S01.E03: The Dream Team

[wanderingstar]

Holy crepe, I COMPLETELY forgot that Darden and Clark had an affair!!

Was this confirmed or just rumored? I didn't pay a ton of attention to the trial when it was going on (I know, I know!)

Edited February 18, 2016 by Gillian Rosh

[Bama]

That last scene when Marcia Clark sees the Cochran headline in the paper was flipping fantastic.

 

A well placed and perfectly uttered "motherfucker" is my favorite of all cuss words.

[Chaos Theory]

It's funny I don't see Marcia Clark as a mega bitch I see her as a female boss in a males world. I think her one failing wasn't her attitude but her inability to temperature the room. Christopher Darden tried to tell her at one point but I don't think it sunk in how much POC didn't think OJ was guilty. Plus she was trying a murder case and expected the defense to play the same game....they did not.

As for Clark and Darden the "affair" was never confirmed or denied by either party. I think Clark vaguely hinted that it was true a few times but it was never outright confirmed....or denied.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[vibeology]

I'm not sure what they were trying to get across with that last scene, but I was left scratching my head. Cochran wants to look into OJ's eyes and know that he can believe him, and I guess we're supposed to think he does? But I've always thought this was about a smart and ambitious man leveraging a high profile case to further his cause of exposing the systemic racism of the LAPD, not about true belief in this particular man's innocence. I don't buy anyone that closely involved with the case really believing that OJ didn't do it, aside from sycophantic fan-friends. 

 

Cochran only brought up wanting to talk to OJ after Shapiro made it clear that he was going to remain lead. And then, for all of Cochran's talk about needing to see OJ say he was innocent, he was right there with the hug before they even spoke. I read it as Cochran being a nice guy to OJ as a way to win him over and slowly take over the case. If Cochran can get OJ on his side, he can use that to push Shapiro out.

[ketose]

I was trying to remember my frame of mind back then. For example, I thought Robert Kardashian was a Dream Team lawyer and a family friend. In reality, he was an OJ sycophant who had a convenient law degree. Kato was pretty much portrayed in 1994 as a couch surfer that OJ collected at some point. I guess the reality was that he was paying rent to Nicole and helping out and OJ demanded he stay with him instead of Nicole due to his jealousy. We haven't seen that on ACS yet, however.

[FuriousStyles]

I cant get over the idea of Clark and Darden possibly having an affair. I wonder who made the first move. ;)

I dont think Cochran really gave 2 hoots if OJ was innocent or not. The conversation with his wife told me, that it was all about being a part of history. Winning a case that by all accounts couldnt be won. But he couldnt very well tell Shapiro that.

[SinInTheCamp]

 

I remember the Time vs. Newsweek covers. Surprised they didn't go into the headline -- "An American Tragedy" isn't exactly wreaking of objective journalism. It's pretty tame for today, but I remember thinking everything on Time's cover seemed embellished.

 

 

Maybe it's the English major in me, but I saw the "An American Tragedy" headline as an allusion to Theodore Dreiser's 1925 novel, also titled An American Tragedy, about the story of a young man from an impoverished background, seemingly heading nowhere in life, who lucked into a prestigious career with a bright future. As he moves his way up the ladder, his life is derailed when his fiancee (who is pregnant with his child) is drowned. Although he claims he didn't kill her, he faces a murder trial and later admits that he had thought about killing her--had even imagined how he would carry it out. The story explores the blurred line between a deliberate act of homicide and having "murder in [one's] heart."

 

The story's not exactly the same, but there are a number of parallels to OJ's own life, and it's sort of an epic American tale of wealth, fame, and domestic homicide. It was most famously made into a 1951 film called A Place in the Sun starring Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor. Well worth a watch, especially in conjunction with this series! 

[suomi]

Cochran only brought up wanting to talk to OJ after Shapiro made it clear that he was going to remain lead. And then, for all of Cochran's talk about needing to see OJ say he was innocent, he was right there with the hug before they even spoke. I read it as Cochran being a nice guy to OJ as a way to win him over and slowly take over the case. If Cochran can get OJ on his side, he can use that to push Shapiro out.

