S01.E05: The Race Card

[terxav]

At first I kept thinking how could Cochrane be legally able to change the decorations/paintings and photos in oj's house. But then after some thought, I have read the reviews and some comments on the episode . The one statement I saw repeatedly was crime scene, OJ lived in a mansion, the murders were committed at Nicole's house, that was the scene of the crime. The evidence at OJ's house does not make it a crime scene that needed to be maintained exactly with in changes for months . CSI had not hit the airwaves by the time of the OJ trial, because if the prosecution wanted to show the mansion as it was on the day OJ was arrested - they should have photos of the entire house.

The restaging of the house could have blown up in the defenses face, if the prosecution waited until after the visit and then expressed concerns to the judge that the way the mansion looked during the walk through was vastly different than when OJ was arrested. Asking to show the jury side by side photos it would have made OJ look terrible . And the defense team woukd have loss points with the jury by having the manipulation laid bare.

[MsJamieDornan]

I guess I can understand taking the jurors to the crime scene,  but why they had to go inside is confusing. But I will let that go, What I really need to know is why the heck was OJ allowed to go with? And, why wasn't he handcuffed the entire time??  There was no need to have him there, especially in Nicole's house !! He should never have been able to parade around the properties like he was an ordinary person.

 

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

Edited March 3, 2016 by MsJamieDornan

[suomi]

The White Separatist movement is not widely lauded and applauded by Idaho residents. I'm a SoCal native transplanted in Utah since '85 and over the years I've known and/or met a raft of Californians who moved to Utah and Idaho. Most were drawn by the very favorable real estate exchange, four seasons, fishing and hunting and skiing, and sparsely populated towns/cities. A disproportionate number of retired LEOs live in Idaho but I think that simply reflects a need to completely escape the dangerous and stressful environments where they spent their careers. The intermountain west is/was the last region to be heavily polluted by "city shit," as even a quick examination of both coasts and the midwest will demonstrate. But, unfortunately, we are beginning to catch up. Fuhrman now works as an electrician (which is often a seasonal job) and has supplemented that income by working as a hunting guide (which is definitely seasonal). So, with my experience, I don't read much into him moving to Idaho (or even Sand Point).

[smiley13]

In my opinion, people these days throw around the word 'creepy' far too easily. I am not sure what is creepy about Dominick Dunne. 

 

He comes across as creepy to me because he was salaciously savoring the details of a terrible murder.  How would he have felt if someone had done had done that for his daughter's death?    I am sure there were "gossipy" tidbits in that trial too.

[starri]

Hypocrisy isn't reserved just for people who haven't been victimized.

[qtpye]

I have really loved Paulson's portrayal of Marcia Clarke.  However, every decision she is making is so stupid and wrong and not just a hindsight is 20/20 type of way.

 

From the jury selection, to not listening to Darden, to putting MF on the stand...she is creating a perfect storm for Cochrane.  I know we are supposed to sympathize, but there is also a touch of arrogance in her decisions.

 

She thinks knows the sisterhood of women and is greatly underestimating misogyny in genernal.

 

No, Marcia, you do not understand what it is like to be a black woman dealing with the horribly corrupt LAPD.  You have no idea what it is like to be harrassed for no reason, or fearing that your sons, husbands, and brothers might be shot or arrested for standing at the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

You allowed them make a domestic violence case between spouses into an f-you to the LAPD.  This case was never supposed to be about police corruption. 

 

I feel sorry for her, but it's so frustrating...I really want her to win this time ( I know how stupid that sentiment is).

[Cccharley]

I looked up the Cochran pullover incident. It was around '78/79. So he may have still considered himself a prosecutor. I highly doubt he was driving a rolls Royce at the time. So it was very much poetic license.

[starri]

From the jury selection, to not listening to Darden, to putting MF on the stand...she is creating a perfect storm for Cochrane.  I know we are supposed to sympathize, but there is also a touch of arrogance in her decisions.

I remember Clark going on something like 60 Minutes or 20/20 with Darden at some point and saying that if the prosecution hadn't called Fuhrman, the defense would have and that would have looked even worse.  And frankly I think she was probably right.

[qtpye]

It must frustrate her then that this series is making her look kind hearted, but incompetent.

[starri]

I saw some comments that she made where she talked about thinking the presentation was fair, and fell all over herself complimenting Sarah Paulson.

[VanillaBeanne]

My two cents, Clark seems to not run away from the decisions she made (other than the decision to have OJ try on the glove, which I think she bears at least secondary responsibility for since she could have overruled Darden). So if the show is accurate that she didn't fight the venue change, was okay with the jury composition, didn't think Fuhrman was a problem and thought the forensic evidence was unassailable, then she's probably happy that Paulson can pull off making Marcia Clark likeable.

Although, I'd have been upset with the "if people act polite then they are polite'" line because I don't think Marcia Clark, a seasoned prosecutor, was naive.

Plus they were extremely kind to her with the wig.

I am looking forward to the "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" episode, which is supposed to address the sexism that she faced from Ito, the defense, her bosses and the media. Basically, America.

Edited March 3, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[GHScorpiosRule]

My two cents, Clark seems to not run away from the decisions she made (other than the decision to have OJ try on the glove, which I think she bears at least secondary responsibility for that since she could have overruled Darden). So if the show is accurate that she didn't fight the venue change, was okay with the jury composition, didn't think Fuhrman was a problem and thought the forensic evidence was unassailable, then she's probably happy that Paulson can pull off making Marcia Clark likeable.

