contempt

A star-struck Judge Ito bragged about being sent an autographed picture of Arsenio Hall.

True. Instead of presenting the photograph to Vanity Fair journalist Dominick Dunne, Ito, described as “beaming,” showed it to Jeffrey Toobin and “cradled [it] like a precious heirloom.” Unlike some other trivial changes made to the episode for, at best, superficial but mostly irrelevant-seeming reasons, this is a smart, minor alteration that streamlines the always-growing cast of characters.

O.J.’s then-girlfriend Paula Barbieri had broken up with him the day of the murders.

True.

The defense failed to inform the prosecution of all of their witnesses before opening statements.

True. Referred to as “discovery failures,” according to Toobin, the defense’s withholding of these names and their testimony, “put the prosecutors at a real disadvantage.” It fell to Carl Douglas, of Cochran’s office, to stand and “fall on his sword” for Simpson, telling the court, “It perhaps is regrettable that I stand before this Court, that we have not coordinated all of our defense efforts as well as I would have liked . . .”

Co-prosecutor Bill Hodgman had a heart attack in the courtroom during opening statements.

Not true. This is clearly embellished for dramatic effect—go figure, in an all-around authentically dramatic case. According to Toobin, it was during a closed-door meeting among Clark, Hodgman, and D.A. Gil Garcetti, after the opening statements, in which the discovery failures were revealed and where Hodgman started to feel chest pains. Paramedics were called and he was treated for a temporary stress condition, which did result in his stepping down from the case.

Darden tried to have the N-word banned from the trial.

True. In what Toobin calls “nearly twenty minutes of stream-of-consciousness babbling,” Darden delivers much of what we see portrayed on-screen with feeling and clear intention, whereas in the courtroom, his statements seemed to veer off topic, coming back to O.J.’s “fetish” for “blond-haired white women.”

Johnnie Cochran’s “Ni**er, please.”

Yep, this happened. All of it, with a handful of super-small changes in the dialogue. As Darden delivers his speech, Cochran sits back in a sprawling, unconcerned posture. When he finally speaks, he does so with the measured cadence of a Greek king. As Toobin recounts inThe Run of His Life, “When Cochran finally finished this peroration, he pushed to an even greater theatrical height, emotionally embracing Simpson and all the other lawyers at the defense table. Leaving at last . . . he had time only to whisper a brief word to Darden—the classic rebuke: ‘Ni**er, please . . .’ ”

O.J. confronted Darden at the crime-scene visitation.

According to Darden’s memoir:

I sat down on a bench just outside [simpson’s] front door, and Simpson leaned forward and pointed at me. “Get off my bench!” he began yelling. “I don’t want you on my bench or in my house!”

I turned to Cochran, who stood nearby. “Johnnie, you better restrain your client before I have him muzzled.”

Edited March 3, 2016 by charmed1

[MsJamieDornan]



 

Also, there might have been a bit of a discrepancy about Darden prepping Furhman for the trial.. According to Marks book, no one prepped him. When he was notified he was going to be called to the stand, he flew in from Idaho and for a few days called Clark and Darden, neither ever returned his call. He went in to testify blind, no prep for what was coming.

 

I brought this over from the episode thread since I should have posted it here.

[FozzyBear]

I don't agree with this. I was 20 at the time of the murders, it was the summer before my senior year of college, I had graduated high school three years earlier, and while I remember learning about the DNA helix in high school, at the time of the murders and trial I had never heard of DNA being used to solve crime. I remember hearing at the time how little blood there was in OJ's car and how there should have been much more if he committed th murders(which I always believed he did). I was surprised recently to realize just how much blood there actually was and that Ron's blood was in OJ's car. What I remember of the DNA portion of the trial was that it was dry and boring and I'm not surprised the jury didn't understand it. It wouldn't surprise me if the lawyers didn't understand it, especially the ones who weren't regularly involved in criminal cases.

I have about the same memory and am about the same age. Most everyone I knew absolutly knew about DNA. DNA wasn't really a new discovery in the 1990s. It was the testing used to match DNA blood evidence that was new. And OJ was the first case that was as big as it was that used DNA testing as a major piece of evidence. From what I remembered it wasn't like the average person was doubting the existence of DNA, it was more questioning the specific test being used in the case, which was a pretty new one.