 

That's exactly how it went down. Schiller's book presented it with behind-the-scenes detail but ACS is based on Toobin's book.

[ketose]

Maybe it's the English major in me, but I saw the "An American Tragedy" headline as an allusion to Theodore Dreiser's 1925 novel, also titled An American Tragedy, about the story of a young man from an impoverished background, seemingly heading nowhere in life, who lucked into a prestigious career with a bright future. As he moves his way up the ladder, his life is derailed when his fiancee (who is pregnant with his child) is drowned. Although he claims he didn't kill her, he faces a murder trial and later admits that he had thought about killing her--had even imagined how he would carry it out. The story explores the blurred line between a deliberate act of homicide and having "murder in [one's] heart."

 

The story's not exactly the same, but there are a number of parallels to OJ's own life, and it's sort of an epic American tale of wealth, fame, and domestic homicide. It was most famously made into a 1951 film called A Place in the Sun starring Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor. Well worth a watch, especially in conjunction with this series! 

Another parallel is that OJ tried to cash in on the crime when he put his name to "If I Did It" along with a Fox network special where he would basically explain how he would do it, IF he did it. Neither one happened, but the book rights were awarded to the Goldmans to satisfy part of the civil judgement.

[Brooke0707]

With respect to Marcia and Darden potentially having an affair - do you all mean in the sense that they were cheating on significant others or just that they were together and it was a secret?

[txhorns79]

It's funny I don't see Marcia Clark as a mega bitch I see her as a female boss in a males world. I think her one failing wasn't her attitude but her inability to temperature the room. Christopher Darden tried to tell her at one point but I don't think it sunk in how much POC didn't think OJ was guilty. Plus she was trying a murder case and expected the defense to play the same game....they did not.

 

Yeah, I think the main issue for Clark was she had the wrong strategy for trial, and did not have a good handle on her jury.  I will say in her defense that issues which seem obvious in hindsight, may not have been that way at the time.  

 

 

I remember the Time vs. Newsweek covers. Surprised they didn't go into the headline -- "An American Tragedy" isn't exactly wreaking of objective journalism. It's pretty tame for today, but I remember thinking everything on Time's cover seemed embellished.

 

I don't know.  I think the headline is pretty innocuous.  The whole thing was a tragedy, even if you believe OJ was innocent. 

 

And maybe this is directly from Toobin's book, so it's entirely true, but I thought it was a little surprising that Cochran would have fallen so easily for the prank call that purported to be OJ calling him from prison. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by txhorns79

[VanillaBeanne]

I think that was post-verdict Shapiro trying to look good.By the way, I believe this is the New Yorker article .

Thanks for the link to the article and I agree about Shapiro. I was puzzled watching the episode because I always believed the race angle was cochrane's idea. Shapiro, after the trial, blamed the strategy all on Cochrane. http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-04/news/mn-53182_1_f-lee-bailey I thought the show was taking liberties but the New Yorker article, which discusses the defense strategy to argue racial animus by Furhman, basically confirms that the Dream Team was negotiating with Cochrane to bring him on at the time the article was written. Even if Cochrane had come up with the idea during these negotiations, if Shapiro was against it, he could have nipped it in the bud in his role as lead counsel.

To Shapiro's defense, it does seem from the previews that a disagreement later arises between Shapiro and Cochrane about how much race should be emphasized during the trial. That said, i thought it was interesting that, based just on the Furhman disability claim, Shapiro was okay with playing the race card. It seems like his post-trial assertions that he was totally against the race card defense were more about the backlash the defense team got for getting OJ off, then any genuine disgust at race baiting.

Edited February 18, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[Ina123]

"With respect to Marcia and Darden potentially having an affair - do you all mean in the sense that they were cheating on significant others or just that they were together and it was a secret?"

 

I'm with you. Clark was divorced, I think. Darden was single. Not necessarily an affair, but a relationship? Can someone clarify? Was Marcia married?

