American Crime Story Book Club

[Epeolatrix]

This topic is for discussion of books relevant to each season of American Crime Story.

[Epeolatrix]

Amazon.com has a great Listmania for books about the case, with helpful notes as to the usefulness of each book.

 

For "The People versus O. J. Simpson", my favorites are The Run of His Life : The People versus O. J. Simpson by Jeffrey Toobin and American Tragedy: The Uncensored Story of the Simpson Defense by Lawrence Schiller and James Willwerth. They seemed like the most informative and objective, although Toobin's book is full of snarky observations.

[Isabella15]

Great topic!  I agree with your top two though I confess I find OJ books to be the potato chips of Amazon.com.  Can't read just one!

 

P.S.  I know this is not ref. the criminal case, but I also liked Dan Petrocelli's book about the civil trial.  (Triumph of Justice)  After seeing the two 2015 documentaries with clips from the deposition tapes, I realized I knew nothing about the civil case that OJ lost.  There's also an older documentary called 'Juror Number Five:  58 days of duty on the OJ Simpson civil trial', that gave the perspective of juror Deena Mullen. 

 

All of these together completed the portrait of the OJ phenomenon for me. 

[Epeolatrix]

The juror book I remember best is "Madam Foreman" by Armanda Cooley, Carrie Bess, and Marsha Rubin-Jackson. The San Francisco Gate newspaper has an excellent review of the book, saying "these three jurors from the O.J. Simpson trial offer a point-by-point analysis of evidence that should at last settle the question flummoxing observers from both sides: What in heaven's name were those jurors thinking?" Readers might still disagree with the jurors' thought processes, but it's an interesting book nonetheless. If you don't want to spring for the book, the SFGate article is a decent CliffsNotes version.

Edited February 22, 2016 by WertherEffekt

[Funzlerks]

The only book I read was The Run of his Life. That's why this series rings true! I was borderline too young to understand everything, but to young girl me, it seemed so unfair that this rich man got away with beating and murdering his wife and her friend. Most of my understanding came from reading that book years later for a college course, so I believe many of my memories of the case are entangled with information from the book. Barry Scheck spoke to us a few times, but almost exclusively on The Innocence Project and nobody had the nerve to ask much about the Simpson case. He and Neufeld seemed very uninterested in it other than fueling their mission.

I would be interested in different reading books now. I have a totally different understanding of the relationship between black communities and the police now, and it is really informing my views on Cochran, especially. When I was a kid, the media told me we were pretty much post-racial and boy was that wrong! The police were avoiding probable cause and were planting evidence and were targeting individuals. In a way, I think it was a huge disservice to just cover the trial and the rich, pretty people involved without looking at what was going on in the police in general.

[Umbelina]

I've read a bunch of them, as I've said in other threads.  Many ended up in the dollar stores about 2 years after the trial ended.  I still haven't read either of Faye's, because I absolutely can't stomach her, or her making her fame and money because of her dead friend, and then not only screwing up the possibility of very important testimony by her sleazy rush to get her book, co-written by some sleaze from The Enquirer, and spilling every single private secret she could, to hell with what that would do to her family, and her children sooner or later.

 

Fuhrman's was actually one of the better books, another I almost didn't buy, but then did.  I haven't read the one this show is based on, but there is so much online now anyway.  You can pretty much find out what these 20 year old books said by just looking around at reviews.  Shiller's book, for example, is laid out pretty well in several places.

[elzin]

I own a copy of Dominick Dunne's Another City Not My Own and I have no idea where it is, but luckily it was at my library this week and I can't wait to reread an old favorite later.

[Umbelina]

http://www.vulture.com/2016/02/faye-resnick-nicole-brown-simpson-private-diary-life-interrupted.html

 

For those who don't want to read Faye's book (actually she wrote two) Vulture did a pretty good recap here.

 

Another.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/02/faye-resnick-book-nicole-simpson-people-v-oj-simpson-episode-4

Edited February 24, 2016 by Umbelina

[elzin]

I own a copy of Dominick Dunne's Another City Not My Own and I have no idea where it is, but luckily it was at my library this week and I can't wait to reread an old favorite later.

So this book is getting a little too meta for me right now.

