Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

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.

 

The important thing is that the Season 2 finale of KUWTK was about Hurricane Katrina, and Kim's future husband exclaimed "George Bush doesn't care about black people" during the Concert for Hurricane Relief, so there's a Kardashian connection.

 

Hurricane Katrina's name even starts with a K.

  • Love 17
Link to comment

I have little exposure to the real Marcia Clark, but I definitely have sympathy for the mini-series version. I dont find her to be a bitch at all. She seems like a very competent, measured, intelligent woman with a sense of humor. The only thing I really dislike about her is the smoking...and not so much *that* she smokes, but just how much. My God, its like every scene she has she's puffing away.

I think Marcia made a mistake by not putting those witnesses on the stand. I get her point about credibility and all that, but to me, given the other factors surrounding the other evidence (no witness to the actual crime, dna is not that well known/understood + possibly contaminated, your detectives and other police personnel are about to be raked over the coals because of the dept. racist history, the defendant is a well known/well liked celebrity, and maybe the defense attorneys themselves have some cache based on their own celebrity). To me you have to put those other witnesses on and let the jury decide if they find their testimony credible despite the fact that they sold their stories to the tabloids.

And I find it kind of ironic that its said the jury could have seen video of OJ committing the murders and they still wouldnt have convicted him, when one of the reasons that is, is because another jury not too long prior DID see a video of the crime in question (Rodney King beating) and chose not to convict. I just watched that beating on youtube over the weekend, and I was enraged. I can't image anyone watching that with two working eyes and not thinking those cops were guilty of assault.

Edited by FuriousStyles
  • Love 9
Link to comment

I heard one of the people involved in the investigation on a news program (can't remember who) say that the drop of OJ's blood they found on the back of Nicole's neck should have been enough evidence to convict him. They had overwhelming physical evidence, a literal blood trail.

The prosecutors were over-confident and that arrogance sunk them from the start. It made Garcetti treat the change of venue from Santa Monica to Downtown L.A. as an opportunity to showcase his constituency. It made Marcia Clark think, of course African American women will relate to Nicole, etc..

I'm completely on board for this show and find it engrossing, but revisiting the times and the themes of this trial brings up some strong emotions in me. It's so frustrating to see the mistakes they made dramatized. I'm in, but it won't be easy.

ETA: I really disliked Johnny Cochran back then and still think he was a cynical SOB. However, Courtney B. Vance is so good and makes JC so likable, he's my favorite character, so far.

Edited by 7isBlue
  • Love 6
Link to comment

I'm trying to remember, maybe you all can help me. Was the witness that saw OJ driving telling the truth? Did we ever figure that out 22 years ago? Didn't she report her incident well after it happened and after OJ was arrested? There is something to her story that I am forgetting. I thought they didn't use her as a witness for more reasons than she was paid by a tabloid for the story?

Link to comment

She probably was, but she embellished it later and was paid for it, so it was pretty tainted by that point.  I certainly don't recall her ever recanting.

 

Pity, she was probably one of the most important witnesses they had.

  • Love 4
Link to comment

I have little exposure to the real Marcia Clark, but I definitely have sympathy for the mini-series version. I dont find her to be a bitch at all. She seems like a very competent, measured, intelligent woman with a sense of humor. The only thing I really dislike about her is the smoking...and not so much *that* she smokes, but just how much. My God, its like every scene she has she's puffing away.

And I find it kind of ironic that its said the jury could have seen video of OJ committing the murders and they still wouldnt have convicted him, when one of the reasons that is, is because another jury not too long prior DID see a video of the crime in question (Rodney King beating) and chose not to convict. I just watched that beating on youtube over the weekend, and I was enraged. I can't image anyone watching that with two working eyes and not thinking those cops were guilty of assault.

 

I agree. The King video--what the hell was that? HOW could they have refused to convict? That video is sickening. Appalling dereliction of civic duty. I can't remember, were the SImi Valley cops brought up on Federal charges?

  • Love 6
Link to comment

I think the I saw the bronco lady's account fell smoothly into the timeline between the time of the murder and the limo driver/Kato's account of oj's return to the house. There was another sighting or incident in there too - they physically mapped the spots where each person spotted him and it fit the time.

At the point she reported it, if she'd just been randomly lying, it would have been highly coincidental for her to nail the precise time he'd pass through that intersection.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

I have little exposure to the real Marcia Clark, but I definitely have sympathy for the mini-series version. I dont find her to be a bitch at all. She seems like a very competent, measured, intelligent woman with a sense of humor. The only thing I really dislike about her is the smoking...and not so much *that* she smokes, but just how much. My God, its like every scene she has she's puffing away.

