S01.E05: The Race Card

[FormerMod-a1]

This show is just becoming more and more depressing for me. I lived through it and I don't really enjoy reliving it.

 

 

I'm right there with you.

 

I'm into stomach churning territory now.  Everything about this trial makes me sick.

 

Same here.  In fact it's all so infuriating I had to stop watching.  I doubt I'll watch any more of this.  I think it's really well made, but I am surprised at how emotional it makes me, so many years later, knowing what's going to happen, etc.  But I just can't watch so many of the infuriating moments again, and I certainly can't watch the abject failure of the prosecution again, nor the defenses grand standing and ploys and tactics that so many people fell for at the time, nor Ito, nor ... (you get the idea).  Gah!  

[txhorns79]

This is a dramatization, not a documentary.  You can watch the actual trial on the web if you really want to, most of it's up, but it's boring as hell.

 

I think even a dramatization is supposed to be a truthful reflection of events.  For example, if they showed a scene where the trial suddenly stops and Marcia Clark and Johnnie Cochran start making out, while the jury goes "Wooooooh!' like they are on Saved by the Bell, you couldn't just say that it is a dramatization so that kind of thing is excepted. 

 

 

But if I were on the jury, I'd be questioning how a black man who lived in a predominantly white neighborhood, had mostly white friends, and dated only white women would have pro-black art work and pictures. And I don't see how the jury didn't find it strange that there were no pictures of his children with Nicole.

 

I think that might be giving the jury more credit than they deserve.  I'm not certain (and someone else has that knowledge I'm sure) how aware they were of all the small intimacies of OJ's life before the murder, or what they were told about him and who he associated with during the trial. 

[Kromm]

I think even a dramatization is supposed to be a truthful reflection of events.  For example, if they showed a scene where the trial suddenly stops and Marcia Clark and Johnnie Cochran start making out, while the jury goes "Wooooooh!' like they are on Saved by the Bell, you couldn't just say that it is a dramatization so that kind of thing is excepted.  

I've made various cutting jokes about this,  but here's my non-jokey real answer finally.

 

If an event happened publicly then it's insulting to the audience to take liberties. The trial, even the pre-trial parts, are a matter of public record.

The private conversations we see a lot on this show are not.

 

I'll groan, roll my eyes and complain about a lot of the private conversations when they're totally purposefully spinning things in a way that contradicts what's likely. For example the Kardashian kids sitting around a TV singing a ditty about their last name. But the specifics of a small conversation where Cochrane talks OJ into something and nobody was there to see it, is probably no big deal to dramatize if it doesn't go off the rails and bang an agenda too hard.

 

Back to the heart attack. It's a matter of public record. So is the trial where they transposed it. Altering these events is a lot more irresponsible and insulting to the viewers. Who only need Google to verify things.

 

No, it's not a documentary. But that shouldn't mean they're willing to change things that people SAW or heard first-hand themselves--or at worst saw reported in exhaustive detail in a newspaper the next day.

[HunterHunted]

I definitely think that as soon as the jury heard Fuhrman on those tapes using the n-word, they made up their minds that they were going to acquit OJ. Hearing Fuhrman using the n-word cemented their belief that OJ was framed by a racist cop, so I definitely think Darden had a point. A lot of people use racially insensitive language--both black and white--but that doesn't necessarily mean they are incapable of doing their jobs. Fuhrman is a racist POS, no doubt. But I have a hard time believing that he or any other member of the LAPD would frame a black man as high profile as OJ was. If OJ were poor and not famous, then I would definitely be inclined to believe it. Plus, OJ was friends with many LAPD officers before the murders. That's how he was able to get away with beating Nicole for so many years.

The other thing I never see mentioned about why the jurors would automatically distrust the LAPD is the Rampart Division CRASH antigang unit. Information would start leaking out in the late 90s that the CRASH unit had evolved from corruption to a straight up a criminal enterprise. And part of how the CRASH unit hid their misdeeds was transgressing in minority communities. I can recall visiting my half brother in the LA area and being astounded by LAPD. I can recall seeing an LAPD officer who was drunk or high or whatever waving a gun around at civilians. I can recall a police officer tackling my brother to the ground, holding a gun to his head because he was trying to catch up to us, and saying that "he was a n***** running so he must be guilty of something." I don't think you understand the level of awfulness of the LAPD during this era.

So ultimately it doesn't matter if the LAPD, did or didn't frame OJ. The jury just had to believe that LAPD would treat black people like that regardless of status. I think the flashback with Cochran illustrates the some of the underlying sentiment. I am a black female attorney who has been stopped and detained numerous times, but never once been arrested.

Edited March 2, 2016 by HunterHunted

[Kromm]

I will say I didn't think Travolta's face was capable of still moving enough to even FORM this expression:

 

That said, there's only a tiny crease in his forehead. It could be the makeup. Or it could be that his forehead just doesn't DO that anymore.

[Simon Boccanegra]

For the most part, I think that this show has avoided the bad side of Ryan Murphy productions, but not entirely. I mean...Fuhrman admiring his Nazi memorabilia while listening to Wagner's Meistersinger Prelude? Even if that were just supposed to be show score, and not the character's musical choice, it's a bit much.

 

Someone above admired the scene of Dunne and guests stopping their OJ chatter when the servants (some of whom were black) entered the room, but I thought that was a pretty ham-handed bit. If I were trying to work this episode down to 60 minutes, that would have been the first scene to go, nice as it was to see and hear Robert Morse again.  

 

I remember Hodgman's whatever-it-was that removed him from the case for the duration, because a pro-OJ coworker was crowing about it the next day. She kept saying he "couldn't take the pressure." Even that early, this young woman was seeing the trial with Cochran et al. being the ones fighting for truth and justice, and the prosecution as part of a corrupt, dissembling system. In retrospect, I should have had a worse feeling about the eventual outcome than I did.  

Edited March 2, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[VanillaBeanne]

This site has a fact vs. fiction list of everything that happened in tonight's episode.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-5-fact-check?utm_campaign=popculturetw&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

I did not agree with what he did, but it was a very smart move on his part IMO. It made OJ more identifiable with the jury, which was the whole point. But if I were on the jury, I'd be questioning how a black man who lived in a predominantly white neighborhood, had mostly white friends, and dated only white women would have pro-black art work and pictures. And I don't see how the jury didn't find it strange that there were no pictures of his children with Nicole.