The "narrator" (I used quotes because it's Dunne himself with a different name) is telling us about how he was talking to Nancy Reagan about his chat with Princess Diana about the case and they then talked about how Di visited the White House and danced there with John Travolta.

[suomi]

From Jeffrey Toobin's The Run of His Life:

 

Since the day of the murders, Simpson had been on the phone with Cochran talking about his plight and asking the attorney to join in his defense efforts. On the air, Cochran was cautious and only mildly pro-defense. His comment that night on Nightline was typical of what he was saying on all the programs: "I think that the important thing for all Americans to understand is that this is a tragic, tragic case, but at this point he's still presumed to be innocent."

 

Off camera though, Cochran, like Shapiro, could afford to be more blunt. For example, during a break in the broadcast of Nightline on June 17 in ABC's studios in Los Angeles, Cochran sized up the situation very differently from the way he did for the program's viewers. "OJ is in massive denial," Cochran told a friend. "He obviosly did it. He should do a diminished capacity plea and he might have a chance to get out in a reasonable amount of time." When, the following week, Cochran traveled to Burbank for his early-morning duty to the Today show, he expressed the same sentiments - likewise to friends, off camera.

 

But in the days to come, as Cochran continued to listen to Simpson's entreaties, the lawyer learned that the defendant had no interest in pleading guilty. He wanted to go to trial and win - and he wanted Cochran to represent him. Cochran was torn. He enjoyed the broadcasting work; it was easy, flattering, low-stress and, at several hundred dollars per appearance on Today, the money wasn't bad either. But how could he turn down what was shaping up to be the trial of the century?

Edited February 26, 2016 by suomi

[Isabella15]

suomi quoted from Jeffrey Toobin:  The Run of His Life:

 

Off camera though, Cochran, like Shapiro, could afford to be more blunt. For example, during a break in the broadcast of Nightline on June 17 in ABC's studios in Los Angeles, Cochran sized up the situation very differently from the way he did for the program's viewers. "OJ is in massive denial," Cochran told a friend. "He obviosly did it. He should do a diminished capacity plea and he might have a chance to get out in a reasonable amount of time." When, the following week, Cochran traveled to Burbank for his early-morning duty to the Today show, he expressed the same sentiments - likewise to friends, off camera.

 

suomi, that's a great quote from Toobin's book!  I wonder who his sources were for Cochran's statements.  I think this was also partly the reason Marcia Clark was so confident in her case.  Confident to a fault.  She knew Cochran very well and must have either heard his opinion or spoken to him herself. 

 

I don't remember other journalists talking about what Cochran said before he joined the defense team so this is an important point. 

Toobin and Schiller had the closest access to the defense I believe.  Toobin has gone on the record as saying he thought the verdict was a miscarriage of justice, so I wondered if he included this passage in his book because he felt strongly about that. 

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Isabella15

[Asp Burger]

One thing I learned from Jeffrey Toobin's book is that OJ, Bob Kardashian, and Cochran all three physically abused their wives, or at least were alleged to have done so.  

 

Also, the scary 1994 poll that 40 percent of African-American women felt physical violence in a marriage was appropriate. I hope that that is lower now.  

[elzin]

So this book is getting a little too meta for me right now.

The "narrator" (I used quotes because it's Dunne himself with a different name) is telling us about how he was talking to Nancy Reagan about his chat with Princess Diana about the case and they then talked about how Di visited the White House and danced there with John Travolta.

I spoke WAY TOO SOON. Now that Dunne is in the show, it's super ultra meta.

[lovinbob]

Kardashian abused his wife? I've never heard that before. Yikes.

 

I'm struggling through Bugliosi's book, but his outrage is too much for me (pun intended). I don't doubt he's right but the sarcasm and anger make it difficult to read—I mean that literally. There are times he actually says, "I mean that sarcastically, of course." That's just bad writing and poor editing.

 

I want a good summary/analysis of the trial. Maybe Toobin, but I'd probably rather wait till after the show is over. Dunne? I don't really want to read it fictionalized, and also I recently read one of his articles about the Menendez trial and it completely rubbed me the wrong way. He kept drawing all of these conclusions based on what was logical and while I can appreciate that on a personal level, it's not really useful in analysis of legal proceedings.