Marcia's smoking is hard to watch, and who knows if she actually smoked that much. But it's an interesting detail in that it shows you how much things have changed in a relatively short amount of time. This is a 20-plus year old crime. In many ways it feels like yesterday, but a lot of what we considered the norm then just feels so out of wack now.

 

I'm completely on board for this show and find it engrossing, but revisiting the times and the themes of this trial brings up some strong emotions in me. It's so frustrating to see the mistakes they made dramatized. I'm in, but it won't be easy.

 

On the other hand, to this point, while I want to believe we have come so far as a society, in terms of race and money and justice, there's a lot happening today that tells me we're not, and that's hard to watch.

 

 

ETA: I really disliked Johnny Cochran back then and still think he was a cynical SOB. However, Courtney B. Vance is so good and makes JC so likable, he's my favorite character, so far.

I wonder if that will change. I don't think it's just Vance's excellent portrayal that makes him so likable, at least for me--I think he's representing (for now) the concerns of the black community that many of us can get behind. I wonder if he will become less likable the more involved he gets in the case.

  • Love 7
Link to comment

I thought this episode highlighted how arrogant Clark was...She didn't care that quite a lot of black people didn't think OJ did it, and were still upset over Rodney King....

 

I "liked" your whole post, because it was full of insight, but I disagree about the show's portrayal of Clark re obliviousness to black sentiment. Now, it may be that the actual Marcia Clark was arrogantly oblivious to the vibe in the black community--but you're talking about the episode. And in this episode, Sarah Paulson told me that her character was not oblivious. When Darden first tells her, "None of my friends think he did it," that little flicker of "Oh shit, we're fucked" that happens in her face was a brilliant moment.

Edited by Milburn Stone
  • Love 6
Link to comment

I have little exposure to the real Marcia Clark, but I definitely have sympathy for the mini-series version. I dont find her to be a bitch at all. She seems like a very competent, measured, intelligent woman with a sense of humor. The only thing I really dislike about her is the smoking...and not so much *that* she smokes, but just how much. My God, its like every scene she has she's puffing away.

It.

Smoking doesn't bother me especially when it makes sense. We are in the 1980 people smoking makes sense. What does bother me is that smoking has fallen so out of fashion that it is removed from current shows when it does make sense..

  • Love 1
Link to comment

On The View, Cuba Gooding, Jr. Said he was elated when he heard OJ was acquitted. He didn't care whether he was guilty or not. He said the first time he cared was when he did the scene for the movie when he was standing over the casket.

I think that's how his defense attorneys probably felt. But, I guess that's the way they have to feel. They know their client is guilty and work to get them off anyway. It's their chosen profession. Johnnie Cochran had to have known OJ was guilty.

 

The way I see it is, we have an adversarial system.  If we didn't have it, the State could just say you are guilty and that would be that.  I remember how people complained about Johnnie Cochran, but privately said, "if I'm ever in trouble, I want HIM."  

 

Here's something interesting, I was working in Midtown Manhattan after the verdict.  Around that time Chris Darden came out with a book and he was signing copies of it in a Barnes and Noble on 47th street, I believe.  I remember seeing people lining up outside the bookstore, I remember most if not all of the people there were white; I remember one white woman saying how good looking she thought he was, and someone I worked with saying that I should go meet him since I was single at the time.  Strange memories.

Edited by Neurochick
  • Love 5
Link to comment

Watching this episode took me back to grad school when all of this was going down. I had a class the day after Marcia Clark's press conference. My law professor made a statement that stuck with me for reasons that will be obvious. 1) He stated that the prosecution already lost the case when Clark proclaimed that OJ was solely responsible for the crime. 2) He also said that the prosecution set itself for failure when Clark so clearly didn't grasp the pulse of the people. There was anger and mistrust of the police and she clearly didn't get it. 3) He concluded by saying the prosecution was playing checkers and didn't get that the defense was playing chess.

 

Happy, would you explain #1 a bit? Why was the case lost when Clark said OJ was solely responsible? Did the defense try to make the argument that this crime could not have been perpetrated by one incredibly large and strong individual?

 

And count me in with those of you who are annoyed with the idea of Marcia Clark being a 'bitch'. What do we call strong assertive men who are highly focused in their careers and want to win? Oh, right, we call them 'men'.

(I have a similar aversion to the term 'Cougar' but that is not appropriate for this thread. ;-) ).

Edited by MargotWendice
  • Love 7
Link to comment

I actually found the real Cochran more likable than the one portrayed here.  I don't know precisely what it is -- he had more gravitas in real life. I think what may have happened is that in the intervening years, he's been parodied so much (on Seinfeld, etc.) that the caricature has replaced the original version.