 

She did say all those things when she was on The View in January? and when they asked her what she thought about the show and how Paulson was playing her.  She praised Paulson.

 

I remember the press conference when Clark said that they were going to charge OJ. She looked anything but naive.

[VanillaBeanne]

I looked up the Cochran pullover incident. It was around '78/79. So he may have still considered himself a prosecutor. I highly doubt he was driving a rolls Royce at the time. So it was very much poetic license.

I read yet another fact checker article this morning that quoted from Cochranes auto bio. He said he drove a RR. Tried to google it just now but only found this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14554-2005Mar30.html

Didn't the show turn the car into a Mercedes?

Edited March 3, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[mytmo]

Even though I told myself I wouldn't watch this series again I watched this week and was glad I did. The discourse between Cochran and Darden was amazing. The scene with Dominick Dunne was an interesting point of view from the rich and famous (and infamous) and I appreciate whoever posted the Vanity Fair link for his articles. I lost an entire day reading those and recommend to others.

[Hanahope]

This show is doing a very good job.   Showing Marcia Clark not only a bit arrogant and "too colorblind" to realize that race was a factor in the case, but also fairly sympathetic.  So far, at least, they've only pointed a tiny bit at Ito being "star struck" and haven't really shown how he made terrible decisions because of it. 

 

Showing, imo, that while Chris Darden was generally smart and pretty intuitive, was just too "nice" to be a prosecutor, especially in this case.  He was too weak to make Clark see the error of her decisions regarding the evidence and the case presentation overall.  Makes one wonder if Marcia Clark's decision to just use Chris Darden when Hogeman couldn't proceed was because she could steamroll him that much (though she ignored Hogeman too), because they had a thing together, or just because she was so arrogant/convinced the case was a slam dunk, didn't think they needed another seasoned/experience senior prosecutor.  Its just amazing, especially in hindsight, and with 20 years of knowledge that things haven't changed all that much, that Darden was apparently selected to just be a prop, and the prosecution thought that was good enough and completely ignored all the good advice and insight he tried to bring.

 

And I'm really surprised that the prosecution seems so flumoxed over what is clearly the defense strategy in this case.  They act like this is the first time they've come up against a defendant who could afford better attorneys than the over-worked PDs office.

 

 

I'm kindof surprised that they had to have the jury visit the scene, I really don't think that was necessary.  Photographs should have been sufficient.  Who cares what OJ's house looked like inside, the point was placement of evidence outside.  Same with Nicole's house, the crime occurred outside, there was no reason to see the inside.

[Asp Burger]

Believe it or not, the real Darden's speech was apparently much, much worse.

 

Oh, I remember that vividly. He was absolutely roasted for it in the media. I remember some guys on TV asking that day, "What is this lightweight even doing on the case? How could the other prosecutors have let this go on so long?"

 

And yeah, he did stand up in court when Cochran was responding...and paced around in a circle!  

 

Watching the series is bringing so many things back to me. I wanted to like real Christopher Darden. I believed in his sincerity and integrity. I feel that the actor is making the TV version of him extremely sympathetic too. But whether you are watching real Chris Darden or you're watching the TV version, it's hard to disagree with Toobin (in the book) that he was not one of the more talented lawyers in this case. Whatever else you can say about the personal character or the misjudgments of Bailey, Clark, Cochran, and Shapiro, they were qualified to be part of a case of this magnitude. Darden was not. He was a good guy to have on your team for his investigative ability, prepping witnesses, behind-the-scenes things like that, but in a courtroom, he was painful. Watching him get owned by Cochran over and over, and his petulant outbursts and body language, was no fun at all in real life (unless you were pro-OJ, I guess). 

 

I don't want to "spoil" anything. I'll give him that he had one great cross, but his opponent was so inept that it wasn't exactly a fair fight.  

Edited March 3, 2016 by Asp Burger

[Happytobehere]

I continue to be amazed by the level of vitriol leveled at Johnnie Cochrane by people who refuse to accept the prosecution's arrogance, incompetence and racism. They lost because of this. They were so used to having all the cards stacked in their favor that they couldn't up their game from the usual level of mediocrity and it cost them. I always thought OJ was guilty, but Clark and company got beat because they were never before put in a position where they had to fight. To this day, Clark continues to blame Darden, the person she only wanted on the case because he was black for the loss. This speaks volumes for her true character. Chris Darden was the token who if the scene with the conversation with his father is correct couldn't even see how he was being set up when it came to Furhman, and couldn't get that being the face of the Furhman apology train would not have been a god look

Oh, I remember that vividly. He was absolutely roasted for it in the media. I remember some guys on TV asking that day, "What is this lightweight even doing on the case? How could the other prosecutors have let this go on so long?"

 

And yeah, he did stand up in court when Cochran was responding...and paced around in a circle!  

 

Watching the series is bringing so many things back to me. I wanted to like real Christopher Darden. I believed in his sincerity and integrity. I feel that the actor is making the TV version of him extremely sympathetic too. But whether you are watching real Chris Darden or you're watching the TV version, it's hard to disagree with Toobin (in the book) that he was not one of the more talented lawyers in this case. Whatever else you can say about the personal character or the misjudgments of Bailey, Clark, Cochran, and Shapiro, they were qualified to be part of a case of this magnitude. Darden was not. He was a good guy to have on your team for his investigative ability, prepping witnesses, behind-the-scenes things like that, but in a courtroom, he was painful. Watching him get owned by Cochran over and over, and his petulant outbursts and body language, was no fun at all in real life (unless you were pro-OJ, I guess). 