Wow, thanks for this link. Really surprised that the show took liberties with the jury visit to ojs house. Per the nyt article that the link you sited, linked to, (1) there was a picture of barbieri and ojs kids on display but that the prosecution had wanted covered up and Ito denied, (2) that the statute, which hung in the garage and not the lawn, was covered up at the request of the prosecution, and (3) that by these requests, it's clear that the prosecution was not blindsided. They had a chance to walk through before the jury, not at the same time.

It does look like the defense was allowed to add items, which they admit doing, "to make the house looked lived in". Although I'm sure everything they added was designed to "blacken" the place up. So there was some truth there.

But it did make for a compelling and funny scene.

Edited March 2, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[Dejana]

I think even a dramatization is supposed to be a truthful reflection of events. For example, if they showed a scene where the trial suddenly stops and Marcia Clark and Johnnie Cochran start making out, while the jury goes "Wooooooh!' like they are on Saved by the Bell, you couldn't just say that it is a dramatization so that kind of thing is excepted.

Biopics (or their TV equivalents, which I suppose this show is) are known for taking real life events and making them more...dramatic, as a matter of course. Chest pains after the court proceedings vs. a heart attack in open court falls under that umbrella, for me, anyway. In the film world, biopics play far faster and looser with the facts all the time. I mean, Selma freaking made up Martin Luther King, Jr. speeches because his actual ones were copyrighted and licensed to a different biopic...and that part wasn't what drove the inaccuracy controversies for it. I suppose some think it blurs the lines to mix events lifted straight from the public record with invented scenes/characterizations that convey the point the storytellers are trying to make, or give the story a little more...juice (sorry). Very rarely have biopics, as a genre, ever been 100 percent recreations of words/actions that are verified to be true and it's certainly nothing I expected coming into a show like this.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Dejana

[mojoween]

I'm saving the Vanity Fair archives to read later but is that pic they put at the start Dominick Dunne or Robert Morse? Because with the way they styled Robert last night I really cannot tell.

Other than one notable exception, the casting crew on this show earned their pay and more.

[wanderingstar]

Of all people, black people dont need to be coddled when it comes to that word. That was a misstep on Darden's part. But involving Fuhrman at all was a misstep.

 

I cringed through that entire scene. I get that Darden was trying to mitigate any possible damage from Furhman's upcoming testimony, but it was a misstep that backfired badly for the prosecution.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Gillian Rosh

[elzin]

So for those who don't know, Dominick Dunne worked in Hollywood in the 60s and fell apart, got divorced, secluded himself, and became a writer. He wrote novels that were based loosely on real events; most of the time the characters had different names, except in his OJ book.  His daughter was Dominique, who was the older daughter in Poltergeist. She was murdered by her abusive ex boyfriend who stalked her. His trial was a joke and he was already out of jail and had been for some time at the time of the OJ case, no more than 10 years after the murder. One of his two sons is Griffin Dunne, who most people have seen in something at some point. His brother was John Gregory Dunne, SIL Joan Didion.

 

When he wasn't writing novels, he wrote for Vanity Fair, frequently talking about cases where rich and privileged people got away with crimes (Menendez, von Bulow).

[MargotWendice]

I too wondered why the jury went to Nicole's home. She and Ron were killed OUTSIDE the Bundy condo. What they saw inside wasn't going to influence their opinion on OJ's guilt or innocent one way or another.

True, but seeing the condo COULD have humanized her the way Rockingham humanized OJ.

If her personal effects had been there, especially things like photos of her and the kids and the kids' artwork, it might have gone a little against the "Nicole was a wife stealing, gold-digging, drug user" narrative that some jurors may have had. Sadly Nicole did not even get this small courtesy.

Someone else on this forum said they keep watching this with the hope things will turn out differently. I feel the same way. I am going to feel terrible when they read that verdict.

[txhorns79]

I suppose some think it blurs the lines to mix events lifted straight from the public record with invented scenes/characterizations that convey the point the storytellers are trying to make, or give the story a little more...juice (sorry).  Very rarely have biopics, as a genre, ever been 100 percent recreations of words/actions that are verified to be true and it's certainly nothing I expected coming into a show like this.

 

I don't think anyone said that you must do a 100 percent recreation of the events.  My only comment was that if you do have an event that is in the public record, changing around that event to make the story seem more dramatic takes away from the story and leaves the viewers with a mistaken idea of what happened, which might end up undermining the point of the flim.      

[luckyroll3]

This show is just becoming more and more depressing for me. I lived through it and I don't really enjoy reliving it.

I had this feeling from the opening scenes of the premier episode.  It was just too much because it was so real.  I texted my friend that I wasn't sure if I could actually watch the show.  I continue to watch, but only because I make sure I'm doing something else while it's on so that I don't get too engrossed.  

 

During this entire episode, I just kept trying to understand why they would put Darden on the team if they weren't actually going consider his opinions.  They added him because he was black, but didn't want his black experience to color how he did his job.  A major misstep, especially considering the prosecution recognized early on that the defense planned to play the race angle.

[Neurochick]

Marcia Clark, bless her heart. Colorblind ideology is bullshit and her portrayal on this show is providing wonderful evidence of that fact. Seeing racial/ethnic/cultural differences doesn't make you racist. Assigning hierarchical values to them makes you racist. All she had to do was listen. That's it. And she refused. In the annals of history, she will go down as the woman who didn't see color. Yay?

This show continues to be awesome.

 

I did feel for Clark there.  She didn't want to see color, but refusing to see color makes a person look silly because, if everybody else can see color but you, it makes you look silly.  See, Cochran was brilliant because he knew that in reality most people do see color, and he used that to his advantage.  I mean look at all that has gone on last year regarding police brutality, and how some of them want to boycott Beyonce because she dared to point out the obvious.

[VanillaBeanne]

So Vannater is up next week. Can't wait, love how Furhman blames Vannater for the LAPD handling of the case, and Vannater blames Furman's racism for casting the LAPD in a negative light. I'm like, guys, can't you both be right?