Edited February 18, 2016 by Drogo
Quote formatting.

[Milburn Stone]

That's exactly how it went down. Schiller's book presented it with behind-the-scenes detail but ACS is based on Tobin's book.

 

Small question. ACS has been used a couple times in this thread. What does it stand for?

[GodsBeloved]

Small question. ACS has been used a couple times in this thread. What does it stand for?

American Crime Story

[Milburn Stone]

Ah. I don't watch that. Thanks, GB!

 

Edited to add: I just realized that American Crime Story and this show are the same thing. Sorry.

 

In fact, until yesterday, I kept thinking, "Why isn't there a forum for this show?" Probably because it was listed as "American Crime Story," and I was looking for "The People Vs. O.J. Simpson." Not until yesterday (to my knowledge) was there a listing under "P" for "The People Vs. O.J. Simpson."

Edited February 18, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[GodsBeloved]

Ah. I don't watch that. Thanks, GB!

You are watching it though aren't you? ;) ... This, the OJ story is ACS. Maybe you're thinking of American Crime on ABC. Or maybe I'm totally off base LOL

[Milburn Stone]

You are watching it though aren't you? ;) ... This, the OJ story is ACS. Maybe you're thinking of American Crime on ABC. Or maybe I'm totally off base LOL

 

Answered that one via an edit while you were typing. :)

I suppose this means there is an ongoing series called "American Crime Story," of which this O.J. thing is merely one year's installment. You could have fooled me. In fact, moderators, you did. ;)

Edited February 18, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[FuriousStyles]

Dont feel bad....it took me like 10 minutes to find this thread the first time. I actually ended up in the Dr. Phil forum. Apparently the Goldmans were on talking about this series or the murders in general? The title was something like "The Goldmans and Browns vs The People vs OJ Simpson".

[Milburn Stone]

Dont feel bad....it took me like 10 minutes to find this thread the first time. I actually ended up in the Dr. Phil forum. Apparently the Goldmans were on talking about this series or the murders in general? The title was something like "The Goldmans and Browns vs The People vs OJ Simpson".

 

Heck, ten minutes isn't bad compared to the two weeks it took me! Checking day after day under "P" and wondering how it could be possible there wasn't a topic for this show. I still wouldn't know if a new title under "P" hadn't been added two days ago. :)

[kassa]

And then, for all of Cochran's talk about needing to see OJ say he was innocent, he was right there with the hug before they even spoke. I read it as Cochran being a nice guy to OJ as a way to win him over and slowly take over the case. If Cochran can get OJ on his side, he can use that to push Shapiro out.

 

 

That's definitely the way I saw it, too.  The client will get to make the ultimate call of who is in charge, and Cochran needs to get to OJ to make that happen.

 

I LOVED the behind the scenes animosity among the "dream team."  I don't mind Travolta as Shapiro -- it's been 20 years, but aside from the physicality aspect, that's pretty much how I remember the guy.  Everything about him was offputting -- that's not Travolta making bad choices, it's Travolta channeling that douchebag.

 

I was always a Dershowitz fan, and they only lightly touched on how prominently he was proclaiming Simpson's guilt and slamming the defense team.  He has never recovered from it, as far as I know -- his silence was bought, and his credibility with it.  Yes, he's still brilliant, but he lost any kind of moral high ground for future endeavors, because it was so blatant a case of his soul being for sale. Yes, yes, even guilty people deserve earnest defenses -- but if you're already publicly and extensively on record as proclaiming their guilt, you're free to sit that particular case out.  The Harvard stuff was a hoot. 

 

I am shocked at Nathan Lane's performance.  Please, for the love of God, Nathan, keep using your talent for good!  I've grown accustomed to electing NOT to watch stuff you're in because of the scenery chewing.  When you keep it subtle, you're awesome!