[Umbelina]

Well, PBS did a series you might like, I haven't read them yet.  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/ One more:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/oj/themes/prosecution.html

 

Honestly, here is a very short summary, and I'm not being flippant.

 

The case was lost in two place, and the second was completely dependent on the first.  There was simply no recovery from that.  At the VERY best?  It would have resulted in a hung jury and new trial.

 

1.  They moved the venue away from where the crimes happened, and TO a place OJ probably rarely set foot, and a jury full of people he would never socialize with, but routinely signed autographs for.

2.  The prosecution blew jury selection, even when their analyst told them the research. 

 

Then, way down the list:

3.  Cochran knew that with a single black jury member he could (at worst) get a hung jury.  He got a mostly black jury, and got an acquittal, by capitalizing on his, and their lifetime of experiences that justified reasons to not trust the police.  The police and DA office was on trial, not the hero OJ.

4.  The prosecutors failed to recover from that, and honestly, I don't think they could have, no matter what they did.  I am not joking when I say that even if they had a video of the murders to present in court, that jury would have been (easily) convinced by Cochran that it was faked.

5.  Trials are boring, and repetitive.  The jury was entertained by, and impressed by, a charismatic black lead attorney with AMAZING trial skills, the very easy to like, and fun to watch Cochran.  When he got up, they perked up, finally, some entertainment, while he schooled that prosecution team!  On the other hand, they really didn't like Marsha Clark, sexism yes, but also, she didn't have Johnny's Flair, or ability to hold an audience. 

 

(That seems odd I know, but I've been on juries, and it's very hard to not pay more attention to the attorney that doesn't bore you, or that you identify with, or simply like more.)

 

ETA

Fixed #2, thanks Crs97!

Edited March 5, 2016 by Umbelina

[Crs97]

My mom served on a criminal jury decades ago, and I remember her saying that the jurors felt compelled to study the evidence in great detail because they all hated the defense attorney so much they were worried they were convicting the defendant just on emotion. They had to prove to themselves they were being objective.

I think on #2 you meant to say prosecution. Great analysis.

[toodywoody]

Has anyone read the jurors books?

[SFoster21]

Kardashian abused his wife? I've never heard that before. Yikes.

I'm struggling through Bugliosi's book, but his outrage is too much for me (pun intended). I don't doubt he's right but the sarcasm and anger make it difficult to read—I mean that literally. There are times he actually says, "I mean that sarcastically, of course." That's just bad writing and poor editing.

I want a good summary/analysis of the trial. Maybe Toobin, but I'd probably rather wait till after the show is over. Dunne? I don't really want to read it fictionalized, and also I recently read one of his articles about the Menendez trial and it completely rubbed me the wrong way. He kept drawing all of these conclusions based on what was logical and while I can appreciate that on a personal level, it's not really useful in analysis of legal proceedings.

Toobin's book includes a lot of background on the participants, which is useful. But Larry Schiller's book, An American Tragedy, is the very best book on the trial itself. He was backstage with the defense lawyers.

Cochran's first wife wrote a very interesting book about their marriage. She hates him.

Also worth reading is the book about the civil trial, written by the head lawyer.

Own all these books; happy to lend. (Not Ms. Cochran's.)

[smiley13]

It looks like a lot of people wrote books and profited off of this case, including the lawyers and the victims' families.

[Epeolatrix]

I read one book that was the recollection of three jurors, "Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment?" by jury foreman Armanda Cooley, and then jurors Marsha Rubin-Jackson and Carrie Bess. One chapter was a forum discussion with these three and then five other jurors, where they answered questions by a bunch of lawyers and some TV people (Geraldo Rivera and Rikki Klieman).

[psychoticstate]

I read one book that was the recollection of three jurors, "Madam Foreman: A Rush to Judgment?" by jury foreman Armanda Cooley, and then jurors Marsha Rubin-Jackson and Carrie Bess. One chapter was a forum discussion with these three and then five other jurors, where they answered questions by a bunch of lawyers and some TV people (Geraldo Rivera and Rikki Klieman).

 

According to Toobin's book, Carrie Bess was the juror who stated, after the verdict, "We have to look out for our own," which heavily indicates, at least to me, that the verdict was more racially motivated than motivated by, I don't know, evidence.