[laurakaye]

I don't know if this is the right thread, but in what universe does a crime scene for an active murder investigation get gutted of all furnishings and scrubbed down?  I was gobsmacked at the "tours" through Nicole's and OJ's homes.  Neither of those homes presented the truth - wouldn't this be the very definition of tampering with evidence?  If this show were fiction, I'd laugh and change the channel because it's too crazy to be real.  How did OJ's team get away with rearranging the artwork, pictures, etc.?  How did they manage to do this unchecked and unseen?  I also cannot figure out why OJ was present at the tour of his own home, and allowed to move around somewhat freely in the presence of the jury.  None of this makes any sense.

 

Mind blown.

 

And I can't wait to get my hands on Christopher Darden's book now.

[ridethemaverick]

I don't know if this is the right thread, but in what universe does a crime scene for an active murder investigation get gutted of all furnishings and scrubbed down? I was gobsmacked at the "tours" through Nicole's and OJ's homes. Neither of those homes presented the truth - wouldn't this be the very definition of tampering with evidence? If this show were fiction, I'd laugh and change the channel because it's too crazy to be real. How did OJ's team get away with rearranging the artwork, pictures, etc.? How did they manage to do this unchecked and unseen? I also cannot figure out why OJ was present at the tour of his own home, and allowed to move around somewhat freely in the presence of the jury. None of this makes any sense.

Mind blown.

And I can't wait to get my hands on Christopher Darden's book now.

In reality, Nicole's family cleaned out her condo and the defense did not redecorate OJ's house as shown last night. A previous poster linked to a fact-check for the episode. Edited March 2, 2016 by ridethemaverick

[drivethroo]

 

Someone above admired the scene of Dunne and guests stopping their OJ chatter when the servants (some of whom were black) entered the room, but I thought that was a pretty ham-handed bit. If I were trying to work this episode down to 60 minutes, that would have been the first scene to go, nice as it was to see and hear Robert Morse again.

 

That scene was important because Dominick Dunne was spilling the tea on how Nicole was seen by some people: a blond white golddigging homewrecker.  Nothing justifies being beaten or killed but if you create a narrative of Nicole being shady or hanging around shady folks, it makes it easier for OJ to get off. 

 

Johnnie Cochran did not introduce the race card into the trial, it was already there.  He just capitalized on it all the way to an acquittal.  Don't hate the player, hate the game.  He was a defense attorney, his job was to tell a better story than the prosecution to get people off. 

 

As has been mentioned before, at the time he was pulled over, he was a prosecutor.  That's how he knew all the prosecution's tricks & games because he had played those tricks & games before.

 

Johnnie Cochran was not "disgraceful" or "disgusting" to Christopher Darden.  It was not JC's job to skip through the tulips and sing Kumbaya to Christopher Darden.  Darden had been warned to stay away from this case by his dad and JC gave CD a heads up about how the prosecution was using him and setting him up to fail (Fuhrman).  Christopher Darden himself knew Fuhrman was bad news & that he was being set up to fail.  If anyone was disgraceful to Christopher Darden it was Marcia Clark & the prosecution who used him as a black token.  Johnnie Cochran was lending Christopher Darden a helping hand by telling him to stay out of the trap.

 

Marcia Clark was colorblind in a case that was all about color.  Black people KNOW when they're in the presence of a very racist white person.  It's nothing the person says; it's just a vibe.  Christopher Darden was ringing the alarm on Mark Fuhrman and the prosecution should've listened to him.  That they didn't showed that CD was their little black token.

 

I don't really care about the dramatization of the guy falling out in court because the scene showed Ito dismissing the jury; the jury wasn't even in the room when he keeled over.

 

Apparently OJ DID tell Christopher Darden to get up off his bench.

 

The defense shouldn't have been allowed to do a Negro Home Makeover on OJ's house but they knew if the mostly black jury walked in OJ's house and saw nothing but white people in his house that would make him unrelatable to them.  That's why the prosecution was upset Nicole's house was sterile.  It didn't show her as a mom, or sister or daughter or woman while OJ's house humanized him.  Again, the defense is telling a better story than the prosecution.

 

[toodywoody]

Question? Is it common practice to visit crime scenes by juries? If not, why was it done here? I understand them wanting to prove it was certainly possible for OJ to do it and get back home in the small timeframe, but I just don't understand the walking around inside both houses. A quick bus ride with a clock inside would have been more effective to me. But is it common practice to take juries to crime scenes?

[OSM Mom]

At the time, I thought that the jury going to see OJs house was just terrible. They were as starstruck as Ito was.

IMO pictures of the scenes should have been enough. There was no need IMO for them to go to the scenes.

I love all the actors they got for this. I don't know many of them from anything else, so that's going for me. The actors playing Darden and Cochran are spot on.

[Neurochick]

That scene was important because Dominick Dunne was spilling the tea on how Nicole was seen by some people: a blond white golddigging homewrecker.  Nothing justifies being beaten or killed but if you create a narrative of Nicole being shady or hanging around shady folks, it makes it easier for OJ to get off. 

 

Johnnie Cochran did not introduce the race card into the trial, it was already there.  He just capitalized on it all the way to an acquittal.  Don't hate the player, hate the game.  He was a defense attorney, his job was to tell a better story than the prosecution to get people off. 

 

As has been mentioned before, at the time he was pulled over, he was a prosecutor.  That's how he knew all the prosecution's tricks & games because he had played those tricks & games before.

 

Johnnie Cochran was not "disgraceful" or "disgusting" to Christopher Darden.  It was not JC's job to skip through the tulips and sing Kumbaya to Christopher Darden.  Darden had been warned to stay away from this case by his dad and JC gave CD a heads up about how the prosecution was using him and setting him up to fail (Fuhrman).  Christopher Darden himself knew Fuhrman was bad news & that he was being set up to fail.  If anyone was disgraceful to Christopher Darden it was Marcia Clark & the prosecution who used him as a black token.  Johnnie Cochran was lending Christopher Darden a helping hand by telling him to stay out of the trap.

 

Marcia Clark was colorblind in a case that was all about color.  Black people KNOW when they're in the presence of a very racist white person.  It's nothing the person says; it's just a vibe.  Christopher Darden was ringing the alarm on Mark Fuhrman and the prosecution should've listened to him.  That they didn't showed that CD was their little black token.