 

They need to keep Cuba off screen.  He's the weakest thing about this (insofar as anybody who actually remembers OJ is concerned).  His acting is fine, but physically he's just so wrong.  OJ was tall and elegant and smooth and charming and even at his worst, would likely dominate any room he was in with sheer presence.  Yes, this is a period when he obviously would be shaken, and Gooding's portrayal would be fine of just about anybody else in that situation... but it's just not working.

 

The guy who plays Darden, though -- awesome casting.

[Milburn Stone]

They need to keep Cuba off screen.  He's the weakest thing about this (insofar as anybody who actually remembers OJ is concerned).  His acting is fine, but physically he's just so wrong.  OJ was tall and elegant and smooth and charming and even at his worst, would likely dominate any room he was in with sheer presence.  Yes, this is a period when he obviously would be shaken, and Gooding's portrayal would be fine of just about anybody else in that situation... but it's just not working.

 

See, I think what you're describing belies your statement that "his acting is fine." You're describing not just a physicality but a portrayal of OJ Simpson that is not fine--and in that, I agree with you. My problem with Gooding has less to do with lack of physical resemblance or sheer size, and more to do with his portrayal of OJ as a sniveling crybaby weakling. You can be Gooding's size and shape and still project a sense of presence and dominance that is nowhere to be found here. I wasn't behind the scenes, but I have a hard time believing Gooding's sniveling weakling is the true OJ.

 

However, there was a post upthread (either about this episode or a previous one) from a woman who was battered by a bullying husband who did behave as Gooding is doing, so what do I know?

 

I guess I'm very curious as to whether Gooding's sniveling whining weakling performance is borne out by information contained in the various books and interviews. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[cpcathy]

Forgive me, I don't know his name, but the actor who is playing Darden is perfect, a wonderful pairing of actor and character.

 

The same cannot be said for Cuba Gooding. They couldn't have gotten an unknown actor for this role, like, at all?

[TV Diva Queen]

I had completely forgotten about those 911 tapes.  Hearing them last night gave me the chills.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

Forgive me, I don't know his name, but the actor who is playing Darden is perfect, a wonderful pairing of actor and character.

Sterling K. Brown. He was on Army Wives and had a small arc on Person of Interest.

 

The same cannot be said for Cuba Gooding. They couldn't have gotten an unknown actor for this role, like, at all?

 

Considering that this production has big named stars to play the major characters, I was hoping for a better well known star, because for me, Gooding isn't giving me, OJ's presence, charisma, or menace.

Edited February 18, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[kassa]

Yeah, even though I hadn't thought of it in years, the exasperated "He's OJ Simpson, I think you know his record" 911 call stuck with me, I guess.  I hadn't heard it since the trial and I almost said it along with the actress (I too think it was a re-enactment, because I remember Nicole's voice being much lower and also much more powerful as she said that line) 

 

Gooding apparently was directed to play scenes in multiple ways (as a guilty man, as an innocent man, etc.), so I can't entirely fault him for the sniveling version ending up on screen, if he also played a more composed and intimidating version, and the director went with sniveling.  Sounds like the director wanted wide coverage in order to paint a nuanced portrait, but I'm not sure that was the way to do it.  

[choclatechip45]

Another parallel is that OJ tried to cash in on the crime when he put his name to "If I Did It" along with a Fox network special where he would basically explain how he would do it, IF he did it. Neither one happened, but the book rights were awarded to the Goldmans to satisfy part of the civil judgement.

It came out when the Goldman family was suing for the rights OJ had children create some foundation so he would get paid. I think it was under the names if Arnelle, Sydney and Justin. After the Goldmans took back the rights Sydney and Justin were able to recieve 10% of the profits.

[Inquisitionist]

Yeah, I think the main issue for Clark was she had the wrong strategy for trial, and did not have a good handle on her jury.  I will say in her defense that issues which seem obvious in hindsight, may not have been that way at the time.  

 

Amen to this.  I think the series is illustrating this to some extent.

 

I am shocked at Nathan Lane's performance.  Please, for the love of God, Nathan, keep using your talent for good!  I've grown accustomed to electing NOT to watch stuff you're in because of the scenery chewing.  When you keep it subtle, you're awesome!

