S01.E05: The Race Card

[Kromm]

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

 

My two cents, Clark seems to not run away from the decisions she made

I this stuff with Clark fascinates you, may I recommend watching the Investigative Discovery OJ special that's been airing lately?

It's all real/found footage, and puts the screws to Ryan Murphy's idea that this all has to be made up to create a great cohesive narrative. There's SO much real film of these events...

Anyway, there's a lot of Clark in this stuff (and a TON of Gil Garcetti, who gets short shrift on ACS--the REAL footage we hear from Garcetti's mouth when he's on camera and realizes OJ is heading home is total gold). The part with Clark that's MOST fascinating though is really something. Some paparazzi and a news crew was hanging out/stalking her at home the morning of the verdict. As she leaves her house they're in her face and we totally see a different side of Marcia Clark from the cool composed professional woman in all that courtroom footage. Remember, not only were they stalking her house (and she was really protective of her private life and family), but she absolutely KNEW what a 4 hour deliberation probably meant to the case. So in that environment they stick cameras in her face and she TOTALLY blows up. It's bleeped, because this show aired on basic cable, but the string of bleeped out curses is SO thick it's like 30 seconds straight of BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP with no breaks. It's impressive and very telling about her state of mind.

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

I'm well aware of that, but I think I perhaps didn't explain my point properly, so it's my fault. It's not a debate that everyone called him OJ, it's that this sophisticate in a formal dinner straight out of a scene on Downton Abby was probably likely to call anyone ELSE "Mr. Simpson" in those circumstances, and so the irony of the setting and the personages involved is even bigger.

[VCRTracking]

He also referred to the deceased as "Nicole". The dinner party may have been sophisticated but he was there to gossip about other people, and it's usual to refer to them less formally. If it was the 80s and he was talking about the president he'd probably be like "I heard Ron and Nancy had a fight the other day...."

 

It wasn't until James Corden's recap that I realized how many freaking hourglasses Judge Ito kept in his office and on his bench!

 

Edited March 4, 2016 by VCRTracking

[VanillaBeanne]

. So in that environment they stick cameras in her face and she TOTALLY blows up. It's bleeped, because this show aired on basic cable, but the string of bleeped out curses is SO thick it's like 30 seconds straight of BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP with no breaks. It's impressive and very telling about her state of mind.

For the cursing alone, I bet ACS will reenact this and not bleep the swear words, because they are fx, and they can.

I'm trying to see when the ID documentary will be reaired but can't. Does anyone know?

[Cccharley]

Couldn't the defense have called Furman if the prosecution decided not to?

Don't know but dateline is doing he trial on Sunday. I think Marcia will be on. She was just on The Today Show

[starri]

Couldn't the defense have called Furman if the prosecution decided not to?

Yes.  And they probably would have been able to treat him as a hostile witness, which would have been even more damaging than the defense giving him an aggressive cross-examination.

[Miss Slay]

Know what else was shameless and hypocritical? Making OJ's house look "more African American" with "blacker kids" to boot. It's bad enough that he helped their father get away with murdering their mother...but to replace their pictures, and basically imply that it's not okay to have biracial kids?! THAT'S racism too, asshole!

 

 *Sigh* OJ was married twice. He has two bi-racial kids and two kids who are fully African-American. His son was shown in the bronco episode.

[helenamonster]

 *Sigh* OJ was married twice. He has two bi-racial kids and two kids who are fully African-American. His son was shown in the bronco episode.

 

I believe what Spartan Girl was referring to were that the pictures in the house were not of OJ's fully African American children, but of children that were not his at all. Whether this was actually one of the things the defense did appears to be disputed but in the context of the episode that was what happened. In a ploy to make OJ look blacker, they didn't want pictures of his biracial children.

[Umbelina]

Couldn't the defense have called Furman if the prosecution decided not to?

Don't know but dateline is doing he trial on Sunday. I think Marcia will be on. She was just on The Today Show

The only way to leave Fuhrman out would have been to leave to glove evidence out, since he found it.  Which, in a normal trial, would have been fine, they had plenty of evidence to convict him without the glove.  Even then though, the defense might have been able to call Furhman himself.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Umbelina

[Epeolatrix]

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.  

 

[schiller, Lawrence. American Tragedy: The Uncensored Story of the O.J. Simpson Defense]

 

I'm sorry for the formatting of this post, but I wasn't sure how else to reference a lengthy book quote. The info comes from Robert Kardashian. [Edited to explain my formatting choices.]