 

I don't really care about the dramatization of the guy falling out in court because the scene showed Ito dismissing the jury; the jury wasn't even in the room when he keeled over.

 

Apparently OJ DID tell Christopher Darden to get up off his bench.

 

The defense shouldn't have been allowed to do a Negro Home Makeover on OJ's house but they knew if the mostly black jury walked in OJ's house and saw nothing but white people in his house that would make him unrelatable to them.  That's why the prosecution was upset Nicole's house was sterile.  It didn't show her as a mom, or sister or daughter or woman while OJ's house humanized him.  Again, the defense is telling a better story than the prosecution.

 

Very true.  Cochran didn't play the race card.  How can you play a card that already exists?  Whenever a white person tells me, "I don't see color" I give them the side eye because unless you're blind, you see color and seeing color is not a bad thing.  

[Petunia13]

Courtney B Vance is amazing and wins at life

[GHScorpiosRule]

In reality, Nicole's family cleaned out her condo and the defense did not redecorate OJ's house as shown last night. A previous poster linked to a fact-check for the episode.

 

Okay, now I don't know who to believe! Because when Marcia Clark was interviewed last month, she said that the defense/Cochran did, in fact, redecorate OJ's home for the jury's benefit.

 

I"m not sure how I feel about the scene with Dunne during his "dinner." I mean, I knew of him; saw him on several shows back in the day, knew about his daughter's murder.  But that scene? Just came off to me, as a White Man gossiping about a murder trial and giddily "revealing" the delicious and salacious "details" and that's not how I remember Dominick Dunne.

 

ETA: Oh, and Cuba's OJ has the worst poker face ever! I recall just from the snippets of the trial I did see, that I was never really sure what OJ was thinking. Here? His face was telegraphing LOUDLY what he was thinking.

Edited March 2, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[Epeolatrix]

Dressing the house to serve the defense is the same thing as dressing the defendant favorably, like the Menendez brothers in their sweaters or putting nerd glasses on random college rapist. It's weaselly, but allowed as long as it doesn't change the material substance of a crime scene. There's a passage in Lawrence Schiller's book about the house being redecorated, and his insider dirt is supposed to have come from Robert Kardashian (says Dunne).

 

     All day Saturday, members of the defense team are hard at work establishing O.J.’ s African-American identity at Rockingham. Cathy Randa and Arnelle have worked hard on the project. Rockingham is now sparkling, the furniture arranged for maximum effect. O.J. wants a fire in each fireplace. A thousand dollars’ worth of flowers have been ordered. The American flag must fly on the flagpole out front.

     A nude portrait of Paula Barbieri vanishes from its spot near the fireplace in Simpson’s bedroom. There will be no pictures of white women in O.J.’ s bedroom. A silver-framed picture of O.J. and his mother goes on his bedside table.

     Justin’s homemade Father’s Day card tracing his tiny handprint and footprint still hangs on the bathroom door in Simpson’s bedroom. “Keep this and remember it, Daddy,” the card reads, “because when I grow up, you’ll see how small I was.”

     The white women on the walls have to go, and the black people have to come in. All along the wall on the curving stairway, pictures are taken down. Ditto for the photos of white women downstairs. A few pictures of white female movie stars are left near the bar. Simpson always surrounded himself with photographs of his friends. Rockingham’s walls, end tables, and shelves overflowed with them. The faces were overwhelmingly white. That’s not the way to please a jury dominated by African-American women.

     “We’ve got to have pictures of his family, his black family, up there,” Cochran says.

     Kardashian has photos enlarged at Kinko’s, then framed nicely. One is even carefully placed in the kitchen. The jurors won’t notice that they are color photocopies.

     We’re getting manipulative here, Bob thinks. He is embarrassed. Then he resolutely shoves the feeling aside. If the prosecution is too dumb to check the photos they took of those walls the day after the murders, it’s not our fault, he decides. If they can’t figure out that we’ll show the jury O.J.’ s proud to be a black man, too bad.

     Cochran wants something depicting African-American history. “What about that framed poster from my office of the little girl trying to get to school?” he asks.   

     Johnnie means Norman Rockwell’s famous 1963 painting, The Problem We All Live With, in which a black grade school girl walks to school surrounded by federal marshals.

     As the picture is brought into the house, Kardashian finds himself saying to no one in particular, “I think O.J. also had that painting. Some years ago. It’s probably in storage.” Now he feels better.

     They hang the framed poster at the top of the stairs, where the jury can’t miss it as they go up to Simpson’s bedroom. Everyone is pleased. This has little to do with a search for the truth. This is stagecraft.

Schiller, Lawrence; Willwerth, James (2014-04-14). American Tragedy: The Uncensored Story of the O.J. Simpson Defense (Kindle Locations 7987-7994)

 

Dunne by his own admission was gossipy and giddy about being the center of attention; it just happened to be a double homicide that put him there. When you read his Vanity Fair articles, it's constant name-dropping, bragging about where he went to dinner, and knowing who did what with whom before it hit the papers. That scene didn't strike me as wrong other than he wouldn't have shut up when a server came by. Servers give him some of his best gossip and he prized those relationships for their usefulness.

[SimoneS]

I"m not sure how I feel about the scene with Dunne during his "dinner." I mean, I knew of him; saw him on several shows back in the day, knew about his daughter's murder.  But that scene? Just came off to me, as a White Man gossiping about a murder trial and giddily "revealing" the delicious and salacious "details" and that's not how I remember Dominick Dunne.

 

This is one of the problems of a celebrity culture. Too many people think they know a celebrity because their public persona. You feel this way about Dominick Dunne. The jurors felt the same way about O.J. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

This is one of the problems of a celebrity culture. Too many people think they know a celebrity because their public persona. You feel this way about Dominick Dunne. The jurors felt the same way about O.J. 

 

I'm sorry, what? The two are not even comparable.  I was not in awe of Dunne. I never thought that I knew him.  If I had read his Vanity articles before watching the episode, I wouldn't have posted what I did--as WertherEffekt posted above--his articles showed that he was the gossipy sort.  And I just said what I knew of him--what I saw, seemed at odds what was on the show and that I don't know how I feel. I'm not defending Dunne or saying 'Oh, he couldn't be that way or do that!' which is what the OJ supporters were saying. I can't speak to what the jurors thought because I don't know what they thought about OJ.  All I know about a few of the jurors, were that they sounded like idiots when they were on Oprah after the criminal trial was over. Still, I didn't know how they saw or felt about OJ.