 

IIRC, Lane was surprisingly low-key in his 30 Rock appearance, 1st season, as Jack Donaghy's conniving brother.

[starri]

I don't know how much credit to give the actors and how much to give the make-up, but I was really impressed by Lane's Bailey and Handler's Dershowitz.  I didn't see Harry Goldenblatt at all, and I was kind of expecting to.

 

I half-thought Elizabeth Banks was going a cameo as Marcia Clark's secretary. 

[LeapDayBaby]

 (Side note: I like Bruce Greenwood a lot--he seems too decent. Garcetti was more blatantly smarmy, as I recall.)

 

I'm still having residual Bruce Greenwood issues from his stint as Joan's jerk of a suitor in the final season of "Mad Men", but I agree that he's dialed down the smarminess so far. I'm impressed.

[GHScorpiosRule]

In my opinion, Greenwood needs to UP the smarminess and arrogance of Garcetti.

[elzin]

However, there was a post upthread (either about this episode or a previous one) from a woman who was battered by a bullying husband who did behave as Gooding is doing, so what do I know?

 

I guess I'm very curious as to whether Gooding's sniveling whining weakling performance is borne out by information contained in the various books and interviews. 

It wasn't me, but I remember that post and agreeing with it. Maybe OJ didn't really act as Cuba portrays him, but we don't really know that any of them acted the way they did. I feel Cuba's performance is fine because I've personally seen that level of manipulation, that murderous rage followed by tears of "remorse" and all the bullshit. They do it because it WORKS, that people want to believe other people are deep down inside good, and showing remorse is a sign of good. So a violent sociopath will feign those things very well because it garners them allies and support. They might not feel these things, but they know how that they're supposed to and how to convince people they are feeling them.  And if OJ was truly upset, it wasn't the loss of Nicole, it was being caught and losing his facade.

[DangerousMinds]

Thanks for the link to the article and I agree about Shapiro. I was puzzled watching the episode because I always believed the race angle was cochrane's idea. Shapiro, after the trial, blamed the strategy all on Cochrane. http://articles.latimes.com/1995-10-04/news/mn-53182_1_f-lee-bailey I thought the show was taking liberties but the New Yorker article, which discusses the defense strategy to argue racial animus by Furhman, basically confirms that the Dream Team was negotiating with Cochrane to bring him on at the time the article was written. Even if Cochrane had come up with the idea during these negotiations, if Shapiro was against it, he could have nipped it in the bud in his role as lead counsel.

To Shapiro's defense, it does seem from the previews that a disagreement later arises between Shapiro and Cochrane about how much race should be emphasized during the trial. That said, i thought it was interesting that, based just on the Furhman disability claim, Shapiro was okay with playing the race card. It seems like his post-trial assertions that he was totally against the race card defense were more about the backlash the defense team got for getting OJ off, then any genuine disgust at race baiting.

It was originally Cochran's idea. Shapiro watched Cochran pontificating about the race issues on a TV show before Cochran joined the defense team, and ran with his ideas.

That's definitely the way I saw it, too.  The client will get to make the ultimate call of who is in charge, and Cochran needs to get to OJ to make that happen.

 

I LOVED the behind the scenes animosity among the "dream team."  I don't mind Travolta as Shapiro -- it's been 20 years, but aside from the physicality aspect, that's pretty much how I remember the guy.  Everything about him was offputting -- that's not Travolta making bad choices, it's Travolta channeling that douchebag.

 

I was always a Dershowitz fan, and they only lightly touched on how prominently he was proclaiming Simpson's guilt and slamming the defense team.  He has never recovered from it, as far as I know -- his silence was bought, and his credibility with it.  Yes, he's still brilliant, but he lost any kind of moral high ground for future endeavors, because it was so blatant a case of his soul being for sale. Yes, yes, even guilty people deserve earnest defenses -- but if you're already publicly and extensively on record as proclaiming their guilt, you're free to sit that particular case out.  The Harvard stuff was a hoot. 