 

I went to google images to look at pics and (OJ trial-related or not) while he certainly had a wide array of suits in uncommon shades of blue, I didn't spot a single image of anything  lime green or yellow or peach or whatever other peacock colors they presented as being part of his everyday wardrobe.  So I'm giving the characterization here a side eye until we're further along.  

Edited by kassa
Link to comment

Happy, would you explain #1 a bit? Why was the case lost when Clark said OJ was solely responsible? Did the defense try to make the argument that this crime could not have been perpetrated by one incredibly large and strong individual?

 

And count me in with those of you who are annoyed with the idea of Marcia Clark being a 'bitch'. What do we call strong assertive men who are highly focused in their careers and want to win? Oh, right, we call them 'men'.

(I have a similar aversion to the term 'Cougar' but that is not appropriate for this thread. ;-) ).

My professor stated that with the level of mutilation involved and the two people killed, one of whom was a man in prime condition and OJ being a middle-aged man with a joint disorder, arthritis maybe? (Remember the site gag of OJ being unable to completely straighten out his hand and the hand being unable to fit in the glove) the prosecution would be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that there was no-one else present to help with the actual murders. That was why so much attention was initially focus on Al Cowlings and OJ's oldest son. He said that was a loose thread that a smart attorney would drive a truck through to create reasonable doubt. The defense did this to a certain extent, but they weighed more heavily on race. IMHO, OJ was one lucky son of a bitch to have Mark Furhman be the one who found that evidence.

  • Love 7
Link to comment

Cigarette sales are still huge, we just don't see it as often.

I know lots of smokers. My neighbor smokes like a chimney, sucking his cigarette like it’s life support.

Maybe Marcia’s smoking wouldn’t make people uncomfortable if she had to run back and forth to the parking lot all day.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

Happy, would you explain #1 a bit? Why was the case lost when Clark said OJ was solely responsible? Did the defense try to make the argument that this crime could not have been perpetrated by one incredibly large and strong individual?

 

And count me in with those of you who are annoyed with the idea of Marcia Clark being a 'bitch'. What do we call strong assertive men who are highly focused in their careers and want to win? Oh, right, we call them 'men'.

(I have a similar aversion to the term 'Cougar' but that is not appropriate for this thread. ;-) ).

In this case, not only "win," but get justice for a brutal double murder. In no way did I ever consider Clark a bitch. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment

 

And count me in with those of you who are annoyed with the idea of Marcia Clark being a 'bitch'. What do we call strong assertive men who are highly focused in their careers and want to win? Oh, right, we call them 'men'.

(I have a similar aversion to the term 'Cougar' but that is not appropriate for this thread. ;-) ).

Is it true, as posters have mentioned, Cochrane mouthed "gotcha!" to the Goldmans after the reading of the verdict? I would classify that as more of a bitch move than anything Clark said or did at any point in time, ever. Seriously, a cold-blooded bitch move worthy of a George Zimmerman-type as opposed to a presumably esteemed officer of the court. I understand Neurochick's comment that if you should find yourself in legal trouble, Mr. Cochrane is your man. But if he's burning in hell today for his callousness towards victims and survivors, it wouldn't bother me a bit.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

Is there a reason why so many posters are adding an 'E' to Johnnie Cochran's last name? Not a criticism, I'm just curious if that's a common spelling that I wasn't aware of. Like Greene or Browne. Again, not a criticism, but reading it out loud, it sounds like "cock rain," and that makes me laugh because apparently, I'm 12.

Edited by charmed1
  • Love 11
Link to comment

And count me in with those of you who are annoyed with the idea of Marcia Clark being a 'bitch'. What do we call strong assertive men who are highly focused in their careers and want to win? Oh, right, we call them 'men'.

(I have a similar aversion to the term 'Cougar' but that is not appropriate for this thread. ;-) ).

For sure. Although a lot of that "bitch" talk about her is people reflecting on how people reacted to/regarded her 20 years ago. I wanted to bring this up upthread when an earlier poster talked about being annoyed/tired of that, but I recall the thread got kind of sidetracked/argumentative and I didn't want to make the problem worse. 

My thoughts on this in general though are that surely there must be a different way to approach talking about/reacting to a historical reaction vs. a contemporary one? Do people NOW, today, say Clark was a bitch, or is this just a legacy of how people talked two decades ago?

Also the talk about Clark now is through the filter of an actress, not the real person, and the actress is bringing some other notes to the performance the real one might not have been perceived at the time as having, so when people talk about how at the time Clark came off as bitchy/was perceived that way, people two decades ago didn't have the benefit of seeing a dramatization with behind the scenes moments and subtle 'acting'  moments added in to humanize her.  All they had was what Clark brought to press conferences and the parts of the trial people saw/heard about.