 

I don't want to "spoil" anything. I'll give him that he had one great cross, but his opponent was so inept that it wasn't exactly a fair fight.

Exactly! And everyone saw his selection for this case for what it was, a cheap prosecutorial ploy to curry favor with the jury and mitigate the glaring racial iceberg that was headed their way. It didn't work because again the prosecution was playing checkers, the defense was playing chess. Truth be told, neither Clark nor Darden should have been assigned to the case, they were both out of their leagues.

[RemoteControlFreak]

At first I kept thinking how could Cochrane be legally able to change the decorations/paintings and photos in oj's house. But then after some thought, I have read the reviews and some comments on the episode . The one statement I saw repeatedly was crime scene, OJ lived in a mansion, the murders were committed at Nicole's house, that was the scene of the crime. The evidence at OJ's house does not make it a crime scene that needed to be maintained exactly with in changes for months . CSI had not hit the airwaves by the time of the OJ trial, because if the prosecution wanted to show the mansion as it was on the day OJ was arrested - they should have photos of the entire house.

The restaging of the house could have blown up in the defenses face, if the prosecution waited until after the visit and then expressed concerns to the judge that the way the mansion looked during the walk through was vastly different than when OJ was arrested. Asking to show the jury side by side photos it would have made OJ look terrible . And the defense team woukd have loss points with the jury by having the manipulation laid bare.

 

Both houses were crime scenes and should have been preserved.  I'm not sure why they weren't.

 

It would not have mattered if the prosecution complained after the visit that the staging was unfair. They can't erase the impression made on the jury.  

I continue to be amazed by the level of vitriol leveled at Johnnie Cochrane by people who refuse to accept the prosecution's arrogance, incompetence and racism. They lost because of this. They were so used to having all the cards stacked in their favor that they couldn't up their game from the usual level of mediocrity and it cost them. I always thought OJ was guilty, but Clark and company got beat because they were never before put in a position where they had to fight. To this day, Clark continues to blame Darden, the person she only wanted on the case because he was black for the loss. This speaks volumes for her true character. Chris Darden was the token who if the scene with the conversation with his father is correct couldn't even see how he was being set up when it came to Furhman, and couldn't get that being the face of the Furhman apology train would not have been a god look

Exactly! And everyone saw his selection for this case for what it was, a cheap prosecutorial ploy to curry favor with the jury and mitigate the glaring racial iceberg that was headed their way. It didn't work because again the prosecution was playing checkers, the defense was playing chess. Truth be told, neither Clark nor Darden should have been assigned to the case, they were both out of their leagues.

Exactly.  Clark was over-confident and Darden inexperienced and, in my opinion, not a very bright lawyer. They were used to arguing cases against public defenders fresh out of law school, not a team of highly paid seasoned attorneys experienced in swaying a jury in the face of obvious evidence.

 

I'm not sure there was anyone in the DA's office at the time who was capable of matching up against Cochran et al.  

Edited March 3, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[charmed1]

Were there seat belts that went across the chest in Benzes back then? I was 5 years old in 82 and I barely had a lap belt in the front seat (these were the days before car seats, kids). But my mom drove a beat up Nova then. Maybe Mercedes had heeded the advice of all those Barbara Mandrell commercials by then.

[vibeology]

Both houses were crime seasons and should have been preserved. I'm not sure why they weren't.

That's not something that really happens ever. If someone is killed in a home, the police take photos, video and collect evidence but they have to release the crime scene when they're done. OJ

had his daughter living in that house and if he'd been released on bail, would have been living in that house too. In theory the Browns could have moved into Nicole's home with the kids once the crime scene was released, though it's easy to understand why they didn't. There was over a year between the murder and the trial. You can expect people to not live in their houses for all that time or punish people for redecorating over the course of a year.

The mistake was going there in the first place. OJ's home was full of impressive trophies and cool stuff before Cochran fixed the place. That alone was enough to impress the jury and Clark should have relied on photos to tell the story.

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

I love Dominick Dunne's books, his columns in Vanity Fair, always enjoyed his interviews, and even his slightly cheesy tv show. I am loving his portrayal and I think he would have gotten a kick out of it.

I agree with you and the other posters who loved seeing Robert Morse (bonus for us Mad Men fans!) killing it as Dominick Dunne in the episode. The columns by Dominick Dunne and Christopher Hitchens were why I kept subscribing to Vanity Fair for as long as I did.

 

I loved this scene between Cochran and Darden so much:

Cochran (to Darden): "Don't do Fuhrman. (Pause.) Make the white people do him."

I don't know if that happened in real life but both Vance and Brown killed in that scene - Vance's delivery and Sterling Brown's face. All the Emmys for these two actors! ;)

 

Did Mark Furhman really have a Nazi medal? I need to know. Cause if so, damn....I don't know how that man has been able to appear on news channels as an analyst when it comes to crimes/court cases or get book deals......... And if not, still damn.......it's one thing in our society to be outed as a probable racist, it's another if the world thinks you're a Neo-Nazi or Nazi sympathizer....(meaning that while you might see people who many consider to be racists as commentators on Fox News, but generally no one invites straight-up Klansmen like David Duke or Neo-Nazis to give their opinions on crimes/trials).  If that's not true, that went way beyond "dramatic license" and it seems like Fuhrman would be LIVID (and calling his lawyers).  I'd think his occasional media gigs would dwindle if anyone thought he was a Neo-Nazi/Nazi sympathizer and he could probably try to sue over it if it wasn't true.