 

I have read many books on the case but nothing by the jurors.  I felt they were idiots and really have no desire to read their various excuses of why they acquitted a double murderer.  Just my opinion and certainly nothing against anyone who has read the books.

 

Daniel Petrocelli's book on the civil case is top notch.  Toobin's and Schiller's books are both excellent resources.  Surprisingly, Fuhrman's book was also quite good - - as well as his account of the Martha Moxley murder and his investigation into that. 

[smiley13]

  Surprisingly, Fuhrman's book was also quite good - - as well as his account of the Martha Moxley murder and his investigation into that. 

I never understood why Fuhrman stuck his racist nose into the Moxley case.    I think Dominick Dunne is the one who got him involved.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Daniel Petrocelli's book on the civil case is top notch.

 

I'm glad you said that. My cheap used copy arrived yesterday, smelling a bit mildewy but looking pristine. I know so little about the civil case. I may have read an article here and there in 1997, but like a lot of people, I was suffering Juice fatigue at that time. I've read Toobin and Bugliosi on the criminal case, so I want to check out this later chapter. I may get around to Fuhrman's book too before I burn out again.  

 

According to Toobin's book, Carrie Bess was the juror who stated, after the verdict, "We have to look out for our own," which heavily indicates, at least to me, that the verdict was more racially motivated than motivated by, I don't know, evidence.

 

That and the black-power salute from the male juror were very troubling.  

Edited March 14, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Umbelina]

I really liked Fuhrmans, which shocked me, because at the time, I, like most of America, detested him.

 

Now I want to read Ron Shipps.  Has anyone read that? 

[Rosiejuliemom]

The only ones I've read so far are Schiller's, Bugliosi's, and Dunne's. Toobin, Fuhrman, and Petrocelli are next on the list.

 

I also picked up If I Did It at a thrift store. I haven't made it through, yet. I can't read it too long without my stomach turning or getting a rage headache.

[jaync]

Not sure if it has anything to do with the case per se, but Cochran's first wife Barbara (mentioned in the last episode) also wrote a book, Life After Johnnie Cochran: Why I Left the Sweetest-Talking, Most Successful Black Lawyer in L.A.

[Umbelina]

Yeah, that's the book where she reveals that Johnnie had a separate white family during her marriage, his girlfriend and her (and his) child.  She said something about Johnnie would never marry her, because it would screw his image to marry a white woman.  The two women later became friends.

[psychoticstate]

Per Toobin's book, Johnnie apparently had this second relationship and family for a decade.  Unbelievable.

 

I am listening to "(If) I Did It" off and on.  I can't take too much at one time.  It's revolting.  The narrator is amazingly good and sounds very much like I would guess Simpson would sound.  But hearing the blame game played nonstop, the constant patting of his own back, the continual putdowns of Nicole while making himself sound like a poor widdle victim makes me stabby (no pun intended.)  I just finished listening to Simpson's description of the murders (if he did it, of course.)  I wanted to cry.  He describes getting into a verbal altercation with Nicole and Ron walking up on that and attempting to defuse it.  That infuriated Simpson, along with Ron's return of "Judy's" glasses (indicating a familiarity that pissed Simpson off).  He berated Ron for trying to calm things down (calling him a mother*cker) and questioned why he was there and what was going on.  He made fun of Ron for taking a karate type stance, etc.  It's horrible to listen to.

 

I read in another thread or somewhere else (can't keep track right now) that there were small cuts or pinprick type cuts to Ron's face.  The coroner apparently speculated that this was done by his killer to see if Ron was dead.  The thought makes me ill.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Psychoticstate, the alternative explanation for the cuts on Ron's face is even worse. One postmortem expert theorized that they were "taunting"-type cuts, made in advance of the more serious wounds, as if the killer were toying with his victim.  

Edited March 14, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[psychoticstate]

Ugh, Simon.  There just isn't enough punishment for Simpson.

[FozzyBear]

Psychoticstate, the alternative explanation for the cuts on Ron's face are even worse. One postmortem expert theorized that they were "taunting"-type cuts, made in advance of the more serious wounds, as if the killer were toying with his victim.

Jesus. What a psycho. Other than the DV conviction (he had 1 actual conviction right?) against Nicole did Simpson have any other history of violence? Not that what Nicole reported wasn't enough, but did his 1st wife report abuse? Any history of bar fights or violent outburst while he was a football player or actor? Anything like that? The crime is just such an messy display of rage it's hard to believe that no one else knew what a time bomb he was.