 

If the point is to illustrate that little has changed, that's cool too, but if so perhaps there could be some compare/contrast to a current figure (the natural one might be Hillary Clinton--although I personally think the charge with her more often is that she's cold and robotic vs. bitchy). 

Edited by Kromm
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Happy, would you explain #1 a bit? Why was the case lost when Clark said OJ was solely responsible? Did the defense try to make the argument that this crime could not have been perpetrated by one incredibly large and strong individual?

And count me in with those of you who are annoyed with the idea of Marcia Clark being a 'bitch'. What do we call strong assertive men who are highly focused in their careers and want to win? Oh, right, we call them 'men'.

(I have a similar aversion to the term 'Cougar' but that is not appropriate for this thread. ;-) ).

 

 

Calling OJ "large" and "strong" could have been a stereotypical trigger, it's like calling a black man a "brute."  

 

Also, I believe that Johnny Cochran got justice for many victims of police brutality, which is nothing to sneeze at, especially considering the shit that's going on with the police and black people today.

  • Love 6
Link to comment

I watch it, and all I can do is imagine what her office smells like.

Me too! Her office, clothes, breath. Yikes. And like I said, its the frequency with which they show her smoking that's most bothersome to me.

Regarding the idea that there might have been another culprit, I remember years after the verdict the common theme was that OJ didnt commit the murders but he knew who did. Whether that person was his son, or AC or someone he hired, most people never doved that deep into it. But I definitely remember that being a common thought in my circle of adults (parents, uncles, etc.).

Link to comment

I do believe Kim but don't you think the gotcha was probably directed not at the Goldmans but to Clarke and Darden. Weren't the Goldmans a row behind them? Also saying it to be prosecution fits with the whole obsession with winning Cochrane had. I don't think he would see the Goldmans as his adversaries.

That said, if he said it to the Goldmans, happy brain cancer.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

Not to derail this thread, and it will probably show up in a future episode, but there was a focus group back then, and a woman indicated that she thought Clark came off as a "bitch."
 

Is there a reason why so many posters are adding an 'E' to Johnnie Cochran's last name? Not a criticism, I'm just curious if that's a common spelling that I wasn't aware of. Like Greene or Browne. Again, not a criticism, but reading it out loud, it sounds like "cock rain," and that makes me laugh because apparently, I'm 12.


Thank you! This has been bugging me, because his name does not have that extra 'e' in it. But I didn't want to say anything, fearing I'd be accused of being even more nitpicky than I alralready am!

Edited by GHScorpiosRule
  • Love 5
Link to comment
And in this episode, Sarah Paulson told me that her character was not oblivious. When Darden first tells her, "None of my friends think he did it," that little flicker of "Oh shit, we're fucked" that happens in her face was a brilliant moment.

 

Really?  I thought the look was more along the lines of "you've got to be kidding me, are they idiots?"  Maybe we'll see more about this, since it seems like if Clarke thought maybe there was a problem, it sure didn't change what they did in terms of who they put on the jury and how they handled the jury.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Am I the only person who grew up in the '90s around a lot of people who chain smoked? Yeah, it's weird to watch given how you can't smoke inside public buildings anymore but Clark was far from the only person in the country that was rarely seen without a cigarette in their hand. And yep, she probably smelled. If I had to attribute one smell to my childhood it was probably secondhand smoke.

 

My friend's dad is convinced that OJ's son Jason was the one that killed them on OJ's orders. He thinks there would have been more blood in the Bronco if OJ had done it. When he mentioned it I thought he had come up with it on his own, I didn't realize that there were other people entertaining the theory. Idk how much I believe it but I think no matter what, OJ still had something to do with it. The physical evidence is too much to ignore.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Is there a reason why so many posters are adding an 'E' to Johnnie Cochran's last name? Not a criticism, I'm just curious if that's a common spelling that I wasn't aware of. Like Greene or Browne. Again, not a criticism, but reading it out loud, it sounds like "cock rain," and that makes me laugh because apparently, I'm 12.

I think Cochrane is the more common spelling of the name so that is what people are more likely to defer to. I believe Cochran is a derivation of Cochran. There are certainly a lot of Cochranes in Scotland and England.

Link to comment

Regarding the idea that there might have been another culprit, I remember years after the verdict the common theme was that OJ didnt commit the murders but he knew who did. Whether that person was his son, or AC or someone he hired, most people never doved that deep into it. But I definitely remember that being a common thought in my circle of adults (parents, uncles, etc.).