Edited March 3, 2016 by MyPeopleAreNordic

[Simon Boccanegra]

I don't know...Clark definitely was arrogant, but she had won her share of tough cases before this one, including some pretty high-profile ones (not nationally, but locally), and she wasn't facing off against a steady stream of lightweights. She may not have been the best prosecutor in that office, but she had an excellent reputation that wasn't built on sand.

 

No one should buy into the myth that because Simpson was acquitted, it was brilliant lawyering from the unbeatable "Dream Team." There was a fair amount of bungling on both sides (I refer to Bugliosi's equal-opportunity vivisection on that point; Outrage at times is overheated, but VB was a keen observer) -- Douglas's incredibly bad cross of Shipp, Shapiro dwelling on the cuts on Simpson's hands (and introducing photos of them) to the point that he actually strengthened the People's case, Cochran's opening statement full of promises the defense subsequently either would not fulfill or would wish they had not.

 

This is getting to be more appropriate for the "general case discussion" thread, but I think what it comes down to is that much of this jury went in favorably disposed toward Simpson, they were presented with a rationale to discount the considerable evidence against him, they took it, and the prosecution played less than its strongest hand. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Umbelina]

I kind of see why they went to the crime scenes though.  I was doing a bunch of reading earlier, transcripts, articles, all kinds of things.  I found a pretty good set of diagrams as well, floor plan and landscape layouts, oddly enough on an "OJ is innocent" site.  I posted a few of them in the Glove thread I think.  Anyway, I'm someone who is good with maps and floor plans, or even CT scans, I can easily "think in 3D" while looking at them, BUT, I still struggled understanding certain parts of the complicated OJ/Kato/Limo-driver and cars set up that night, especially OJ returning from murdering Ron and Nicole, and the parking of the Bronco, the thumps, how he got back in.

 

Then OJ was filmed (that's in that thread too) after his acquittal, and the best part of it was later, when he did a walk through his property to the blood areas, the moving car areas, and the back narrow strip of the property where the glove was found and Kato's wall was forcefully bumped 3 times.  It was VERY cleaned up by then.  The night of the murders, it was full of building crap, toys, just an obstacle course of junk, dark, etc.  When I actually saw that things fell into place, and I think I finally put together what probably happened.

 

To keep it super short, I think OJ, seeing that the limo was already there, tried to hurry through that narrow back area, probably to cut through the laundry room/maid's room into the house, or perhaps the garage.  BUT, he bumped into junk, probably tripping over some old boards or bicycles/toys and lost his balance, slamming into the wall enough to move a picture on the inside wall.  3 times.  He dropped the glove.  He was frantic to get back in because the limo driver was already there, he was early.  Then Kato goes out to investigate and is talking to the Limo driver, OJ, out of options, dashes into the front door dripping blood.  He's parked the Bronco on the side he almost never parked on (his house was on a rounded corner lot.)  He's banking on speed and the darkness to not be seen.  The limo driver DOES see him, and later Kato remembers seeing him as well, entering the house.

 

The diagrams were better for some things, for example, the utter absurdity that the golf balls he was chipping could have, in any universe, hit Kato's wall, they would have to go up, do a sharp U turn in mid-air, and then cut through the dense foliage on the property line, and in rapid order slammed into a wall one after another.  There is absolutely no possible way that could have happened.  None.

 

So seeing it could help, as for going inside?  Well, there was some blood found inside as well.  At Nicole's?  I don't see the reason for the jury to go inside, unless they needed to use the bathroom.  Well, maybe, possibly to see what she might have been able to see from her front windows, but even that is a stretch.

[drivethroo]

Again, Johnnie Cochran's job was to get his client off.  It was not his job to coddle Chris Darden or make him feel good about himself.  If he detested Chris Darden he never would've given him a heads up on how Marcia Clark & em were setting him up to be the black fall guy for his case.  <-----This is why his dad did not want him being part of this case.

 

The race card was already there starting with the darkened TIME cover and the racial aftermath of the Simi Valley trial and subsequent riots.  Johnnie Cochran just capitalized on them but he didn't introduce it into the case.  It was already there.  If anything the prosecution helped advance the defense's "Racist LAPD out to get OJ" story by putting Fuhrman on the stand, even as they were warned (by Darden) NOT to.

 

We can't get mad that Johnnie Cochran disregarded Chris Darden as a black prop and treated him such ...that was his purpose on the prosecution's side and everyone knew it.  Again, this is why Darden's dad warned him to stay away from this case.

 

Edit: Even though Robert Blake got off, his trial (and later the Phil Spector trial) weren't media circuses like the OJ trial; perhaps the LA prosecutor's office learned how to handle things better.

Edited March 3, 2016 by drivethroo

[RemoteControlFreak]

Were there seat belts that went across the chest in Benzes back then? I was 5 years old in 82 and I barely had a lap belt in the front seat (these were the days before car seats, kids). But my mom drove a beat up Nova then. Maybe Mercedes had heeded the advice of all those Barbara Mandrell commercials by then.

Yes there were seat belts and shoulder straps even way back in 1982.  

 

We had shoulder straps in my parents' 1972 Chevy Nova when I was a kid.  We didn't always use them, though, so that might be your memory. Cars had seatbelts since the 1950s.  People didn't use them as often until the advent of ad campaigns and laws, and changes in societal norms.

 

And kiddie seats were widely used if not required by law everywhere.  This was actually the start of the "Baby on Board" fad where car seats were sold with signs saying "Baby on Board" to stick on car windows presumably as a  request for polite behavior from fellow motorists.