One thing that I think the show is doing a decent job of is showing how resistant many people were to admitting that race matters in America. I'm a Gen Xer and if you grew up white like me it was with the well meaning baby boomer idea that race didn't matter and you should just refuse to acknowledge that you ever noticed that people were different races and that might be a thing. It was all about a color blind one world idea. Then Rodney King happened and the OJ Trial happened and race was being talked about in a really different way. I remember many of my parent's white liberal friends being furious at the idea of race being a central part of someone's world view while many POC were pointing out that race has always been a factor...just not so much for white people. It really was a very different discussion and the oblivious, entitled, tone deaf anger that SP is showing Marcia Clarke display at having to talk about something she had always been taught to ignore is pretty close to how I remember people acting at the time.

Edited March 5, 2016 by FozzyBear

[Kromm]

Right. People knew what DNA was. And even what it ultimately meant. What was unsure was how accurate the results of the testing was. The ability to accurate observe and interpret the DNA, in other words.

[Umbelina]

http://www.eonline.com/news/738102/american-crime-story-the-people-v-o-j-simpson-fact-v-fiction-where-the-ripped-from-reality-fx-series-gets-creative

 

This is good, covers each episode.

[Kromm]

Dialogue Anvils Like This:

 

Guy in Garage watching trial with his colleagues: "They should bring Kato back on the show, he was so great".

Edited March 9, 2016 by Kromm

[Umbelina]

Dialogue Anvils Like This:

 

Guy in Garage watching trial with his colleagues: "They should bring Kato back on the show, he was so great".

People actually said stuff like this though.  I mean, I heard it in my real life.  I wouldn't be shocked to hear that someone did a story about people's reactions to the trial and things like that were actually said.  Because?  They were.

 

Making the point that this became an entertainment spectacle is valid to me.  This isn't JUST about the murder trial, it's about the whole weird circus that developed around it, and I suspect it will continue to touch on how this circus changed TV, and society. 

 

The biggest liberty is Marcia's hair.  In real life, it was MUCH worse.  ;)

http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/marcia-clark-people-v-oj-simpson-episode-six.html

Marcia Clark on Episode 6 of The People v. O.J. Simpson: ‘They Get the Big Stuff Right’ 

(more at link obviously)

 

When we talked before the series premiered, you were a little anxious and nervous. It was a very strange feeling for you to be seeing this part of our life on your TV set. How has it settled?

So much better. Now I get a sense of what they were doing. Before, I was really hung up on Did they get everything right? They can't get everything right. But they get the big stuff right. And God, what more can you ask than that, seriously?

 

In some cases I think they don't even try to get it right. They're kind of trying to make a point in some places, right?

There you go, exactly, exactly. They have to make a point. They have ten hours to deliver on a 15-month trial. They never pretended to be a documentary. And they really make great points. So all I can say is, at the end of the day I think it's a really terrific series. It's impressive.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Umbelina

[lofidelity]

People actually said stuff like this though.  I mean, I heard it in my real life.  I wouldn't be shocked to hear that someone did a story about people's reactions to the trial and things like that were actually said.  Because?  They were.

 

Making the point that this became an entertainment spectacle is valid to me.  This isn't JUST about the murder trial, it's about the whole weird circus that developed around it, and I suspect it will continue to touch on how this circus changed TV, and society.

But did people really refer to the trial as "the show"?  That rang false to me.  People discussed it as if it were entertainment, sure, but I don't remember anybody acting is if it were the same as Roseanne or Oprah.  I mean, I was eleven years old, and my classmates and I were aware that the trial was really happening and that the trial coverage was closer to the news than it was to shows that reported "real life" stuff for entertainment, like Hard Copy or Cops or Rescue 911.  I would totally buy someone saying "They should bring Kato back, he was fun" or "I wish they were still questioning Kato, he was more entertaining," but "They should bring Kato back on the show" doesn't sound like anything a real person would say -- it sounds like the writers are over my shoulder going "Do you get what we're saying about how people were viewing this as entertainment?  Huh?  Do ya?" while I'm trying to watch TV.

[Umbelina]

Good point, and I'd be lying if I said I could remember the actual phrases I heard twenty years ago.

 

There may be articles out there though, man on the street interviews, things like that. This show is obviously borrowing from several books, news reports, footage on talk shows, etc.

 

What I do remember is people talking about Kato as if he was the entertainment, and I specifically remember them wanting Kato back when things got boring, in a "it was so much better when Kato was on!" way.  Kato was a hit, long boring testimony about DNA was not.