 

 

 

Alan Dershowitz calls 'People v. OJ Simpson’ series ‘totally inaccurate’

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/confidential/dershowitz-calls-american-crime-story-totally-inaccurate-article-1.2534770

 

Just saw this. I guess any discussion of the article belongs in the media thread though.

[VanillaBeanne]

Fine, Shapiro didn't invent the race card but Shapiro was the one who adopted it as an actual defense strategy in the trial. Cochrane wasn't even on the team when Shapiro decided to allege racial bias by Fuhrman. This was Shapiro's call as the he was lead counsel for the defense.

I'm not exonerating Cochrane. I'm just saying that Cochrane owned his part in playing the race card. Shapiro seems to not be taking any responsibly for playing the race card.

Edited February 18, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[Uncle Benzene]

The third episode introduces more of the players and many of the issues in The People v. OJ Simpson -- awkwardly.

http://previously.tv/american-crime-story/american-crime-story-assembles-the-dream-team-with-maximum-self-consciousness/"> Read the story

 

(With a wink and a smile, of course...)

 

using the clumsiest possible wording!

 

Indeed!

Kardashian pére's

 

Shapiro's oleaginously equivocal pitch

 

could have been elided

 

And now, a chautauqua on race

 

Hey, I'm as big a fan as the next guy of using words just because I can, but... Oof.

 

(Heh. Just giving Sarah a bit of shit here, because it's fun, and the opportunity presented itself.)

[DangerousMinds]

Fine, Shapiro didn't invent the race card but Shapiro was the one who adopted it as an actual defense strategy in the trial. Cochrane wasn't even on the team when Shapiro decided to allege racial bias by Fuhrman. This was Shapiro's call as the defense was in his control.

100% agree. He seemed to want it both ways. 

[lovinbob]

I LOVED the behind the scenes animosity among the "dream team."  I don't mind Travolta as Shapiro -- it's been 20 years, but aside from the physicality aspect, that's pretty much how I remember the guy.  Everything about him was offputting -- that's not Travolta making bad choices, it's Travolta channeling that douchebag.

Totally agree.

[kassa]

I just googled old pics of Shapiro, and damn if he wasn't taller than Cochran and closer to OJ's size.  I don't remember him as tall.

[mojoween]

I said aloud to my husband that I liked this episode better when OJ wasn't in it. I find all of the other stuff fascinating, because in June 1994 I was still trying to figure out if Courtney Love killed Kurt Cobain so OJ was on my peripherals, even though I was pretty sure he did it.

I can't help it, every time Robert K. calls OJ "Juice" all I can hear is Ross saying "the people need juice!"

I am all in with this show and I love this forum because all of the inside knowledge that you guys give is an awesome counterpoint.

[Eolivet]

Maybe it's the English major in me, but I saw the "An American Tragedy" headline as an allusion to Theodore Dreiser's 1925 novel, also titled An American Tragedy, about the story of a young man from an impoverished background, seemingly heading nowhere in life, who lucked into a prestigious career with a bright future. As he moves his way up the ladder, his life is derailed when his fiancee (who is pregnant with his child) is drowned. Although he claims he didn't kill her, he faces a murder trial and later admits that he had thought about killing her--had even imagined how he would carry it out. The story explores the blurred line between a deliberate act of homicide and having "murder in [one's] heart."

 

I feel like this is more commonplace today than it was back in 1994, though. By drawing those parallels, ultimately, the magazine is giving their view on the story instead of reporting the story. This would be a great blog post title, but again, it's not reporting the facts -- which they still did in 1994. The darkened photo and the use of the word "tragedy" are both "enhancing" the story in some way. It's funny because it happens all the time now -- the line between journalism and opinion pieces are irrevocably blurred. But I feel like it just didn't happen as much back then.

 

Contrast with Newsweek's title: "Trail of Blood." Something that actually happened (that led to the arrest). Facts. Objective journalism, not opinion.