Edited March 4, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[GHScorpiosRule]

There was over a year between the murder and the trial. You can expect people to not live in their houses for all that time or punish people for redecorating over the course of a year.

That is not accurate. The criminal trial commenced seven months after the murders. January 22. The verdict came nine months later. OJ definitely got his "speedy trial."

[VanillaBeanne]

As just one black person, I think the onscreen treatment of Darden by Clark this episode was just as bad as Cochran's treatment of Darden. Yes, it was mean that Cochran called Darden the token black on the prosecution to the press, especially since the two were friendly. But warning Darden to not let the prosecution use him by questioning Fuhrman was an extreme kindness. Because you know what a modern day Uncle Tom would be? A black attorney who believes a police officer is a racist but presents him to a jury like he's not.

And I hope that it didn't play out like this in real life and I hope that Marcia was upfront with Darden when she asked him to handle Fuhrman. I hope she actually said to him - we think the jury will accept Fuhrmans testimony if a black person is questioning him and accepting and acknowledging his answers, can you do this for the greater good of convicting a murderer? But the coy way that played out in the show was shitty.

Edited March 3, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[Simon Boccanegra]

What's interesting is that if you look at Bailey's memo of 21 December 1994, reproduced (in part) on page 220 of the Toobin book, even though Bailey describes it as only his "preliminary effort," everything is there for the strategy the defense would pursue. He -- not Shapiro, not Cochran, but Bailey, the trembly-handed alcoholic who was supposed to have been in professional decline ever since he blew the Patty Hearst case -- had an outline of every point they would argue. (1) OJ's demeanor before and after Chicago was inconsistent with guilt. (2) The time line didn't make sense. (3) He had no motive; she was the mother of his children. (3a) Sully Nicole's character; get in as much as possible about her "sexual exploits." (4) The police investigation was botched; protection and preservation of the crime scene was full of errors, the blood evidence was "salted" to incriminate OJ.

 

And finally, Bailey writes, "None of this will have much value unless and until it is translated into the 'Downtown' dialect by our able colleague Cochran; given the makeup of the jury, he would probably be very effective at delivering the translation himself."  

 

"'Downtown' dialect"...that isn't even code. But this memo went to Cochran, and he assumed the role expected of him.  

 

So, there's some rich irony, to me, in Cochran warning Darden about being used. The difference between them is that Darden was being used for a lower fee, and to put a murderer away rather than to get one off.  

Edited March 3, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[jaync]

There has never been one shred of evidence that anyone framed him, much less that it was racially motivated. Remember, the LAPD loved OJ--that's why he got away with beating Nicole, that's why he was allowed to turn himself in (an accused double murderer! The LAPD laid down the red carpet for him until he broke and ran like the cockroach he is).

 Hell, they practically laid the red carpet down for him even while he was running. If O.J. had been just an Average Joe, he may have not even survived the Bronco chase, much less have been given so much leeway to return to his home, with his family and a high-profile lawyer ready to greet him. It makes one wonder if any of those cheering him on ever took a minute to think about that (as well as question why a truly innocent father of four would be running/threatening suicide in the first place). O.J. was nowhere near being any kind of a representation of a black man being unjustly pursued and treated unfairly by "the man".

The irony is that Darden - a dark-skinned AA male who wasn't a celeb - was far more likely to experience racial discrimination than the likes of O.J. Simpson. Yet, because he was highly educated and dared to do the job with which he was appointed, he was called an "Uncle Tom". SMH.

 

That scene with the bench, if that really did happen, almost made me cry.

Not only did it really happen, but it was supposedly worse than portrayed, with actual physicality in the form of pushing and shoving involved.

[MsJamieDornan]

 

Exactly! And everyone saw his selection for this case for what it was, a cheap prosecutorial ploy to curry favor with the jury and mitigate the glaring racial iceberg that was headed their way. It didn't work because again the prosecution was playing checkers, the defense was playing chess. Truth be told, neither Clark nor Darden should have been assigned to the case, they were both out of their leagues.

 

 

 

My people,,,,I have found my people.

 

 

He was a good guy to have on your team for his investigative ability, prepping witnesses, behind-the-scenes things like that, but in a courtroom, he was painful. Watching him get owned by Cochran over and over, and his petulant outbursts and body language, was no fun at all in real life (unless you were pro-OJ, I guess).

 











 

He reminded of a spoiled child, not a seasoned lawyer. I think the defense knew it and rattled him as much as they could. It was uncomfortable to watch.

[vibeology]

That is not accurate. The criminal trial commenced seven months after the murders. January 22. The verdict came nine months later. OJ definitely got his "speedy trial."

 

That's what I get for going on the memory of 9 year old me. Either way, 7 months is far too long to expect someone to stay out of their house.  OJ wasn't the only person who lived in that house at the time of the murder and if someone unconnected to the crime was forced to find a new home that'd be totally unfair. Heck, if OJ had somehow gotten bail, keeping him out of his home would have been unfair. You can't preserve every crime scene until a verdict. Its just not practical. If someone gets killed during a bank robbery, that bank isn't going to stay closed until a trial wraps up. Same if someone is murdered on the street. No city would keep a road closed for 7 months. Either Clark should have kept the jury in the courtroom or made a motion to keep the visits to specific parts of each home based on the evidence. Then there would have been no need to go into Nicole's house and would have kept the jury away from OJ's trophy room at least.

[KenyaJ]

This show is doing a very good job.   Showing Marcia Clark not only a bit arrogant and "too colorblind" to realize that race was a factor in the case, but also fairly sympathetic. 