[Dejana]

The biggest liberty is Marcia's hair.  In real life, it was MUCH worse.  ;)

http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/marcia-clark-people-v-oj-simpson-episode-six.html

Marcia Clark on Episode 6 of The People v. O.J. Simpson: ‘They Get the Big Stuff Right’ 

(more at link obviously)

 

 

 

Reposting this April 1995 LA Times article about Marcia's makeover—the second one, so, spoiler alert? But it mentions that she used the same hairdresser both times, and that he had other celebrity clients besides Farrah.

 

Last summer, Clark had her shoulder-length curls trimmed to the neckline--a hairstyle also created by Edwards, who offered his services to Clark after watching the prosecutor on television during the preliminary hearing.

 

"I hated her hair long," he said.

 

The latest change did not pass without a few remarks. Noted Deputy Dist. Atty. Christopher A. Darden: "Marcia told me that her hair was naturally curly."

 

LOL, cute of Chris to defend his boo. Anyway, it really surprises me that a celebrity hairstylist saw that poodle perm in 1994 up close and didn't immediately scream in horror and talk her into any other hairstyle. I remember 1994, seeing Marcia Clark on TV and thinking her hair reminded me of a Jheri curl (though hers wasn't one), a style that was kind of a joke before the 80s were out, let alone 1994-95. I mean, Marcia Clark wasn't in the demo to be getting The Rachel, but you'd think a renowned hairstylist of the times would have suggested she find inspiration from Katie Couric, Diane Sawyer...the women on Law & Order?

 

As for the hair/makeup department for ACS, I saw that Ice Cube Jr.'s wig for Straight Outta Compton cost $15,000 so maybe ACS didn't want to spend that much or had to spread the wig budget around to more actors.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Dejana

[Umbelina]

Well, the show address Cochran's domestic violence with his first wife, but so far, not his infidelity with his mistress, who also had a child by him, and much later sued for palimony and they settled out of court.  I wonder if they will touch on that as well?  Probably not.

 

http://mistressmanifesto.blogspot.com/2015/10/patricia-sikora-mistress-of-trial.html

"PATRICIA SIKORA, a young blonde, blue-eyed legal secretary, was working at the Union Bank in Los Angeles in the bank properties division when she met John.  It was just about the time he first went into practice, an he wanted to lease a small office in the Union Bank building n Wilshire.  One of the leasing agents in Patty's office felt sorry for the young attorney and revealed to Patty that John had had to use his wife's mink jacket as collateral when he signed the lease.  Since Patty was separated from her husband and looking for a divorce lawyer, the agent suggested that she might consider hiring John as her attorney

She did.  John must have been quite taken with the pretty, vulnerable young woman who walked into his office seeking a divorce.  Ironically enough, given John's later career, the man Patty was divorcing was a Police officer.  More important at the time was that Patty had been brought up a devout Catholic and was heartsick that her marriage was ending in divorce - like me, she had been raise to think of marriage as forever.

John took the case, and , while representing her, began his seduction.  He started sending Patty flowers and gifts - to cheer her up through a difficult time, he said..."  (Pages 67-68)

 

Much more at link of course, *from the book his first wife Barbara wrote, strangely the two women, his first wife and his long term mistress later became friends.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Umbelina

[Kromm]

The whole scene with Rossdashian and Theo Cowlings opening the garment bag is one of the biggest liberties yet this show has taken. Literally a scene that decides that the rumors about Kardashian taking the knife out couldn't possibly be true.

[MargotWendice]

I feel like I read that this happened, though--Kardashian had OJ's garment bag and the police didn't seem interested. Later Cowlings and he looked through the bag and found nothing. Can anyone confirm?

[Kromm]

I feel like I read that this happened, though--Kardashian had OJ's garment bag and the police didn't seem interested. Later Cowlings and he looked through the bag and found nothing. Can anyone confirm?

I see. Al Cowlings maybe SAID he looked through the bag and found nothing, therefore that means that it definitely happened exactly that way.

Doesn't work like that. That's not objective truth. That's maybe some guy, who may or may not have been helping his friend all along get away with murder, perhaps told a story at some point that nobody can verify.

[MargotWendice]

The whole scene with Rossdashian and Theo Cowlings opening the garment bag is one of the biggest liberties yet this show has taken. Literally a scene that decides that the rumors about Kardashian taking the knife out couldn't possibly be true.