Is it proper to ask if your family is African-American or not?  You have no obligation to answer (and can just abstain), but it seems relevant if the issue is how certain groups of people reacted.

 

Similarly, are they California based?  Urban?  Rural?  Middle class?  Economically challenged? Rich?  Again, only as you see fit to discuss.

 

I know at the time I was surrounded by a real intersection, between personal acquaintances. family and work, of people of different races and economic levels. The only thing totally in common is that we were all East Coast based (New York City area). Which IS relevant, because while OJ in theory played for a New York team, what people elsewhere don't always understand is that New York City area people have no sense of ownership about (in fact don't like) the Buffalo Bills. 

 

Anyway, my point is that every single person I ever talked to this about (or overheard any conversation about this from--during and after the trial people DID spontaneously talk about this) thought OJ was guilty--personally guilty--as hell. Race, economic level, etc. it never varied. I can't say I recall or knew their reactions BEFORE the trial, but I know how people were reacting after. What differed.. a lot... was how people perceived the seriousness of OJ getting off. The rich white folk tended to harp on the "travesty" of it. The not-rich non-white types kind of were all over the board. Actually I remember a big split between black folks I knew with Island/Caribbean backgrounds and those without. The Afro-Caribbeaners (the ones I knew I mean) didn't particularly hold OJ in any high regard and leaned more towards the "travesty" end of things.  The African-Americans without that background were more likely to err to the side of thinking about how OJ going free was a small thing compared to the other racial injustices that were going on in the world.  Again, this could have been a New York City specific filter/reaction to it. And admittedly my sample size was a few dozen people, not hundreds or thousands (and a lot of it overheard, but as I said, a least for a few days after the trial everyone was talking about it at the drop of a hat). 

 

Now I DO get you also said "years later". I can't say anyone I knew thought or talked much about this more than a year or two after the trial. When was the civil case?  That might have led to people talking, but if so I don't retain any real memories of what the reactions were. The next instance I really remember of a lot of talk was when OJ got nabbed for the robbery thing. At that point, again (and as I said it might be a New York City thing) nobody I knew of any racial background seemed all that put out that he was in jail, and seemingly a bit railroaded in compensation for his other crimes. Again, everyone I knew or encountered said--assumed--OJ was personally guilty of the murders. Many of the white folks were gleeful in fact that OJ was in jail. The black folks tended to just shrug it off and dissociate any sense of ownership of OJ (or his fate) as having anything to do with them [a pattern--an understandable one too--I think is going to start to happen, if it isn't already, with Bill Cosby].

Not to derail this thread, and it will probably show up in a future episode, but there was a focus group back then, and a woman indicated that she thought Clark came off as a "bitch."

I DO think it's relevant, personally. I just wonder if it's totally on point to process something someone said 20 years ago with contemporary society. Not that I'm convinced people don't still say/think that kind of thing now, I'm just saying that Clark isn't the best example to use, because the data on how people reacted to her is so out of date.

Edited by Kromm
Link to comment

Me too! Her office, clothes, breath. Yikes. And like I said, its the frequency with which they show her smoking that's most bothersome to me.

Regarding the idea that there might have been another culprit, I remember years after the verdict the common theme was that OJ didnt commit the murders but he knew who did. Whether that person was his son, or AC or someone he hired, most people never doved that deep into it. But I definitely remember that being a common thought in my circle of adults (parents, uncles, etc.).

Except the DNA evidence clearly showed that could not be the case.

  • Love 4
Link to comment

Am I the only person who grew up in the '90s around a lot of people who chain smoked? Yeah, it's weird to watch given how you can't smoke inside public buildings anymore but Clark was far from the only person in the country that was rarely seen without a cigarette in their hand. And yep, she probably smelled. If I had to attribute one smell to my childhood it was probably secondhand smoke.

 

My friend's dad is convinced that OJ's son Jason was the one that killed them on OJ's orders. He thinks there would have been more blood in the Bronco if OJ had done it. When he mentioned it I thought he had come up with it on his own, I didn't realize that there were other people entertaining the theory. Idk how much I believe it but I think no matter what, OJ still had something to do with it. The physical evidence is too much to ignore.

I worked for state government in the 80's and 90's.  You could smoke at your desk, during the work day.  I think that EVERYTHING smelled like smoke back then. Some taverns here in Chicago, STILL smell like smoke.

 

I always wondered how my parents never knew I smoked.  Well, they themselves were light smokers and me coming in smelling like smoke just meant that I was around smoke.  Now a days, everything is so clean and pristine, that you can smell smoke a mile away.  