 

Even though it's painful to watch, I'm glad they're showing the consequences of Marcia's "colorblind" attitude. There's nothing I hate more than people who laud themselves for "not seeing color," as if that's a good thing. All it really means is that they're more likely to discount the perspective of a person of color out of some misguided belief that everyone in this country is treated equally. That's a laudable goal, but it's not reality, and there are few things more patronizing than having someone tell you they don't see something that's an important aspect of your life.

 

Watching the series is bringing so many things back to me. I wanted to like real Christopher Darden. I believed in his sincerity and integrity. I feel that the actor is making the TV version of him extremely sympathetic too. But whether you are watching real Chris Darden or you're watching the TV version, it's hard to disagree with Toobin (in the book) that he was not one of the more talented lawyers in this case. Whatever else you can say about the personal character or the misjudgments of Bailey, Clark, Cochran, and Shapiro, they were qualified to be part of a case of this magnitude. Darden was not. He was a good guy to have on your team for his investigative ability, prepping witnesses, behind-the-scenes things like that, but in a courtroom, he was painful. Watching him get owned by Cochran over and over, and his petulant outbursts and body language, was no fun at all in real life (unless you were pro-OJ, I guess).

 

Even as a 19 year-old pre-law student, I remember watching him and feeling like he was completely out of his depth in that courtroom. I'm loving Sterling K. Brown's portrayal of Darden, but watching him in real life was just painful.

[mostlylurking]

I liked Cochran telling his girls to not talk to the police and to call their lawyers. I like watching true crime shows, and most of those dolts never ask for lawyers. I mean, usually they are guilty, but still......call your lawyer before saying a word.

I don't remember the prosecutor guy having a heart attack. I did remember the Mark Fuhrman stuff being a really big deal, but didn't remember all the details. Also didn't remember any of the Dominick Dunne stuff. Ito was a tool then and this actor is playing him as a tool now, so I guess that's appropriate.

I have to reiterate the question, how the eff was Johnnie allowed into the house to redecorate it?? I know the crime didn't take place there but it still seems like that should not have happened. Just goes to show how inept this whole police force/prosecution team really was.

Marcia Clark is coming off as very naive, especially for a prosecutor working in LA for so many years, and on other high profile cases. How could she misread this case so badly?

This series is really making me feel sorry for Chris Darden.

All the acting is still top notch.

[kassa]

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.

 

 

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that most people who have it don’t have one the size of a Volkswagen as the focal point in their living room.  (Though I understand the show played a little loose with the facts there and the picture was actually hung in the stairwell or something, not over the fireplace)

 

Here he is this lily white WASPy sophisticate, sitting in a room dressed up like a scene out of The Great Gatsby (or Downton Abby if we need a more current reference), using the breezy nickname "OJ" for a black man--where it's likely that in other circumstances Dunne would likely be all about formality in addressing or describing people's identity--talking about adultery, drugs and murder. [sNIP]

In his work Dunne may have written a lot about social injustices and race, but this show (and we have no idea if that dinner scene even happened, or anything like this if it did) was trying to portray him as a hypocrite.

 

 

Everybody called him OJ.  EVERYbody.  It was his brand.  Even in his Hertz commercial he's drinking OJ

 

 

 

The one with funny affectations, framed in a way that makes him look like a caricature of a WASPy white/society dilettante, with subtext that he's a hypocrite.

 

 

He was very affected, and actually a Catholic who had been ostracized from WASP society as a child/young man.  Many of his books are written about society people and their crimes from the perspective of somebody who moves in the same circles yet is always made aware that he's an outsider.

 

He was a decorated WWII veteran who fought in the Battle of the Bulge and he loved gossip. He was large - he contained multitudes. I don’t see hypocrisy – he was completely upfront about who he was, whose side he was on (the victims) and that he was open to any information anybody wanted to share with him (but beware, he’d print it.)  He was a major player in the trial, one of the most honest chroniclers of it, and I don’t find his portrayal here (so far) too off base. 

 

He comes across as creepy to me because he was salaciously savoring the details of a terrible murder.

 

 

He salaciously savored the details of the farce that was that trial, that’s for sure.  But not the victims or their suffering. At least not to my recollection. 

Edited March 3, 2016 by kassa

[MsJamieDornan]

 

That scene with the bench, if that really did happen, almost made me cry.

Not only did it really happen, but it was supposedly worse than portrayed, with actual physicality in the form of pushing and shoving involved

 

Why was OJ allowed to put his hands on anyone!! He is an accused murderer, he shouldn't even have been allowed to leave the jail.

[CN42]

Umbelina, you mentioned that you've read Mark Fuhrman's book. I don't remember any part about the Nazi medals, do you?

 

I thought his book had great information on all the evidence and how and why it's collected.

As I remember it, Fuhrman said in his book that he was a history and WWII buff but that the memorabilia had gotten so expensive all he could afford were medals and other smaller items. In Murder in Brentwood, I was surprised that Fuhrman came across as sincere and very professional. I was actually open to the thought that The Fuhrman Tapes were just what he claimed: exaggerated storytelling for a potential TV script. So I listened to some of them online. It totally changed my opinion of MF. Then I read a little about his disability pension claim in 1985 (?) and was even more convinced that he's a rotten apple. Everything might have been straight up (MIGHT have been) at the crime scene investigation, but his personal life was a mess. 

 

After he was convicted of perjury he retired from LAPD (don't know if he got a pension, after 20 years) and is forever barred from owning or using any type of firearm or knife. Must suck since he's a big outdoorsman. I also found out he's been married and divorced three times. 