I see what you are saying. I thought you were calling bs on the whole scene, not the outcome (if that makes sense). Of course we have only Kardashian's/ Cowling's word for the fact that nothing was there. FWIW, I cannot imagine why OJ would take the knife to Chicago and bring it all the way back to L.A., but who knows?

(I probably shouldn't post while drinking wine.)

[FozzyBear]

I agree that there isn't that much reason to suspect RK got rid of the knife. He might of, but as has been pointed out, plenty of people knew he had the garment bag and PD never felt the need to search it...for whatever reason. It seems like a no brainier to me, but who knows. There were also plenty of other times OJ could have gotten rid of the knife. I think it's much more likely that OJ got rid of the knife that night, but I guess it could have been in the bag. I do wonder why the police never tried to get a warrant for the bag. Did they have another theory about the knife? Did they try to get a warrant and just couldn't get one? Did LAPD just miss this? Anybody know?

[Umbelina]

They didn't even need a warrant, supposedly Kardashian tried to give it to the cops but they didn't take it.

[Crs97]

I know security was looser then, but I would think airport security would have seen the knife in the scan. Was the garment bag a carry-on?

[Kromm]

I see what you are saying. I thought you were calling bs on the whole scene, not the outcome (if that makes sense). Of course we have only Kardashian's/ Cowling's word for the fact that nothing was there. FWIW, I cannot imagine why OJ would take the knife to Chicago and bring it all the way back to L.A., but who knows?

(I probably shouldn't post while drinking wine.)

Actually I AM calling BS on the entire thing. Again, AC SAYING there was a bag opening isn't even proven--not just the outcome. Even the opening itself is an unproven assertion.

They didn't even need a warrant, supposedly Kardashian tried to give it to the cops but they didn't take it.

This more likely did happen, although even there it could have just been Kardashian SAYING he tried to give a bag to the cops. Did a cop or even better some other reliable third party ever corroborate this? I doubt it.

Just because a story has made the rounds, been printed in a book somewhere, even dramatized, etc. does not make it true.

[Umbelina]

I know security was looser then, but I would think airport security would have seen the knife in the scan. Was the garment bag a carry-on?

The scans were nothing like today, it was pretty loose.  You could rent a locker for your stuff.  Friends could walk to the gates with you.  Etc.

 

However, dumping it in one of the frequently emptied trash cans makes the most sense.  LAX was a high traffic airport, even late at night.

 

ETA, ha.  You could also check two huge bags free, and carry on a suit bag, a carry-on suitcase with very loose size restrictions, a huge purse, AND wrapped presents, whatever.  It was a different time.

 

Edited because Crs97 below is right!  They did have Xrays or metal detectors.

 

https://www.thrillist.com/travel/nation/why-do-we-have-to-take-our-shoes-off-at-airport-security-history-of-the-tsa

Edited March 19, 2016 by Umbelina

[Crs97]

In the 90's we still had to go through metal detectors and carry-ons went through one as well. I always forgot I had mace in my purse-can't tell you how many I tossed when I flew. If the knife were in the garment bag and it were carry-on, they would have found it either when he left California or left Chicago.

[Umbelina]

Sorry, I edited, THANKS Crs97.  I just remember it being a breeze to fly, security was nothing at all like today.  It was so fast.  I don't think I was ever stopped, and I carried all kinds of things that would never be allowed today, including a pocket knife. 

 

Still, WHY take it to Chicago with those handy trashcans emptied every half hour or so?  It doesn't make any sense.

[Kromm]

In the 90's we still had to go through metal detectors and carry-ons went through one as well. I always forgot I had mace in my purse-can't tell you how many I tossed when I flew. If the knife were in the garment bag and it were carry-on, they would have found it either when he left California or left Chicago.

Do many people think he really brought a knife on a plane?  The idea is outrageous. But the 90s were before people became paranoid about explosives in airport garbage cans. Literally it was just a janitorial staff coming along collecting trash, perhaps plucking the occasional treasure out for themselves, but most of it just going to the local municipal dump.  Of course this assumes that OJs sycophants didn't simply dispose of the knife for him, or that it didn't simply get tossed out his Bronco and sat by the side of the road unfound.

[whiporee]

I remember when you could walk your wife to the gate, and be there to watch the plane leave, then be waiting when they got off the plane at the end. That was better.