[Milburn Stone]

I said aloud to my husband that I liked this episode better when OJ wasn't in it.

 

This was my favorite episode so far, and I expect them to continue to be better, because of the factor you identify. Starting with this one, OJ is at most a spectator and will be in the weeks to come, and given Cuba Gooding's performance, that's a good thing.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[Hanahope]

I thought this episode highlighted how arrogant Clark was.  Oh, she didn't need the eye witness placing OJ speeding from Bundy to Rockingham.  She didn't care that quite a lot of black people didn't think OJ did it, and were still upset over Rodney King.  And at least until Cochran came on board, which should have screamed out "Yes, we're going to make race/prosecuting a black man for killing two white people an issue in this case" she didn't seem to care that OJ was getting the best defense attorneys money could buy. 

 

Considering that the LA DA's office had recently lost the Twilight Zone death case, they should have realized that prosecuting rich people is just not the same as prosecuting poor people with public defenders, who are just going to be 'overwhelmed' and not question all the blood and other evidence.

 

In regards to the witness who saw OJ driving, I fail to see why her selling the story to Hard Copy was that big a deal.  They had the witness' police/DA interview weeks before the Hard Copy show.  There was clearly proof that she wasn't making up the story.

 

And I'm waiting for Darden to tell Clarke that she may have a problem with Furman.  Obviously Darden got a heads up that something was up with him from the reporter's phone call.  Did the DAs office ever look into that? 

 

It just seems like the DA's office thought OJ would just roll over and plead and that's stupid to think that given his reputation.  They had to know he'd go to trial and they had to know, or should have known, that with such expensive lawyers, they'd attack every little thing they could.  They knew Scheck was on the team and he was a DNA expert, what did they think Scheck was going to establish if not a problem with the DNA evidence?  I guess I'm just in such shock that the DA's office seems so unprepared for a "rich man's defense."

[Umbelina]

I agree with you that Marcia should have put the witness on the stand, and about her out-of-touch ideas about what a jury might do.  Actually though, I think a LOT of people felt the evidence would prevail, and that this was a slam/dunk.  She wasn't alone in that, even in the DA office.

 

BUT, it does taint a witness to have sold a story, and OJ's attorney's would have torn her apart as someone who saw a chance to cash in and made up a story.  With that jury?  It would have worked. 

 

Honestly, it's kind of a wash, they weren't going to convict him no matter what.  I think moving the trial location was quite possibly the biggest error, in a series of errors.

 

What really bothers me is that Fuhrman didn't find the first glove, a beat cop did.  Where was he in this trial?  If you listened to OJ's lawyers, Fuhrman found ALL of the evidence...anyway, oops, getting ahead of the show here, back to the case thread. 

[iggysaurus]

Hey, I'm as big a fan as the next guy of using words just because I can, but... Oof.

 

(Heh. Just giving Sarah a bit of shit here, because it's fun, and the opportunity presented itself.)

 

I know you meant this good-naturedly, but I actually love that Sarah uses such obscure words at times in her reviews. It's refreshing to me, compared to all the dumbed down recap-writing on various other sites. I don't see using "big words" as a sign of pretentiousness but more as a sign of someone with a fondness for being creative & descriptive with language. :)

[helenamonster]

Answered that one via an edit while you were typing. :)

I suppose this means there is an ongoing series called "American Crime Story," of which this O.J. thing is merely one year's installment. You could have fooled me. In fact, moderators, you did. ;)

 

Yes, this is an ongoing anthology series where each season will be a different crime. It's already been picked up for season two, and they're doing Hurricane Katrina. While I agree that what happened to the people of New Orleans during that time was criminal on a lot of levels, I find it a strange choice as it's not a "crime" in the traditional sense of the word, in that there won't be a trial like this one. But yes technically this isn't a limited series as it will be part of a larger franchise.