[biakbiak]

Psychoticstate, the alternative explanation for the cuts on Ron's face are even worse. One postmortem expert theorized that they were "taunting"-type cuts, made in advance of the more serious wounds, as if the killer were toying with his victim.

That doesn't strike me as likely simply because why would Ron not have shouted out or screamed? Not suggesting it wasn't posited but it doesn't seem to go along with the fact that no one heard anything so that they were most likely killed extremely quickly.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Well, there was testimony about two men's voices arguing, and an earwitness to a man's voice shouting "Hey, hey, HEY!" Goldman's stepmother said that that was a phrase he would use when he was trying to say, you know, "Cut it out." But sometimes it's surprising what people do and don't hear.  

 

One thing I feel pretty strongly about is that Goldman's left thigh wound was the first one he sustained. I believe Goldman did come across the killer either in the process of murdering Nicole or having already done so. I believe he tried to pull the killer off without realizing how dangerous it was, in the very low light, and he got the wound in the thigh, which severely limited his ability to fight for his own life, escape, or even think clearly. 

[psychoticstate]

Jesus. What a psycho. Other than the DV conviction (he had 1 actual conviction right?) against Nicole did Simpson have any other history of violence? Not that what Nicole reported wasn't enough, but did his 1st wife report abuse? Any history of bar fights or violent outburst while he was a football player or actor? Anything like that? The crime is just such an messy display of rage it's hard to believe that no one else knew what a time bomb he was.

 

Simpson's first wife, I believe, declined to comment on whether he was abusive toward her. My gut tells me he probably was, at least to some extent.  

 

Of course we all know that he cheated on her with a teenager so there's emotional cruelty, at least.  I'm guessing she didn't want to say anything because he may have been giving her money or some kind of support.

 

In any event, I could buy that he was not violent at all with Marguerite but violent, ragey and stalkerish with Nicole.  Nicole was a young, impressionable teenager when he met her and he had been controlling her for 17 years. Marguerite was older and already "formed" as a person when he met her.

 

That doesn't strike me as likely simply because why would Ron not have shouted out or screamed? Not suggesting it wasn't posited but it doesn't seem to go along with the fact that no one heard anything so that they were most likely killed extremely quickly.

As mentioned below, voices were overheard and I think Simpson cut Ron down very quickly - - or at least quickly enough to keep him from shouting or screaming.

 

This reminds me of the Manson case where Sharon Tate's next door neighbors heard nothing that night but persons miles away heard gunshots and screams. 

 

Well, there was testimony about two men's voices arguing, and an earwitness to a man's voice shouting "Hey, hey, HEY!" Goldman's stepmother said that that was a phrase he would use when he was trying to say, you know, "Cut it out." But sometimes it's surprising what people do and don't hear.  

 

One thing I feel pretty strongly about is that Goldman's left thigh wound was the first one he sustained. I believe Goldman did come across the killer either in the process of murdering Nicole or having already done so. I believe he tried to pull the killer off without realizing how dangerous it was, in the very low light, and he got the wound in the thigh, which severely limited his ability to fight for his own life, escape, or even think clearly. 

 

I think the first wound to Ron was the deadliest - - the one to his neck.  It would have incapacitated him relatively quickly.  Ron had a large amount of blood down one side of his jeans and one side of his shirt.  I think it came from the neck wound, as he was bent over, checking or attempting to help Nicole.  In that position, he was basically at Simpson's mercy.  I think after that first cut, which the medical examiner said would have proved fatal within a few moments because of the blood loss, he attempted to crawl away.  Based on a knife cut to the bottom of one of his shoes, it's likely that he kicked out in order to defend himself.  I think that's when the thigh wound happened.

 

In any event, I think Simpson blitzed him.  Ron was practiced in karate and I've taken tae kwon do.  You learn fairly quickly that in a knife fight, you keep your eyes on the attacker's chest/upper body versus the knife and you direct where you are going to be cut (forearms, if at all possible, so you won't bleed out.)  It was dark and I don't think Ron saw Simpson coming.  If he had, he might have had a chance.