[psychoticstate]

Nothing new to add except that I am amazed that Ryan Murphy has anything to do with this program because it's that good.

 

As others have said, Sterling K. Brown is breaking my heart as Chris Darden.  He is killing it. 

 

It is torture to know that all of these "gut" decisions Marcia Clark is making will ultimately end up losing her the case. I almost want to jump out of my skin watching.

 

I love watching the interfighting between the defense team. Some dream team!   And while Johnnie Cochran may have been a very effective attorney, he was a first class douche.

[helenamonster]

Nothing new to add except that I am amazed that Ryan Murphy has anything to do with this program because it's that good.

 

Imo the fact that he's not a credited writer is doing this show a world of good.

 

Murphy does have his strengths. His premises for shows are relatively strong, he generally makes good casting decisions (please let's not have this devolve into the Cuba Gooding, Jr. argument again, I said generally), and is very good at developing a consistent tone and aesthetic in his programs. It's writing, specifically plotting and consistent characterization, where he really stumbles. It could be said that those two things are not necessary in a dramatization of real events, but at least for characterization I find the portrayals in this show to be fully realized and three-dimensional as opposed to flat and contradictory, which was a recurring problem on Glee.

 

I'm glad he's involved with this project just because his name opens a lot of doors and probably got a lot of people to sign on. He's a hack but he's a rich, successful hack and you can't blame people for wanting a piece of that.

[psychoticstate]

I kind of see why they went to the crime scenes though.  I was doing a bunch of reading earlier, transcripts, articles, all kinds of things.  I found a pretty good set of diagrams as well, floor plan and landscape layouts, oddly enough on an "OJ is innocent" site.  I posted a few of them in the Glove thread I think.  Anyway, I'm someone who is good with maps and floor plans, or even CT scans, I can easily "think in 3D" while looking at them, BUT, I still struggled understanding certain parts of the complicated OJ/Kato/Limo-driver and cars set up that night, especially OJ returning from murdering Ron and Nicole, and the parking of the Bronco, the thumps, how he got back in.

 

Then OJ was filmed (that's in that thread too) after his acquittal, and the best part of it was later, when he did a walk through his property to the blood areas, the moving car areas, and the back narrow strip of the property where the glove was found and Kato's wall was forcefully bumped 3 times.  It was VERY cleaned up by then.  The night of the murders, it was full of building crap, toys, just an obstacle course of junk, dark, etc.  When I actually saw that things fell into place, and I think I finally put together what probably happened.

 

To keep it super short, I think OJ, seeing that the limo was already there, tried to hurry through that narrow back area, probably to cut through the laundry room/maid's room into the house, or perhaps the garage.  BUT, he bumped into junk, probably tripping over some old boards or bicycles/toys and lost his balance, slamming into the wall enough to move a picture on the inside wall.  3 times.  He dropped the glove.  He was frantic to get back in because the limo driver was already there, he was early.  Then Kato goes out to investigate and is talking to the Limo driver, OJ, out of options, dashes into the front door dripping blood.  He's parked the Bronco on the side he almost never parked on (his house was on a rounded corner lot.)  He's banking on speed and the darkness to not be seen.  The limo driver DOES see him, and later Kato remembers seeing him as well, entering the house.

 

The diagrams were better for some things, for example, the utter absurdity that the golf balls he was chipping could have, in any universe, hit Kato's wall, they would have to go up, do a sharp U turn in mid-air, and then cut through the dense foliage on the property line, and in rapid order slammed into a wall one after another.  There is absolutely no possible way that could have happened.  None.

 

So seeing it could help, as for going inside?  Well, there was some blood found inside as well.  At Nicole's?  I don't see the reason for the jury to go inside, unless they needed to use the bathroom.  Well, maybe, possibly to see what she might have been able to see from her front windows, but even that is a stretch.

 

I think going inside Nicole's condo would have been helpful if the condo was exactly as it had been the night she died.  It would have given the jurors a better look at her, maybe she would have become more "real" in the way that photos just cannot do.  It's hard not to feel sympathy if you see someone's belongings - - pictures, kids' art work and toys and even Nicole's handbag or car keys on the counter, as if she'll return in just a moment.  As SP as Marcia Clark said, she was a mother with a life.  It's harder to ignore that seeing that actual life that was destroyed and disrupted.  Four empty walls tells them nothing. 

 

On the other hand, they saw Simpson's house in all its glory, made to look warm and cozy - -in direct contrast to Nicole's.

[Umbelina]

Oh, to make that other post clear, I think after OJ parked the Bronco, he went through the gate on the other side, which had a faulty latch, easily opened just a crack to slip though.  THEN, he skirted around behind the pool in the dark, and came up past Arnell's and Kato's room in that narrow passageway, intending to go, completely hidden from view, to the door leading to the maid's room , or that side garage door.  He knew the maid was gone for the night, she'd called earlier.  He just never made it very far, probably tripped over discarded cinder blocks, yard waste, or toys.  During the tour OJ does for the cameras, he showed the fence and the air conditioner without any sign of impact or disruption as "proof" he wasn't there.  Such bullshit, he knew about the airconditioner, and had the sense to feel for that and duck under it, but then I think his foot got caught in the rubble right after than and he fell, tried to right himself, fell, slammed into the wall two more times.  Then, he abandoned that route, dashed back around the guest wing, and got through the front door.

[Crs97]

I liked Cochran telling his girls to not talk to the police and to call their lawyers. I like watching true crime shows, and most of those dolts never ask for lawyers. I mean, usually they are guilty, but still......call your lawyer before saying a word.