  • Love 6
Link to comment

I was in college around 1994. Not only could you smoke in your dorm room, (your roommate had to agree, and I have a story about that) you could still smoke in the dining hall. The smoking area was the lower landing. There were high ceiling and no smoking abatement whatsoever. You stayed near the top and hope the smoke didn't waft over.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

What was the deal with Shaprio's relationship with Bailey in this episode? They seemed like friends but Travolta played it like he really didn't want to call Bailey. Why didn't he? Also what exactly did Bailey bring to the table as far as being part of the dream team?

  • Love 1
Link to comment

I was in college around 1994. Not only could you smoke in your dorm room, (your roommate had to agree, and I have a story about that) you could still smoke in the dining hall. The smoking area was the lower landing. There were high ceiling and no smoking abatement whatsoever. You stayed near the top and hope the smoke didn't waft over.

 

Totally unrelated to the show, but my college was similar. All the buildings were non-smoking, more for flammable reasons than anything, but the smoke would waft in through the windows of the dorms near the smoking benches. I was walking by one night and a girl on the to floor opens her window and yells "smoking kills, you dumb fucks!"

 

But it is very weird to see Marcia smoking at the office. My mom was a smoker so I know it was normal once, but I can't remember the last time I smelled cigarette smoke while I was sober. I think it's illegal in most public places now, even entire cities.

Link to comment

What was the deal with Shaprio's relationship with Bailey in this episode? They seemed like friends but Travolta played it like he really didn't want to call Bailey. Why didn't he? Also what exactly did Bailey bring to the table as far as being part of the dream team?

According to Schiller's book on the defense (which has been a really fascinating read so far, and cheap on Amazon), Bailey and Shapiro were old friends who would talk frequently. Bailey is even one of Shapiro's daughter's godfathers, or the other way around.

According to the book, Bailey didn't jump to become involved, but Shapiro reached out to him. Bailey is the one defense attorney who has steadfastly stood by his opinion that OJ didn't do it. For that, uh, I judge him - in addition to his being disbarred for less than noble deeds.

Bailey had won a retrial of Sam Sheppard - a doctor who was accused and jailed for the murder of his pregnant wife. So he has a certain knowledge base for violent crimes of the heart, and trials with a "circus" atmosphere to them.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Is there a reason why so many posters are adding an 'E' to Johnnie Cochran's last name? Not a criticism, I'm just curious if that's a common spelling that I wasn't aware of. Like Greene or Browne. Again, not a criticism, but reading it out loud, it sounds like "cock rain," and that makes me laugh because apparently, I'm 12.

 

It's funny, because I was doing it up until this week, when i checked it. I don't know why I want there to be an e. Maybe because he spelled his name Johnnie? 

I do believe Kim but don't you think the gotcha was probably directed not at the Goldmans but to Clarke and Darden. Weren't the Goldmans a row behind them? Also saying it to be prosecution fits with the whole obsession with winning Cochrane had. I don't think he would see the Goldmans as his adversaries.

That said, if he said it to the Goldmans, happy brain cancer.

I don't really believe he said it. Nothing against Kim Goldman, for whom I have the utmost sympathy, but I just think someone else would have seen that to verify it. I also don't think Cochran would have risked being seen doing something so callous. 

  • Love 6
Link to comment

According to Schiller's book on the defense (which has been a really fascinating read so far, and cheap on Amazon), Bailey and Shapiro were old friends who would talk frequently. Bailey is even one of Shapiro's daughter's godfathers, or the other way around.

According to the book, Bailey didn't jump to become involved, but Shapiro reached out to him. Bailey is the one defense attorney who has steadfastly stood by his opinion that OJ didn't do it. For that, uh, I judge him - in addition to his being disbarred for less than noble deeds.

Bailey had won a retrial of Sam Sheppard - a doctor who was accused and jailed for the murder of his pregnant wife. So he has a certain knowledge base for violent crimes of the heart, and trials with a "circus" atmosphere to them.

So if they really were friends and Shapiro did reach out to him, then why did Travolta play it up like he really didn't want to call him. He acted all annoyed when he told his secretary to get F. Lee Bailey on the phone and I don't understand why.

Link to comment

Is there a reason why so many posters are adding an 'E' to Johnnie Cochran's last name? Not a criticism, I'm just curious if that's a common spelling that I wasn't aware of. Like Greene or Browne. Again, not a criticism, but reading it out loud, it sounds like "cock rain," and that makes me laugh because apparently, I'm 12.