[Daisy]

First of all. this show is giving me the creeps - and I want to smack so many people in the prosecution for not seeing the signs. 

Keesha Sharp (aka Mrs Cochran) used to be on this show called Girlfriends, where she was the wife of a very successful (or she groomed him to be one - pushed his buttons so to speak), lawyer. And she would do things like this - listen to the statements, make edits, so she makes the perfect Lawyer's wife on this show.

I am slow (or I am probably being a Pollyanna about this) - but why did Darden have to be the one prepping Furhmann? Like this confuses me. Is it because they knew that he had racist things in his past, but if Darden was going to do it, does it just look better? But I do have to say - and someone said it above: when someone is telling you that someone is racist (or sexist, or homophobic, whatever) - listen to them. I don't side-eye people when they go they don't see colour - because for the most part, I don't (and I am a person of colour) - but there are some instances when things stop being a lovely shade of grey - and things are in technicolour. This - is one of those times. And the fact that this continually came up and Marcia Clark is all like "tralalala, people are nice then they are nice, what does colour have to do with it." it's like. hello! people have been telling you this. 

Darden's speech about the N word was really uncomfortable for me, and I literally went hoooboy that was stupid. Then Cochran came up and hit on the erasons why it was stupid, and then going "N, please...". Darden's complaining to his Daddy was funny though because I do that like alll the time. Daddy Darden saying "Maybe it's not undermining you, maybe it's helping you." really rang home. Though - I truly do think Darden should have done his own version of N, Please to Cross. Wake up. Look around you. THEY are making it about colour - regardless of your intentions, you are trying to show it's "coloured" - you need to start playing chess. - 

 

Furmann having Nazi-crosses.... hooboy. 
I don't like this judge at all. (and this is where the squiggles start. this is a show - but this was real, and I was like. this is such a stupid character.... and then you have to catch yourself, and realise...this isn't a character. this was THE PERSON. Oi). 

 

Black-ifying OJ's house... wowzer. And I'm surprised that never raised an eyebrow on the jury. Like there's having some black influences, but there was a lot of "SEE! I AM BLACK!" all throughout that house.

 

OJ screaming get off my bench. (okay there). and I agree with GHScorpioRules - Cuba has a horrendous poker face. 

[VCRTracking]

I had to Google to see if Bill Hodgman actually had a heart attack during the trial. He did, but not during actual court proceedings, and doctors said it wasn't really a heart attack.

Wait. You mean the writers made it up?  Nah! They wouldn't make stuff up, right?

 

 

It reminds me of when I watched The Young Victoria about young Queen Victoria and Prince Albert and at the end there's an assassination attempt on her when someone shoots at her when she's riding in an open carriage. Albert takes the bullet for her and is close to death but survives. I looked it up and in real life there was an assassination attempt like that but the guy shot and missed two times before being arrested! Reportedly when she saw the movie Queen Elizabeth II was annoyed that they made up stuff about her great-great grandparents just so it would be more "dramatic". The movie was written by Julian Fellowes, creator of Downton Abbey who ironically wrote the 2012 Titanic miniseries because he felt James Cameron's movie got a lot of facts wrong!

Edited March 2, 2016 by VCRTracking

[starri]

Question? Is it common practice to visit crime scenes by juries? If not, why was it done here? I understand them wanting to prove it was certainly possible for OJ to do it and get back home in the small timeframe, but I just don't understand the walking around inside both houses. A quick bus ride with a clock inside would have been more effective to me. But is it common practice to take juries to crime scenes?

It's not unheard of.  I'm pretty sure the Manson jurors got to see the Tate and LaBianca properties.  This was a high-profile case where the State's argument had a lot of details about where things were in relation to each other.  Video and blueprints only get you so far.  And it was two separate locations.

 

I had whiplash over my feelings about Cochran tonight.  The scene of him getting pulled over just made my heart ache a little, and I'm like "Okay, I can see how he feels."  And then we go back to "present day," and it gets kind of repulsive.  I have to remind myself that no matter how awful OJ is, he's entitled to a vigorous defense and that Cochran is only doing his job.  Ethically, he's right.  Morally, well, fate dispensed that justice, I think.

 

I liked Dominick Dunne a lot, but he was a starfucker par excellence.  Which is why I was wincing at that scene in Ito's chambers, because it was just like two peas in a pod.  I had really hoped one of the people at that dinner party was supposed to be Joan Didion.

 

Ito seems even more incompetent than he did at the time, if such a thing is possible.

Edited March 2, 2016 by starri

[kassa]

I had a little twinge of sympathy for Carl Douglass. He's at work late at night, poring over files, while Johnnie's chillin' with his wife at home. Then Johnnie tells him he's got to fall on his sword for the good of the client!

 

 

That’s the one part I didn’t get.  It was Shapiro’s fault – why wasn’t HE falling on HIS sword?  From the extra sour expression on Travolta’s puss, they were playing it like Shapiro knew it was his fault/had been chewed out about it.  Maybe Douglas was supposed to have caught the error?  Or they just plain didn’t want Shapiro ever speaking in court again?

 

The Dunne dinner parties were infamous – Nancy Reagan and Liz Taylor would have him over to dish.  I assume the one in question was supposed to be one of Nancy’s because of the red outfits.  There was definitely a black server, but also others who were not. So they weren't talking in front of the black guy, but they also weren't talking in front of "the help" because they were snooty society people gushing over tawdry stuff.

 

Except for the times where I could see, Holy Shit! Oh no he di'n't! shit that the real life Cochran did, tonight, all other times? I saw Ron Carver. I guess because the few times I did see the real Cochran in action, he was so much more...flamboyant?

 

 

I don’t think the real Cochran was more flamboyant, but he was more physically commanding and authoritative. So there was just more of everything when he was in full performance.

 

I’m getting a kick out of the African American woman on the defense who I don’t think has even had a line yet.  She’s in nearly every defense team scene, and she manages to say a lot regardless of not having a line – her shifts of expression are wonderful. I'm hoping all these episodes of silence add up to some scene where she lets loose and tells them everything she's thinking.