Edited March 4, 2016 by WertherEffekt

[VanillaBeanne]

I believe what Spartan Girl was referring to were that the pictures in the house were not of OJ's fully African American children, but of children that were not his at all. Whether this was actually one of the things the defense did appears to be disputed but in the context of the episode that was what happened. In a ploy to make OJ look blacker, they didn't want pictures of his biracial children.

In real life, there were pictures of Barbieri and the "kids" on display for the jury. From a NYTs article at the time:

"Though they backed the trip, prosecutors tried to persuade Judge Ito to keep the jurors from some sections of Mr. Simpson's house, especially where he keeps his football trophies. Deputy District Attorney Cheri Lewis called that room "a shrine to the defendant," one that would generate undue "sympathy and pity" for him. Judge Ito ruled that the jurors could "do a 360 to see what's there," then move on.

The Judge brushed aside Ms. Lewis's complaints that it was "highly inappropriate" for jurors to see photographs of Mr. Simpson with his children and girlfriend, a model named Paula Barbieri, that still hang on the walls. But he agreed to hide the life-sized statue of Mr. Simpson during his football days that sits in the garage. "We can toss a sheet over that," Judge Ito said."

Here is the link. http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/13/us/simpson-jury-is-taken-on-a-tour-of-the-crime-scene.html?pagewanted=all

It doesn't name the kids as the biracial ones, but I think it's a safe assumption that the prosecution wouldn't object to pics of the adult children.

Edited March 4, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[Trace]

Speaking of Judge Ito's ego, who can forget Leno's Dancing Ito's??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQPVA2bGsB4

[drivethroo]

They found a knife on OJ's property (2016 news):  http://deadline.com/2016/03/o-j-simpson-case-lapd-knife-found-1201714511/

[MaryPatShelby]

Did I miss a chyron in the scene with Cochran's traffic stop? I had no idea it was a flashback and was quite confused about the DA thing as well.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Sarah's review and others say there was a "1982," but I overlooked it myself. However, I realized it was a flashback. I knew he had been an ADA in the late '70s and early '80s, but even before that line, I noticed that the cars were old and the daughters were too young for it to be "current."  

[GHScorpiosRule]

Did I miss a chyron in the scene with Cochran's traffic stop? I had no idea it was a flashback and was quite confused about the DA thing as well.

Yes. We saw a date stamp of 1982. There is some confusion on my part-one source states it actually happened in 1978, another, in 1980, I think.

[Umbelina]

I wasn't confused by that scene, and I didn't notice the date stamp.  I figured out pretty quickly that it was background on Cochran.

[GHScorpiosRule]

No my confusion stems from the fact checkers giving two different dates of the real life scene. I figured the opening scene was a flashback.

[Princess Sparkle]

I missed it initially and had to rewind; the chryon was in the bottom left part of the screen, so very easy to overlook.

[Kromm]

They found a knife on OJ's property (2016 news):  http://deadline.com/2016/03/o-j-simpson-case-lapd-knife-found-1201714511/

There's no intact chain of custody here. Even if it's real, it's useless.

And of course, double jeopardy. 

 

It's not clear from that piece when this was claimed to be found anyway. Was it this year? A decade ago? Twenty years ago? When?

[Chaos Theory]

I dont think I can watch this anymore. This is hitting one of the reasons I don't like documentaries or even most historical reinactments. I know how it is going to end. There is a difference between knowing and predicting an ending and I think this story is too fresh in my mind to be anything but frustrating no matter how brilliant (and the acting is brilliant) the acting is.

Watching Clark make one mistake after another and watching the ultimate downfall of Darden who always came off as a conflicted man trying to do his job doesn't seem like something I want to watch anymore.

I think I am out until the finale. I like finales

<~~~<Edited

Edited March 5, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[LostWithSawyer]

I’m a little bothered that, once again, people are making Fuhrman out to be the bad guy, when OJ is the [acquitted] murderer.

 

Well...he is a bad guy. OJ's horrific, disgusting crime does not absolve Fuhrman from being a racist.

[susannot]

"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."

I haven't read any of the books ya'll are discussing (though I have the Toobin book on reserve at the library--there is a long waiting list) but if this is true it is Legal Malpractice 101 and the prosecution deserved to lose for this reason alone. This series is really bringing the case back to me as my lawyer colleagues and I watched it in real time and grew more and more horrified at Marcia and Chris's series of blunders. Agree with all those who have said that Johnnie Cochran was doing his job, and he did it superlatively well. I remember at the time that even people who were disgusted by OJ's acquittal said that they would want Johnnie if they ever needed a lawyer.