[VCRTracking]

They need to keep Cuba off screen.  He's the weakest thing about this (insofar as anybody who actually remembers OJ is concerned).  His acting is fine, but physically he's just so wrong.  OJ was tall and elegant and smooth and charming and even at his worst, would likely dominate any room he was in with sheer presence.  Yes, this is a period when he obviously would be shaken, and Gooding's portrayal would be fine of just about anybody else in that situation... but it's just not working.

 

I also think it would be easier to prank call someone pretending to be OJ in real life(if that really did happen to Cochrane) because OJ has that deep baritone voice that would be easier to imitate than CBJ's raspy tenor.

[kassa]

In regards to the witness who saw OJ driving, I fail to see why her selling the story to Hard Copy was that big a deal.  They had the witness' police/DA interview weeks before the Hard Copy show.  There was clearly proof that she wasn't making up the story.

 

 

Aside from the "you made money selling your story" side of things, it would be more that her story changed/got embellished.  She was matter of fact when she first reported it -- a white bronco cut me off, the guy was driving like a nut - whoa, OJ Simpson cursed me out!  

Then on Inside Edition -- "I was terrified!  I feared for my life!"  The facts didn't necessarily change, but a defense attorney could play the "why didn't you mention that in your first account -- is it because it didn't happen?  Maybe what you described to the police didn't happen either!  Have you always been a person who makes up things or exaggerates your involvement so you can get attention?"

 

They knew Scheck was on the team and he was a DNA expert, what did they think Scheck was going to establish if not a problem with the DNA evidence?  I guess I'm just in such shock that the DA's office seems so unprepared for a "rich man's defense."

 

 

The prosecution knew the DNA evidence was a slam dunk -- it was OJ's blood at the house, and Nicole's blood at OJ's house.  Scheck even said as much to the defense team.  They wanted to make the case that the mishandling could make it look like it was OJ's blood when it wasn't, and Scheck basically told them that was impossible, and they would need to either get it thrown out, or if they couldn't manage that, at least muddy the water so that the jury wouldn't trust anything that the police handled.  I believe post-trial interviews indicated that the jury gave very little consideration to the DNA evidence, which went on and on and on and on.  

 

I think the prosecution definitely got caught flat footed there, because they saw the anti-police rhetoric as rhetoric, and not actual legal strategy.

 

As for the fiddling with OJ's complexion on the photos -- that was a MAJOR story, on every outlet for several days.  Again, the average person's exposure to image manipulation was virtually nonexistent -- aside from the butchered edits of photos on the cover of the Enquirer and things like that.  But here not only was it a story, but those two magazines, the one with the natural toned OJ and the one with the scary dark toned OJ were side by side on every newsstand in America.  Those magazines were still major sellers, not the pitiful dental office freebies they are today.  Every person could look at the two images side by side and appreciate that they were being manipulated.  Even people who were convinced OJ did it were taken aback by the contrasting cover stories, if not on racial terms, on "what else are they doing with the images they show us" terms.  Prior to that, maybe you couldn't believe everything you saw because a film clip might be taken out of context... but generally you would not expect that the cover image of one of the nation's top news magazines would be manipulated in that way.

Edited February 18, 2016 by kassa

[wanderingstar]

Cuba Gooding is working for me as OJ. He's conveying the expected self pity and egocentricness of a man always used to getting his way who is suddenly public enemy no. 1. I particularly loved the moment in episode 1 when the cops put the cuffs on him, and he had this look of utter shock - like are you really putting cuffs on ME? But  CG is also portraying the shiftiness of a highly unreliable narrator, which is obviously spot on. I dunno, it's all working for me.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Gillian Rosh

[Ina123]

I swear I had to laugh. All those AfricanAmericans yelling support, on the jury saying "not guilty" and here's OJ with, "I'm not black. I'M OJ!"

[BW Manilowe]

Answered that one via an edit while you were typing. :)

I suppose this means there is an ongoing series called "American Crime Story," of which this O.J. thing is merely one year's installment. You could have fooled me. In fact, moderators, you did. ;)

Yes, it does mean that. The next season of ACS will be about Hurricane Katrina & how that was so grossly mishandled by all the governmental officials involved.