Edited March 2, 2016 by kassa

[riverheightsnancy]

One of the things that I was reminded of while watching this is, Marcia Clark, no matter fine a lawyer, just comes across as pinched, anxious, and unlikable. You got to give it to the actor playing Johnnie Cochran, you like him. He's quick and sharp. I would want him on my side. He is believable. Marcia comes across as unrelatable and close-minded. In her opening statement (if they used it verbatim-I am assuming), I don't buy that she looked up to OJ. In order to play that, the jury has to believe that even she, was taken aback that the "not-black" (his words) OJ could do something so awful. In order for that to work, you would have to have a person who would be just as crushed as the jury to find out that he "really" did it. Marcia believed her own hype (that she had won the vast majority of cases before and that she could do no wrong). I remember the case from real life, but never thought that Furhman was really a racist, I guess that he really was. I  feel bad for what Darden went through. If his depiction is accurate, he was a really good guy and this was really pushing all of his boundaries. I hate the wig that they are using on the Marcia Clark character. She did not always wear her hair that curly and perfect. It makes her look like a poodle and makes her character look silly. 

[Isabella15]

Truth and Consequences:  even the people who reported on the trial have their own interpretation of things, but this is Harvey Levin talking about one thing all the lawyers covering the case knew immediately:  it was the venue that allowed Cochran to develop his LAPD framing narrative.  As for the overall plan, that had been written out on Shapiro's conference room wall, as Levin reports in a different clip.  The prosecution missteps just allowed the defense to execute it beyond their wildest dreams. 

 

Foundation for the race card:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPSMpBbG4-A

 

Around 0:35, Shapiro says: Go over and show the jury.  He barely moves his lips and doesn't look at OJ, but his eyes would have given him away at a poker game.  And then, without looking at Shapiro, OJ does just that, and the deputies follow right along.  I think this is the Hollywood Shuffle at its smoothest.  Someone (can't remember!) pointed out here that the prosecution never objected to that little scene:  it was OJ in effect testifying to the jury without saying a word.  And without cross examination. 

 

This clip also points to how they're characterizing Shapiro, for some reason, it's kind of a hatchet job.  But he made critical contributions to the defense strategy, and the up-close-to-the-jury cuteness with the glove was a major one.

 

There's no question about it: the defense staged Simpson's house & changed photos.  Carl Douglas confirmed what they did here:

 http://www.bustle.com/articles/144999-did-oj-simpsons-defense-really-redecorate-his-house-these-lawyers-werent-messing-around

 

Fact Checking Articles Everywhere!

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-vs-oj-simpson-episode-5-recap-fact-check

 

http://variety.com/2016/tv/opinion/the-people-v-o-j-simpson-recap-episode-5-the-race-card-1201717039/

Edited March 2, 2016 by Isabella15

[TheOtherOne]

Vulture has been doing its own fact-checking of the show with the LA Times' lead reporter on the case, and while he says this episode took the most liberties with the facts, restaging the house was real.

[Jade Foxx]

 

The other thing I never see mentioned about why the jurors would automatically distrust the LAPD is the Rampart Division CRASH antigang unit. Information would start leaking out in the late 90s that the CRASH unit had evolved from corruption to a straight up a criminal enterprise. And part of how the CRASH unit hid their misdeeds was transgressing in minority communities

 

Exactly. Although it was originally the 77th Division CRASH unit, out of South Central. And they were straight up terrorists. (Rampart Scandal came after OJ)

 

 

I liked Dominick Dunne a lot, but he was a starfucker par excellence

 

This made me cackle with glee!

Edited March 2, 2016 by Jade Foxx

[Pepperminty]

Dunne by his own admission was gossipy and giddy about being the center of attention; it just happened to be a double homicide that put him there. When you read his Vanity Fair articles, it's constant name-dropping, bragging about where he went to dinner, and knowing who did what with whom before it hit the papers. That scene didn't strike me as wrong other than he wouldn't have shut up when a server came by. Servers give him some of his best gossip and he prized those relationships for their usefulness.

 

I agree with you. I subscribed to Vanity Fair for years just to read his articles. He got info from everyone, anyone. I miss his writing. 

 

Just a random thing, I remember one of his articles saying that you could tell when people aren't used to being around famous people, because they laugh too much when speaking to the famous. I've filed this away in case I'm ever around someone famous - don't do the laughing and constant smile, try to remember to more dour. I did ride in an elevator recently with Alexander Ovechkin. I really wanted to get a pic with him but I played it cool and faced straight ahead but looked at him out of the corner of my eye.

Edited March 2, 2016 by Pepperminty

[SimoneS]

I’m getting a kick out of the African American woman on the defense who I don’t think has even had a line yet.  She’s in nearly every defense team scene, and she manages to say a lot regardless of not having a line – her shifts of expression are wonderful. I'm hoping all these episodes of silence add up to some scene where she lets loose and tells them everything she's thinking.

 

I did not realized that she has not had a lot of dialogue, but she does have an expressive face. I enjoy her a lot.

Edited March 2, 2016 by SimoneS

[luna1122]

I love the casting of Robert Morse as Dunne, because so much of Dunne's writing was a reaction to, and reflection of Truman Capote's life, going so far as to create a character, Basil Plant, who was a Capote doppelganger...and Dunne was fully as much of a starfucker and gossip as Capote. Morse played Capote on Broadway in 'Tru' and won a Tony for it. He must find that symmetry kind of delicious. I do, anyway.

[iMonrey]

 

In reality, Nicole's family cleaned out her condo and the defense did not redecorate OJ's house as shown last night. A previous poster linked to a fact-check for the episode.

 

Cochran claimed the defense did not redecorate OJ's house. But then, he would.

[imjagain]

Why did the cop who pulled over Cochran say he was an assistant DA? I thought Cochran had been a defense attorney for several years/decades before OJ's case.

This episode is why I wanted to watch this series so badly. I wanted to see the "behind the scenes" stuff. I loved the back and forth between to the sides as they formed their case/defense.

So what exactly was Marcia and co. reasoning for making Darden prep Fuhrman? Was it to make Fuhrman more comfortable around black people or something? I didnt get it.