[biakbiak]

Yes, voices were overheard, I meant I don't think the small cuts were "taunting" before going in for the kill because I have to imagine that would cause more than a "hey, hey, hey" from Ron.

[smiley13]

Yeah, that's the book where she reveals that Johnnie had a separate white family during her marriage, his girlfriend and her (and his) child.  She said something about Johnnie would never marry her, because it would screw his image to marry a white woman.  The two women later became friends.

I find it interesting that people refer to Johnnie as "racist" when he had the white girlfriend and the black wife.  So who exactly was he racist against?

[biakbiak]

I find it interesting that people refer to Johnnie as "racist" when he had the white girlfriend and the black wife.  So who exactly was he racist against?

Plenty of people who are racist or prejudiced have had sex/relationships/friendships with select people of that race. Strom Thurmond had black mistresses and even a biracial child with one of them but was still racist as hell.

[helenamonster]

Jesus. What a psycho. Other than the DV conviction (he had 1 actual conviction right?) against Nicole did Simpson have any other history of violence? Not that what Nicole reported wasn't enough, but did his 1st wife report abuse? Any history of bar fights or violent outburst while he was a football player or actor? Anything like that? The crime is just such an messy display of rage it's hard to believe that no one else knew what a time bomb he was.

 

Many domestic abusers aren't time bombs at all, but are very one-track minded when it comes to their abuse. It contributes to their ability to gaslight their victims. If they only show that abusive side to one person but are otherwise charming, friendly, etc., to literally everyone else, who is going to believe that person when they say they're being abused? OJ not having a documented history of violence, domestic or otherwise, outside of Nicole fits a pretty standard profile and isn't too surprising. His probable murder of her (and Ron, though that was likely unplanned and the poor guy had the worst case of wrong place, wrong time) was simply an escalation of his jealousy and control.

[BW Manilowe]

This doesn't really have anything to do with the murder trial, & I apologize for that (though it at least indirectly connects to the civil trial), but I saw a story about a new OJ-related book on GMA today & I wanted to mention it.

The book's called Guarding the Juice, written by Jeffrey Felix. He's a now-retired Nevada Department of Corrections Officer at Lovelock Prison, where OJ's been incarcerated since his conviction for taking back his sports trophies & other personal property that was about to be sold to help settle the civil judgment due to the Brown & Goldman families. The author says he spent the last years of his 20-plus-year career with the Nevada Department of Corrections guarding OJ & he talks about what that was like & what OJ's life in prison is like--claiming, among other things, that he & OJ became BFF's, as it were, during that period.

The website for the book isn't that great (I've seen much better), but here's the link.

http://guardingthejuice.com/

There's also a Facebook page for the book & the author's on Twitter & there's 1 other social media outlet for either the author or the book.

And, according to GMA today, OJ's former manager (or someone else speaking on his behalf) debunked the claims that the author & OJ really were as close as is being stated in the book.

[psychoticstate]

Thanks for the link on the new book, BW.  Unless the author was stating that Simpson is 100% not guilty, of course his manager is going to claim the book is bogus - - whether it is or not.

 

This reminds me of the plethora of books on the case that surfaced after the criminal trial.  Seems anyone and everyone was writing a book or reportedly writing a book. I used to joke that I was going to write a book about the case as an outsider with no connection to anyone or anything relative to the case but hey!  I had an opinion!

[FozzyBear]

Many domestic abusers aren't time bombs at all, but are very one-track minded when it comes to their abuse. It contributes to their ability to gaslight their victims. If they only show that abusive side to one person but are otherwise charming, friendly, etc., to literally everyone else, who is going to believe that person when they say they're being abused? OJ not having a documented history of violence, domestic or otherwise, outside of Nicole fits a pretty standard profile and isn't too surprising. His probable murder of her (and Ron, though that was likely unplanned and the poor guy had the worst case of wrong place, wrong time) was simply an escalation of his jealousy and control.