"Clark" is also being misspelled, by some, with an E at the end. It's a valid spelling for the name, but not in Marcia's case--just as an E at the end is valid, in some cases, for Cochran, but not in Johnnie's case. Again, not a criticism--just a comment/response to your post.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

So if they really were friends and Shapiro did reach out to him, then why did Travolta play it up like he really didn't want to call him. He acted all annoyed when he told his secretary to get F. Lee Bailey on the phone and I don't understand why.

The concept of "Frenemies" is not exactly new (or totally fictional). 

Bailey had the fame Shapiro wanted for himself.

This too (part of the same thing).

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Is it proper to ask if your family is African-American or not? You have no obligation to answer (and can just abstain), but it seems relevant if the issue is how certain groups of people reacted.

Similarly, are they California based? Urban? Rural? Middle class? Economically challenged? Rich? Again, only as you see fit to discuss.

I have dont know if its proper, but I certainly dont have a problem with it. :) Yes, my family is black. My parents are West Indian (Caribbean) but had already been living in the states (NYC to be exact) for 20+ years by the time the early 90s rolled around. At the exact time of the murders and subsequent trial we had already moved back to the Caribbean but the rest of the family stayed. I was about 7 at the time, and I do remember seeing bits and pieces of the trial on tv, but I couldnt really tell you if the coverage where we lived was as all encompassing as it was in the US. I doubt it though.

I dont think anyone in my immediate family had some great feeling about OJ before the murders. My dad, to this day, hates/doesnt understand football. The other day, he scoffed when I asked if he wanted to watch the Superbowl.  I'm sure they all knew him more as a celebrity/commercial type person.

By years later, I just mean if for some reason OJ/the trial came up in conversation, the popular opinion I remember hearing was that OJ definitely had something to do with the murder but probably didnt do it himself.  

Edited by FuriousStyles
Link to comment

The jury saw Mark Fuhrman, the man who testified about the bloody glove, take the stand and plead the Fifth. That was sufficient to enter a not-guilty verdict. Fuhrman had racist attitudes and these were also shown the jury. He was a gift to the defense. He should never have taken the stand.

If you were looking for reasonable doubt, there it was on a platter. Nine months of largely repeated testimony; endless lawyer comversations and the judge didn't meet on Fridays! There is an account in Linda Whatsername's book of how long the jury was forced to look at the crime photos, too gross for TV viewers, but in full view of the jury for a solid week! The prosecution was clumsy, and the verdict was correct.

As Gerry Spence said at the time, everybody knew he was a murderer. People shunned him. His career was finished. He lost his precious house. And he behaved like a clown again and now he's in jail for the rest of his life. That verdict was a tiny reprieve in the hell that his life became.

YMMV.

Edited by SFoster21
  • Love 3
Link to comment

Happytobehere:

My professor stated that with the level of mutilation involved and the two people killed, one of whom was a man in prime condition and OJ being a middle-aged man with a joint disorder, arthritis maybe? (Remember the site gag of OJ being unable to completely straighten out his hand and the hand being unable to fit in the glove) the prosecution would be hard pressed to make a convincing argument that there was no-one else present to help with the actual murders. ...

 

I thought the same thing at first-- but I think the police felt that Nicole had been knocked unconscious already when Ron Goldman walked up.  OJ could hear him coming, hid in the bushes, and surprised him. Ron had many slashing wounds and the animation I saw (you can find on YouTube)  showed how quickly the murders could happen.  As far as I know, AC and OJ's son were never serious suspects after being investigated--they both liked Nicole and there was nothing to indicate they were there at her house on the night of the murders.  Everything that was tested came back to identify OJ.  Hairs in the cap, fibers from his car, shoeprints, DNA, driver eyewitness, limo driver witness all pointed to OJ-- nothing at all from any other person. 

 

I also wondered how would a person even know how to slice someone's throat from behind like that?  But it turns out that OJ loved knives, collected many of them, and was even a spokesman for a knife company.  Also-- he had recently shot a TV pilot called Frogmen, which included training the actors how to kill military style. This was a rage killing.  And while OJ was screened for drugs, he was not screened for steroids or PED's.  (Steroid rage is often seen among athletes and this episode would be typical of it.)

 

The prosecution never really told a story that explained all of the details people wondered about.  So questions remained.  (At least in public opinion; nothing probably would have changed the jury verdict.)  And the prosecution did have the information from their own jury consultant, that female jurors would not like Marcia Clark, but would like Bill Hodgeman.  But prosecutors ignored that completely.  OJ's defense team, on the other hand, had their jury consultant right there in the courtroom.  And when she thought a juror might be leaning toward a guilty verdict, that juror was removed. 

 

So many details that led to the victory for the defense. 