This was probably the first time where Marcia didnt come out looking good for me. I could forgive the other blunders in previous episodes because without the benefit of hindsight I can see why she made the decisions she made. But if the conversation she had with Darden early in this episode is even remotely real, then my God. What adult doesnt know that just because someone "acts" polite doesnt mean they really are. And then to accuse Darden of having preconceived notions of Fuhrman's bigotry. WTF?

And was the pre-trial motion televised live? Did Bill really pass out in the middle of opening statements? I cant imagine the show would make something like that up but after a quick google search I didnt really find anything about it.

If the prosecution didnt think shit was real before, that smackdown Cochran gave Darden should have been their first clue. The music and the whole production was soooo freaking dramatic. I loved it! But tell me Cochran didnt really turn to Darden and say "n**** please". Like no, I know Cochran had some balls, but come on. LMAO. And then the shot of Marcia just rubbing her forehead. I was like yeah, y'all in trouble.

And someone with some legal background explain HOW the defense was allowed access to a crime scene that the jurors were scheduled to see? Where they could take and replace things from the house.

The timestamp said 1982, so he probably was an assistant DA at that time.

[VanillaBeanne]

is the black defense attorney based on areal life person or a composite charachter?

Edited March 2, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[SimoneS]

Vulture has been doing its own fact-checking of the show with the LA Times' lead reporter on the case, and while he says this episode took the most liberties with the facts, restaging the house was real.

 

Thanks for the link. It is good to have a short hand reference to learn where the dramatization takes liberties with the facts instead wading through all the court documents, etc.

[Asp Burger]

I’m getting a kick out of the African American woman on the defense who I don’t think has even had a line yet.  She’s in nearly every defense team scene, and she manages to say a lot regardless of not having a line – her shifts of expression are wonderful. I'm hoping all these episodes of silence add up to some scene where she lets loose and tells them everything she's thinking.

 

is the black defense attorney based on areal life person or a composite charachter?

 

I think that that is Angel Parker as Shawn Chapman (aka Shawn Chapman Holley), who was a real member of the team.  

 

http://heavy.com/news/2013/01/shawn-holley-lindsay-lohan-lawyer-facts/

Edited March 2, 2016 by Asp Burger

[VanillaBeanne]

I was the original poster who remarked that the show took liberties with the jury visit. The defense did make changes so the show did not take liberties with that, but with the extent of those changes and the prosecutions knowledge. On the show they come off as completely blindsided as outmaneuvered.

But based on the NYT article in the fact check, there was a prominent picture of barbieri and the kids that the prosecution wanted covered before the visit but ITo overruled, so it seemed the shows characterization of Cochrane's efforts to remove all,traces of white OJ and his fondness for white women was overstated. Also, the prosecution made several requests about adding thing to Bundy and moving other things out of Rockingham pre-visit so they were aware of the optics.

That said, the house was not an active crime scene. Had oJ been out on bail, he would have lived there and was free to make changes himself. none of the furnishings were the reason for the jury visit.

[girlonfire]

That’s the one part I didn’t get.  It was Shapiro’s fault – why wasn’t HE falling on HIS sword?  From the extra sour expression on Travolta’s puss, they were playing it like Shapiro knew it was his fault/had been chewed out about it.  Maybe Douglas was supposed to have caught the error?  Or they just plain didn’t want Shapiro ever speaking in court again?

 

The Dunne dinner parties were infamous – Nancy Reagan and Liz Taylor would have him over to dish.  I assume the one in question was supposed to be one of Nancy’s because of the red outfits.  There was definitely a black server, but also others who were not. So they weren't talking in front of the black guy, but they also weren't talking in front of "the help" because they were snooty society people gushing over tawdry stuff.

 

I don’t think the real Cochran was more flamboyant, but he was more physically commanding and authoritative. So there was just more of everything when he was in full performance.

 

I’m getting a kick out of the African American woman on the defense who I don’t think has even had a line yet.  She’s in nearly every defense team scene, and she manages to say a lot regardless of not having a line – her shifts of expression are wonderful. I'm hoping all these episodes of silence add up to..

I believe they introduced her in a previous episode and she is Shawn Holley who later went on to represent Lindsey Lohan.  

[Umbelina]

So dramatizations of true events are inherently supposed to lie?

This is a dramatization based on books about what happened.  It's a TV show.  I expect certain liberties to be taken to make a TV SHOW.  It's not a documentary, and I think overall, it's keeping damn close to the "truth" of what happened, considering they are compressing nearly a year into less than 10 hours of TV.  The attorney collapsing there saved time and another scene in chambers.  Meh,  no biggie.

 

Same here.  In fact it's all so infuriating I had to stop watching.  I doubt I'll watch any more of this.  I think it's really well made, but I am surprised at how emotional it makes me, so many years later, knowing what's going to happen, etc.  But I just can't watch so many of the infuriating moments again, and I certainly can't watch the abject failure of the prosecution again, nor the defenses grand standing and ploys and tactics that so many people fell for at the time, nor Ito, nor ... (you get the idea).  Gah!  

Stick with it.  I almost feel this is a catharsis, or will be, or I'm hoping it will be.  I just keep holding on to his civil "guilty" verdict and to the fact that his murdering ass is in jail, even if it is from another crime.  If they release him in Oct of 2017, I'll feel differently.

 

I don't know if this is the right thread, but in what universe does a crime scene for an active murder investigation get gutted of all furnishings and scrubbed down?  I was gobsmacked at the "tours" through Nicole's and OJ's homes.  Neither of those homes presented the truth - wouldn't this be the very definition of tampering with evidence?  If this show were fiction, I'd laugh and change the channel because it's too crazy to be real.  How did OJ's team get away with rearranging the artwork, pictures, etc.?  How did they manage to do this unchecked and unseen?  I also cannot figure out why OJ was present at the tour of his own home, and allowed to move around somewhat freely in the presence of the jury.  None of this makes any sense.

 

Mind blown.

 

And I can't wait to get my hands on Christopher Darden's book now.

I loved Darden's book.  Actually though, Fuhrman's book was full of important information and well written as well.  The prick.

 

In reality, Nicole's family cleaned out her condo and the defense did not redecorate OJ's house as shown last night. A previous poster linked to a fact-check for the episode.