While I know that can be true, I don't know that it's always true or even the norm. In my experience abusers display plenty of warning signs from being controlling to overly sensitive to criticism to isolating other people from friends and family. They're just signs that some people ignore. Now PLEASE don't mistake this for blaming the victim or saying that there is a "victim" type. I firmly believe that anyone can meet that right abuser that can push their buttons, but I don't know how common it is that no one has a clue. Anytime I've been friends/family/whatever with someone who was in an abusive relationship lots of people suspected, they just weren't able to convince the victim that something was off soon enough. I'm wondering if this was the case since we heard about lots of abusive shit he did (like grabbing her crotch in public). I don't think it's crazy to think the he might have a loooong history of violent behavior and Nicole and others just explained it away.

[spaceghostess]

Great stuff in this thread. Unfortunately, I can't watch American Crime Story yet (no cable subscription and it won't be available to stream for awhile).  I was in my early twenties during the criminal trial, and had pretty much hit my O.J. saturation point by the time it was over, but the PTV recaps of ACS re-piqued my interest.

 

A few days ago, (and not surprisingly, considering the timing) one of my freelance gigs put the new edition of Marcia Clark's old book on the trial, Without a Doubt, in my hot little hands. I'm about halfway through, and it's a compelling read--worth it for the chapter on jury selection, alone. The defense team had an expert doing pretty much everything for them, while the prosecution team's guy only ended up helping them put together a couple of mock trials. They wound up doing all the heavy lifting for jury selection themselves, and it was a real nightmare, apparently. I read many books--none of my choosing--for work, and I don't finish most of them. This will be one of the rare exceptions, if only for all the inside info (as well as random nuggets such as the fact that Marcia Clark's first husband was a professional backgammon player . . .which used to be a thing, apparently).

[Epeolatrix]

"Famous Crimes Revisited" by Dr Henry Lee has an interesting section wherein he goes over his work on the OJ trial. It uses a strange literary device, the invention of a man called Sam Constant, a personification of the American public. 'Sam Constant' poses questions and opinions common at the time, and Dr Lee answers them based on his forensic work and experiences of the trial. I enjoyed, but it took getting used to.

[Aethera]

I grabbed the audio book of The Run of His Life last week, and have been listening to it on my commutes. The guy they got to narrate it (Stephen Bel Davies), no idea who he is, but he's got this great gossipy tone that's really working. Feels like he's relating the whole story to you in a bar. Perfect for Toobin's writing.  There's also a version that Toobin himself reads, no idea how that sounds though.

[psychoticstate]

I grabbed the audio book of The Run of His Life last week, and have been listening to it on my commutes. The guy they got to narrate it (Stephen Bel Davies), no idea who he is, but he's got this great gossipy tone that's really working. Feels like he's relating the whole story to you in a bar. Perfect for Toobin's writing.  There's also a version that Toobin himself reads, no idea how that sounds though.

​

 

 

 

 

I recently listened to the audio version with Stephen Bel Davies and thought it was very well done.

 

I'm currently listening to the audio version of Marcia Clark's "The Competition" - - a fiction book with a storyline similar to the events at Columbine.  I'm pleasantly surprised with how good the book is.

[Mittengirl]

I read "The Competition" not long ago. It wasn't until after I finished it that I noticed who the author was. It was quite good, I thought.

[BW Manilowe]

Marcia's got a fifth crime novel that's either just out or about to come out. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the name of it. But she's been plugging it on at least some of her recent TV appearances tied to the resurgence of interest in the OJ trial because of the ACSFX dramatization based on it.

[Simon Boccanegra]

From a review of the Darden book that umbelina posted in the episode thread:  

 

[Cochran] even patronizingly said to Mr. Darden that after the trial was over, he would ''see what we can do about getting you back in'' the black community in Los Angeles.

 

Good grief. What a horse's ass. 

[psychoticstate]

I read "The Competition" not long ago. It wasn't until after I finished it that I noticed who the author was. It was quite good, I thought.

 

 

Marcia's got a fifth crime novel that's either just out or about to come out. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the name of it. But she's been plugging it on at least some of her recent TV appearances tied to the resurgence of interest in the OJ trial because of the ACSFX dramatization based on it.

 

I enjoyed The Competition so much I downloaded another Clark book.  

 

I agree with Simon - - Cochran was indeed a horse's ass (and apologies to the asses of horses everywhere.) 

[LilWharveyGal]

For Kindle-owning Amazon Prime members, Clark's new novel Blood Defense is one of the free book options for April.  It's not my usual genre, but I have to admit I snapped it up due to the show.