 

If there's a glaring omission in the show, leaving out all the crime scene testimony and poor Dennis Fung's testimony. Without him getting attacked/destroyed/insulted for nine days, you lose some of the idea the defense jumped on, that the LAPD were not very good at what they did, and the contamination of the blood samples could have occurred. 

[Crs97]

Do many people think he really brought a knife on a plane? The idea is outrageous.

But wouldn't we have to believe that if we believe, like Fred Goldman does, that RK disposed of evidence for OJ?

[Isabella15]

Well, the show address Cochran's domestic violence with his first wife, but so far, not his infidelity with his mistress, who also had a child by him, and much later sued for palimony and they settled out of court.  I wonder if they will touch on that as well?  Probably not.

 

http://mistressmanifesto.blogspot.com/2015/10/patricia-sikora-mistress-of-trial.html

Much more at link of course, *from the book his first wife Barbara wrote, strangely the two women, his first wife and his long term mistress later became friends.

 

Well, that site had information that you don't see everyday.  Johnnie and OJ had some things in common, it seems.  The site describes the book as 'devastating, depressing, and myth-shattering'.  Can't disagree with that.  I vaguely remember hearing there was another woman, but didn't know this level of detail about Johnnie.  Will be interested to see if the show includes it.

 

In particular, I think Cochran asking his wife to lie to the press is quite relevant to what went on during the trial, especially the defense claims that they were only interested in finding the truth. Because JC didn't seem to have any problems at all with mendacious behavior: as evidenced by how he conducted his private life. (And it makes the defense attacks on Nicole's behavior and character even more odious. )

 

Quotes from the site:

 

"Patricia was Johnnie's long term mistress for much of the time he was married to Barbara.  While Johnnie kept both women all tied up with manipulative lies that had them both guessing and unable to make a break with him, he still had affairs with other women."

 

"Eventually, the day came that J.C. asked Barbara to lie to reporters that they'd had a great marriage, that he was a great guy.  That day came when he became an O.J. Simpson case lawyer....

What the American Public did not know was that in Johnnie Cochran. Simpson had hired a man who battered his own wife a few times, and who could be verbally abusive to her."

[Kromm]

But wouldn't we have to believe that if we believe, like Fred Goldman does, that RK disposed of evidence for OJ?

Believing Kardashian could have disposed of evidence is in large part simply an opinion on human behavior--ONE human's behavior. Whereas believing OJ brought a knife on a plane would necessitate creating an alternate reality where LAX didn't have metal detectors in the 1990s (or that OJ would have contrived to use his fame and celebrity to bypass them and that nobody would recall that after the fact). 

Edited March 19, 2016 by Kromm

[Rosiejuliemom]

Do many people think he really brought a knife on a plane?  The idea is outrageous. But the 90s were before people became paranoid about explosives in airport garbage cans. Literally it was just a janitorial staff coming along collecting trash, perhaps plucking the occasional treasure out for themselves, but most of it just going to the local municipal dump.  Of course this assumes that OJs sycophants didn't simply dispose of the knife for him, or that it didn't simply get tossed out his Bronco and sat by the side of the road unfound.

 

For some reason, I always thought the issue with the garment bag wasn't necessarily that the knife was in it by the time Kardashian got a hold of it, but that the knife had been in it at some point and blood was transferred from the knife to the bag.

 

I think OJ either dumped the knife out of the Bronco or at LAX.

Edited March 19, 2016 by Rosiejuliemom

[Isabella15]

Do many people think he really brought a knife on a plane?  The idea is outrageous. But the 90s were before people became paranoid about explosives in airport garbage cans. Literally it was just a janitorial staff coming along collecting trash, perhaps plucking the occasional treasure out for themselves, but most of it just going to the local municipal dump.  Of course this assumes that OJs sycophants didn't simply dispose of the knife for him, or that it didn't simply get tossed out his Bronco and sat by the side of the road unfound.

 

There was a lot of speculation about why Al Cowlings took the Fifth regarding his own activities right after the time of the murders-- a lot of people figured that OJ had called AC after the murders and told him to go to his house and retrieve & dispose of the knife, and possibly other evidence.  Regarding events of the day, AC and Kato probably didn't tell everything they knew when they testified, to say the least. 