Totally agree and get so annoyed when TV cops say things like innocent people don't need lawyers and TV suspects say they don't need a lawyer because they have nothing to hide, like not getting a lawyer is a badge of honor. Drives me crazy.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Totally agree and get so annoyed when TV cops say things like innocent people don't need lawyers and TV suspects say they don't need a lawyer because they have nothing to hide, like not getting a lawyer is a badge of honor. Drives me crazy.

 

 

For Realzies! As much as I love me my Law & Order, the cops, ALL of them, would continue with their questions even after the suspect asked for a lawyer...tried to play good cop, and persuade them that if they did, they wouldn't get a good deal, blah, blah, blah. And not just on tv. I minored in Criminal Justice, and in the text books I had, they would have transcripts of actual questioning by the cops, and they pulled that shit using the "cops are allowed to lie" excuse, even though they're supposed to STOP. FULL PERIOD once a suspect invokes.

 

And since it was shown in the episode, can someone who watched or knows, WHY the jury was taken to Nicole and OJ's home at all? I've read about a lot of other murder cases, but juries were never given the walk through. What made this case so speshial (No, that's not a typo! hee!)  Because it was OJ???

[psychoticstate]

I don't know if it's the norm in California but jurors visiting a crime scene can help them understand the facts of the case better.  For the prosecution, I can understand their supporting the visit - - let the jurors see how quickly Simpson could get from Nicole's condo back to his house.  Also seeing where the a/c unit was and the thumps would make it easy to understand the prosecution's scenario.  The defense likely wanted to show how in touch and "speshial" Simpson was - - and maybe that he had no guilt in walking around Nicole's property. 

 

Regardless, it seems that the Simpson jurors did not get any idea of Nicole and her loss from her condo and may not have taken note of how close together the properties were, instead noticing all of the redecorating attempts done at Rockingham.

[MsJamieDornan]

I just watched the Mark Fuhrman 2010 interview with Oprah. It's very good,, I found out some things I didn't know.

 

He does say that Ron and Nicole were having a relationship, they investigated it early on and it was true.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I don't know if it's the norm in California but jurors visiting a crime scene can help them understand the facts of the case better.  For the prosecution, I can understand their supporting the visit - - let the jurors see how quickly Simpson could get from Nicole's condo back to his house.  Also seeing where the a/c unit was and the thumps would make it easy to understand the prosecution's scenario.  The defense likely wanted to show how in touch and "speshial" Simpson was - - and maybe that he had no guilt in walking around Nicole's property. 

 

Ah, I see. Thanks for 'splainin' psychoticstate. I learned something new today!

[psychoticstate]

I just watched the Mark Fuhrman 2010 interview with Oprah. It's very good,, I found out some things I didn't know.

 

He does say that Ron and Nicole were having a relationship, they investigated it early on and it was true.

Interesting, MsJamieDornan.  I always heard the opposite - - that nothing was going on, that Nicole wasn't particularly attracted to him (and that she was involved with Marcus Allen.)   I'm surprised that none of the books, as I recall, mention the relationship.

 

p.s. - If true, the prosecution made a mistake in not mentioning it.  I would think it would help their case of Simpson being in a jealous rage.  Paula had just broken up with him, Nicole was seeing the younger Ron, who showed up that night.  It would also explain the frenzied attack on Ron, compared to the more precise attack on Nicole.

Edited March 3, 2016 by psychoticstate

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

I just watched the Mark Fuhrman 2010 interview with Oprah. It's very good,, I found out some things I didn't know.

 

He does say that Ron and Nicole were having a relationship, they investigated it early on and it was true.

Is there anyone else from the investigation, etc besides Fuhrman who can back up that claim?

[MsJamieDornan]

Well,  MyPeopleAreNordic,,,, Mark and Brad Roberts are not answering my calls right now. lol

 

I'm not sure, but he did say "we" investigated it. I'm guessing he meant his partner, but who knows.

 

It was just interesting to me he didn't say "they may have been having a relationship" he actually said it was investigated. It was actually just a side comment by Mark since he was telling what he thought happened that night. They knew OJ liked to stalk and watch Nicole. In fact, he would tell her was leaving a day earlier when he was traveling just so he could catch her. Odd, I know.

Edited March 4, 2016 by MsJamieDornan

[Kel Varnsen]

I guess I can understand taking the jurors to the crime scene,  but why they had to go inside is confusing. But I will let that go, What I really need to know is why the heck was OJ allowed to go with? And, why wasn't he handcuffed the entire time??  There was no need to have him there, especially in Nicole's house !! He should never have been able to parade around the properties like he was an ordinary person.

 

It seemed weird to me that they just let the jury wander around on their own and just sort of look around almost like tourists. I would have almost expected someone to act as a guide pointing out things like where the bodies were found, where the glove was found and that sort of thing. Otherwise I am not too sure how much value a trip like that would have.

 

This show is doing a very good job.   Showing Marcia Clark not only a bit arrogant and "too colorblind" to realize that race was a factor in the case, but also fairly sympathetic.  So far, at least, they've only pointed a tiny bit at Ito being "star struck" and haven't really shown how he made terrible decisions because of it.

I am curious, we know Fred Goldman obviously hates OJ, but has he ever come out and said anything about his feels for the cops and the DA for how badly they botched this case.

[kassa]

I don't know how he felt about the cops but I think the Goldmans had a thank you party for the prosecution team after the trial.

Edited March 4, 2016 by kassa