 

Rockingham was re-staged, many, many people talked about it.  Cochran was being disingenuous, and downplaying it.

Truth and Consequences:  even the people who reported on the trial have their own interpretation of things, but this is Harvey Levin talking about one thing all the lawyers covering the case knew immediately:  it was the venue that allowed Cochran to develop his LAPD framing narrative.  As for the overall plan, that had been written out on Shapiro's conference room wall, as Levin reports in a different clip.  The prosecution missteps just allowed the defense to execute it beyond their wildest dreams. 

 

Foundation for the race card:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPSMpBbG4-A

 

Around 0:35, Shapiro says: Go over and show the jury.  He barely moves his lips and doesn't look at OJ, but his eyes would have given him away at a poker game.  And then, without looking at Shapiro, OJ does just that, and the deputies follow right along.  I think this is the Hollywood Shuffle at its smoothest.  Someone (can't remember!) pointed out here that the prosecution never objected to that little scene:  it was OJ in effect testifying to the jury without saying a word.  And without cross examination. 

 

This clip also points to how they're characterizing Shapiro, for some reason, it's kind of a hatchet job.  But he made critical contributions to the defense strategy, and the up-close-to-the-jury cuteness with the glove was a major one.

 

There's no question Simpson's house was staged.  Carl Douglas confirmed that  here:

 http://www.bustle.com/articles/144999-did-oj-simpsons-defense-really-redecorate-his-house-these-lawyers-werent-messing-around

 

Fact Checking Articles Everywhere!

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-vs-oj-simpson-episode-5-recap-fact-check

 

http://variety.com/2016/tv/opinion/the-people-v-o-j-simpson-recap-episode-5-the-race-card-1201717039/

 

Thanks, great links.

Vulture has been doing its own fact-checking of the show with the LA Times' lead reporter on the case, and while he says this episode took the most liberties with the facts, restaging the house was real.

For this, it seems, the writers turned away from Toobin's largely legal tome to the 1996 Lawrence Schiller blow-by-blow account, American Tragedy: The Uncensored History of the O.J. Simpson Defense. According to that book, the defense wanted to show the murder scene to prove that it was such a small space, O.J. would have been covered in blood — and to show his home in order to convince them that he had too much to lose to commit the murder. The only problem, as Cochran saw it, was that his house's decorations wouldn't resonate with the largely black jury. So they did change out the pictures of white women — including a nude of his girlfriend, Paula Barbieri — with portraits of his black family. Funny enough, the art that came in from the Cochran collection, which Johnnie wanted because it "depict[ed] African American history," was a Rockwell print from his office ... one which depicted a young black girl, surrounded by federal agents, walking into school. (3/5 Gloves)

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/recaps/the-people-v-o-j-simpson-episode-5-our-fact-checking-recap-20160301?page=3

Marcia said it happened, as did many others. 

 

That opening scene brought back a personal memory for me.  Even being blond and blue eyed, I've seen racism, from both sides really.  Anyway, one night I took a walk down to the bay, near the St. Francis Yacht Harbor in San Francisco, as I often did, late at night.  That night I was accompanied by my good friend, a very tall, handsome black man.  THIS night, within minutes the cops showed up, my first reaction was "Hello officers, what's up?"  friendly, completely not threatened.  My friend's reaction was being overly friendly, keeping hands in full view.  Anyway, the police told us we had to leave, and I began saying "Why?  I come down here all the time, what's the problem?"  My friend was all, "Of course officers, no problem, have a nice evening" and pulling me away.  I finally got it.  I turned to say something to the police, at least one of whom looked ashamed, and my friend said, "Please.  Say nothing more, let's just leave."

 

I remember thinking, "this is what life would be like."  Also, yeah, whenever we went anywhere together, suddenly I was getting a lot of nasty looks (and words!) from black women, which also shocked me.  Naive...

 

Marcia didn't understand either of those things, not really, and it bit her in the butt.

[starri]

Stick with it.  I almost feel this is a catharsis, or will be, or I'm hoping it will be.  I just keep holding on to his civil "guilty" verdict and to the fact that his murdering ass is in jail, even if it is from another crime.  If they release him in Oct of 2017, I'll feel differently.

I think there might be an element of nostalgia to it as well.  Not for the murder or trial itself, but for the time period.  I'd be lying if I said I didn't start singing along to "Fantastic Voyage" as they were redressing Rockingham.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

 

American Crime Story Plays The Race Card
...Literally; that's the episode title. Who has a winning hand and who busts out?

[lovinbob]

I'm right there with you.

 

Yeah, but he lucked into a character role of a man who chewed scenery for a living.  He's wonderful, but I'm kind of preferring Sterling K Brown's more subtle performance.  He won't win, but he's making my heart break. 

 

Sterling K. Brown and Courtney B. Vance are the show for me. I am absolutely captivated by Sterling's performance and by the turmoil Chris Darden must have been in.

 

The redecorating of OJ's house was...beyond. Holy shit. I'm surprised people fell for it, wasn't it well known that he hadn't really given back to his community? A painting of Ruby Bridges? She's an inspiring woman but how many black people have a painting of her in their house?

Are you talking about this poster? I think many people have that piece of art in their homes. It was a popular painting by Norman Rockwell, called "The Problem We All Live With." OJ may not really have owned it, but Johnny Cochran did and plenty of people, black and white, also do.

Edited March 3, 2016 by lovinbob

[BoogieBurns]

I think many people have that piece of art in their homes. It was a popular painting by Normal Rockwell, called "The Problem We All Live With." OJ may not really have owned it, but Johnny Cochran did and plenty of people, black and white, also do.

 

We have it in our house.

 

I have one teeny tiny nitpick about the dialogue at the beginning, when Johnnie was at church. I have been to many black churches and I've never heard a black Pastor/Preacher refer to another black man, especially one he knows personally as [first name] [last name]. He kept calling him "Johnnie Cochran" when 99.8% of black church men would have called him "Brother Cochran" or "Brother Johnnie Cochran". Took me out of the moment a bit. 

 

Also, crazy little world that the young black woman on OJ's team is Shawn Chapman Holley! She had the thankless job of defending a very guilty Lindsay Lohan and kept her from getting harsh sentences. Now we know, she learned from the best.