[Umbelina]

There was a lot of speculation about why Al Cowlings took the Fifth regarding his own activities right after the time of the murders-- a lot of people figured that OJ had called AC after the murders and told him to go to his house and retrieve & dispose of the knife, and possibly other evidence.  Regarding events of the day, AC and Kato probably didn't tell everything they knew when they testified, to say the least. 

Interesting to note that in the civil trial AC offered to testify about anything and everything, including that, but only if, on the advice of his lawyers, the state of California would grant him immunity from the possible charges he faced, all the stuff Darden assembled on the show, for his aiding and abetting by driving the Bronco. 

[Isabella15]

Interesting to note that in the civil trial AC offered to testify about anything and everything, including that, but only if, on the advice of his lawyers, the state of California would grant him immunity from the possible charges he faced, all the stuff Darden assembled on the show, for his aiding and abetting by driving the Bronco. 

Yes, Verrrrrry interesting!  It was pretty shocking to see AC break down crying at the picture of Nicole during the deposition.  Emotional reaction would be expected, yes, but he had to stop and take a break at that point, he was so upset.

 

I don't know much else about his testimony--and I really should go look it up at those links you provided a while back.  But it sounds like they didn't ask him if he disposed of the knife or murder weapons for OJ?   

[Umbelina]

BY MR. KELLY:

Q: Between June 13th and June 17th, 1994 did Mr. Simpson ever tell you where he had disposed of clothes, Bruno Magli shoes and a knife the night of June 12th, 1994?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE WITNESS: Privilege.

BY MR. KELLY:

Q: On June 18th or anytime thereafter did Mr. Simpson ever tell you where he had disposed of clothes, Bruno Magli shoes and a knife the night of June 12th, 1994?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE WITNESS: No.

 

BY MR. KELLY:

Q: On June 18th or any time thereafter did Mr. Simpson ever discuss with you or ask you to — I am sorry. Strike that question.

On June 18th or any time thereafter, did Mr. Simpson ever ask you to retrieve clothes, Bruno Magli shoes or a knife that he had disposed of on the night of June 12th, 1994?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Lack of foundation.

THE WITNESS: Never.

 

EXAMINATION BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Mr. Cowlings, my name is Daniel Petrocelli. I represent Fredric Goldman. You have asserted the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination a number of times throughout this deposition. I would like to ask you some questions about that.

Were you aware that your lawyer, Mr. Re, made comments to the press to the effect that you wanted to talk, you wanted to tell your story? Are you aware of that?

MR. RE: Are you asking if he's aware whether —

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.

MR. RE: — I made comments?

MR. PETROCELLI: Yes.

Q: Are you aware that your lawyer made comments on your behalf that you wanted to testify fully and completely and wanted to tell the complete story that you have?

MR. RE: You talking about with the grant of immunity?

BY MR. PETROCELLI:

Q: Are you aware of that?

A: With the grant of immunity?

Q: Whatever. That you wanted to be able to tell your story. Yeah, if you had immunity, you would talk.

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And is that true?

A: Yes.

 

A lot of this testimony is on the April 26 deposition. http://simpson.walraven.org/ac_depo3.html

 

He asserts privilege though about any conversions with his lawyers, and anything that could be used against him in the aiding and abetting (etc) charges.  I'm trying to remember if they ever directly asked him if he had seen or disposed of the knife.    A word search for "knife" in his testimony doesn't bring it up unless I missed it. 

 

This one is from May 15th.  http://simpson.walraven.org/ac_depo4.html

 

Q: Allen Austin? Any of people that you and Mr. Simpson had as common friends, have any of them at any point ever asked you, excluding this time period that is privileged, whether or not you thought Mr. Simpson killed Nicole?

MR. LEONARD: Objection. Compound.

THE WITNESS: No.

BY MR.BREWER:

Q: Have you had any discussions with any of the friends that were at the meeting with Mr. Shapiro regarding a knife that may have been used in connection with the murders?

A: No.

Have you had any discussion with that same group of people with respect to clothing that Mr. Simpson may have been wearing at the time that the murders—

MR.LEONARD: I am going to object. Can I get my objection in first.

MR.RE: Sure. Go ahead.

MR.LEONARD: Object as vague, lack of foundation.

MR.RE: Is the question: Did you have discussions at this group meeting? Is that what the question is?

MR. BREWER: No. At any time, excluding the relevant time period where there is a privileged being asserted.

MR.RE: And the question is: Did he have a discussion with somebody who attended the meeting?