  • Love 10
Link to comment

For sure. Although a lot of that "bitch" talk about her is people reflecting on how people reacted to/regarded her 20 years ago. I wanted to bring this up upthread when an earlier poster talked about being annoyed/tired of that, but I recall the thread got kind of sidetracked/argumentative and I didn't want to make the problem worse. 

My thoughts on this in general though are that surely there must be a different way to approach talking about/reacting to a historical reaction vs. a contemporary one? Do people NOW, today, say Clark was a bitch, or is this just a legacy of how people talked two decades ago?

Also the talk about Clark now is through the filter of an actress, not the real person, and the actress is bringing some other notes to the performance the real one might not have been perceived at the time as having, so when people talk about how at the time Clark came off as bitchy/was perceived that way, people two decades ago didn't have the benefit of seeing a dramatization with behind the scenes moments and subtle 'acting'  moments added in to humanize her.  All they had was what Clark brought to press conferences and the parts of the trial people saw/heard about.

 

If the point is to illustrate that little has changed, that's cool too, but if so perhaps there could be some compare/contrast to a current figure (the natural one might be Hillary Clinton--although I personally think the charge with her more often is that she's cold and robotic vs. bitchy). 

 

The original post said that Marcia Clarke was "coming off as a mega-bitch in the show." There was no historical perspective, no discussion of how back then she was called a bitch--it was a statement on the character Marcia Clarke in this show, the one airing now, the strong prosecutor out to prove someone guilty whom she has very strong evidence to believe is in fact guilty. I find that kind of language appalling. And it's disgusting that we hold strong women, or those who act in unconventionally feminine ways, to such ridiculously high scrutiny.

 

The whole thing reminds me of the mid-'90s, one of the more sordid moments of which was when New Gingrich's mother gave an interview where she said her son though Hillary was a bitch. (Naturally Gingrich was furious--that his mother was quoted, not that he said it and that she repeated it, knowing full well she was being interviewed.) Which also echoed Barbara Bush in '84 who called her husband's opponent in the VP race (Geraldine Ferraro) a bitch (oh so coyly of course--"rhymes with witch." Naturally she was furious--not that she'd said it but that she'd been quoted, knowing full well she was being interviewed). It's just appalling. And it also appalls me that to this day, the discussion about this horrible crime, wherein a battered mother was slaughtered by her ex-husband along with an innocent bystander, and this trial where a strong woman was continually smeared with misogynistic language, was framed by race, and race alone. There were so many other elements to this case.

 

Calling OJ "large" and "strong" could have been a stereotypical trigger, it's like calling a black man a "brute."  

 

Large and strong are neutral descriptive terms. Brute implies a judgment--it's inherently negative when applied to a human.

  • Love 16
Link to comment

Calling OJ "large" and "strong" could have been a stereotypical trigger, it's like calling a black man a "brute."  

A 212 pound 6 foot 1 hard-hitting football player, I have to believe, can safely be called "large" and "strong" because of simple physical dimensions and career choice. I'm not sure I get the misdeed here, if that's a term that was used to describe OJ.

  • Love 7
Link to comment

F Lee Bailey and Alan Dershowitz were 100 times more famous than Shapiro and Cochran. Bailey's fame as a lawyer was more historical at that point (Sam Sheppard, Patti Hearst) and Dershowitz more modern (von Bulow), but both were household names enough to be punch lines on sitcoms/talk shows when referring to lawyers.

I'm guessing Shapiro felt a wee bit of something when they came on board.

Edited by kassa
  • Love 3
Link to comment

When a reporter asked Clark if she was considering the death penalty for OJ, I was confused. Hadn't the death penalty been overturned in California? Manson and the other Tate-LaBianca murderers were originally given death sentences that were then commuted to life in prison when the death penalty was overturned in 1972. Had it been reinstated by '94?

 

Also, I know we've talked about DNA evidence being relatively new and leading to a lot of problems regarding collection of evidence, but Shapiro didn't seem understand even the basic fundamentals of DNA, and Watson and Crick established the double helix model in the '50s. Was basic knowledge about DNA still not common at all?

The Manson family death sentences were commuted not because of anything California did, but because the Supreme Court threw out the death penalty nationwide as arbitrary and unconstitutional.  They reinstated the option of the death penalty several years later.

 

Basic knowledge of DNA, prior to its use in forensics, for most people consisted of knowing there was such a thing and that it was a genetic building block.  Not much else.  At least that's how it was for me, and I grew up in the 60s.  I was non-science oriented but at least I knew it stood for deoxyribonucleic acid, which helped me a lot when playing Hangman.

 

The two weakest parts of this episode were the opening sequence with the KKKs, and every scene with CGJ.  Otherwise, I think it's gotten better since the beginning.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...