MR.BREWER: Yes.

Q: The people that were identified that he remembers being at this meeting with Mr. Shapiro, excluding the time period that you are asserting privilege, have you ever had a discussion with any of those individuals relative to the location of any clothes that Mr. Simpson may have been wearing at the time of the murders?

R.LEONARD: Objection. Vague, lack of foundation, compound, and calls for speculation.

MR.RE: The other thing is if you are asking if he had any conversation with anybody at any time regarding clothes that Simpson may or may not have been wearing, he would have asserted a privilege to that independent of the time period.

In other words, if you are talking about potential evidence in the case, did he ever talk to any of these people about Simpson's clothes, he would assert a privilege to that regardless of the time period.

R.BREWER: You know, I am not going to belabor this. I just want to make sure I understand the point so I do not waste our time here.

Q: For example, Jennifer Peace—

A: You got to be joking.

 

[Isabella15]

A lot of this testimony is on the April 26 deposition. http://simpson.walraven.org/ac_depo3.html

 

He asserts privilege though about any conversions with his lawyers, and anything that could be used against him in the aiding and abetting (etc) charges.  I'm trying to remember if they ever directly asked him if he had seen or disposed of the knife.    A word search for "knife" in his testimony doesn't bring it up unless I missed it. 

 

This one is from May 15th.  http://simpson.walraven.org/ac_depo4.html

 

Umbelina--wow, thank you!!!  For all of the great sources and analysis.  Curiouser and curiouser, isn't it.  But it sounds like they're sure he had help getting rid of the shoes, clothes and maybe the knife that night.  It makes sense for Simpson to ask somebody to dispose of at least some of the evidence for him that night--someone he trusted absolutely not to talk.  AC sure fits that role. 

 

As you've said before, he probably tossed the knife into the trash himself at LAX, after wiping it clean of course.  The shoes and clothes would be bulky and noticeable being thrown away, but the knife wouldn't.  Thanks again for all of this!

[Umbelina]

Well, Fuhrman said the clothes were in the washing machine at Rockingham, but the senior detectives didn't take them, or the empty knife box on the tub in his bathroom, or get the fingerprint 3 officers pointed out to them on the Bundy gate either.

 

Who knows? 

 

Also, there were specific dates AC couldn't talk about, per his lawyers, and possible pending charges.  That's why I included the part where he says "NEVER."  He went beyond the scope of the question there.  There is much, much, much more testimony from him.  4 full days worth.

[BBDi]

I don't know. Didn't AC kind of act like he believed OJ, at least up until the civil trial?

Or maybe he did help OJ get rid of evidence without realizing what it was at first. But then did the Bronco chase bc he was worried OJ would kill himself? And maybe he didn't say anything bc he was worried about being charged with something?

Not sure what the truth is...I suppose we'll never know. I wonder if he just figured that OJ would be convicted and the problem would go away.

[MargotWendice]

Actually I AM calling BS on the entire thing. Again, AC SAYING there was a bag opening isn't even proven--not just the outcome. Even the opening itself is an unproven assertion.

This more likely did happen, although even there it could have just been Kardashian SAYING he tried to give a bag to the cops. Did a cop or even better some other reliable third party ever corroborate this? I doubt it.

Just because a story has made the rounds, been printed in a book somewhere, even dramatized, etc. does not make it true.

I think we have a different idea of what 'taking liberties' means in this context. The entire show, with the exception of the parts in the courtroom that were filmed, is based on stories people told and things that have been reported/published. Such is the case for every biographical document.

[psychoticstate]

As you've said before, he probably tossed the knife into the trash himself at LAX, after wiping it clean of course.  The shoes and clothes would be bulky and noticeable being thrown away, but the knife wouldn't.  Thanks again for all of this!

 

 

As Umbelina pointed out, the dark clothing was seen in the washing machine at Rockingham and it was an error that they were not collected and tests run on them.  Blood could possibly have been detected on them, as well as in the washing machine.

 

I do think Simpson could have disposed of the Bruno Maglis at LAX, especially if they were in a paper or plastic bag.  Toss one shoe in one trashcan, one shoe in another.  There are so many trashcans, who would know?  He also could have had them packed in his suitcase and tossed them in Chicago.  By the time the detectives began to piece it together, it was too late to check the trash at the hotel Simpson stayed at or at the airport in Chicago.