[MsJamieDornan]

Susannot, I should clarify something. It was on Fuhrman's second time on the stand that this happened. It was after the  racist tapes were released that no one would prep him. He mentions he would have done anything they asked but neither Clark or Darden would talk to him when he got in to town. He even tried to make contact through his boss, so I assume it's true.

 

He is quoted as saying "I took the fifth because I had no choice. The prosecution had abandoned me, and I was left twisting in the wind."

[susannot]

Maybe there wasn't much that the prosecution could have done, but they should have tried to minimize the damage.  Distancing themselves from Fuhrman was never going to work.

Edited March 6, 2016 by susannot

[FuriousStyles]

Soooo if its true Clark and Darden didnt prep Fuhrman, and/or didnt even meet with him...then yeah they deserved exactly what happened to them. I mean, seriously? They KNEW Fuhrman was a racist, and they KNEW the defense knew Fuhrman was a racist and they KNEW the defense would use that information. Yet, they dont prep the biggest bridge to their evidence? I meanmy God.

Some mistakes the prosecution made are understandable, but this? It just doesn't make sense.

Secondly, did Fuhrman have a lawyer? Who instructed him to plead the 5th? Who told him to lie on the stand in the first place? Didnt HE know his racism was well known. I guess not since the prosecution never bothered to meet with him.

I think he was fucked either way, with regards to the jury. Even if he fessed up immediately to being a racist pig on the first go around, how could the jury give this guy the benefit of the doubt? They couldnt and wouldnt.

[MsJamieDornan]

 

Secondly, did Fuhrman have a lawyer? Who instructed him to plead the 5th? Who told him to lie on the stand in the first place? Didnt HE know his racism was well known. I guess not since the prosecution never bothered to meet with him.

Yes, he had a lawyer by the time the tapes were released. They discussed pleading the 5th.

 

He doesn't think he lied on the stand the first time he was called. He says he never used the "n" word. (he didn't know they had the tapes) So, in every day life he hadn't used the word, according to him. 

 

And, those tapes were for a movie script, allegedly. You all know the rest...

 

ETA: I truly don't think he knew that his racism was known. Odd, I know.

[whiporee]

One thing that's amazing to me 20 years later is the mainstream acceptance that OJ did it. That wasn't the case back then. 

 

I'm white, I was 29 in 1995 and I can tell you that when the trial was over, I didn't think it a miscarriage of justice or anything of the sort. I didn't know whether he did it but I certainly had no problem with the verdict. To me, it seemed very possible -- if not obvious -- that the LAPD planted at least some of the evidence (the missing blood from the vial, the bleed through on the single drop on the sock), and the prosecution never answered a lot of questions that were important to me -- what happened to all the blood, what happened to the bloody clothes. I wasn't alone back then -- there were plenty of people outraged at the verdict, but there were also plenty of reasonable ones who agreed with it. Hell, the glove alone was practically reasonable doubt (I remember after the defense's closing arguments, Geraldo Rivera came on his nightly show -- all OJ all the time -- and said he thought it now impossible for a conviction, and he was anti-OJ). But there wasn't a mentality that said the prosecution screwed up or that it was a miscarriage or that Simpson's guilt was so obvious that anyone could see it. 

 

But now -- reading this forum and elsewhere, and even in my own head -- there doesn't seem to be a lot of question as to whether he committed the crime. But no new evidence has appeared, it's just that the narrative that OJ was a murdered has won out. It's a very odd cultural shift, and I wonder whether it was a factor of the civil suit, or the myriad of books that have come out or a better understanding of DNA or what. But it is interesting watching the thing again -- and reading this and other forums -- how much the conversation has shifted in 20 years. Because back then there wasn't nearly the consensus about his guilt that there is now. 

[FozzyBear]

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.

As I understand the defendant's right to confront their accuser that includes any and all evidence presented to the jury. So if the jury was going on a field trip to view whatever then OJ absolutely had the right to go and witness first hand what the jury was being presented with.

I'm more confused as to what they were supposed to be seeing at his house. It wasn't the crime scene. I vaguely remember being confused about what evidence was being presented on all the field trips at the time too.

[MsJamieDornan]

 

I'm more confused as to what they were supposed to be seeing at his house. It wasn't the crime scene. I vaguely remember being confused about what evidence was being presented on all the field trips at the time too.

I thought they were there to see where the Bronco had been parked, where all the blood drops were, where Kato heard noises. But, that didn't seem to be what they were looking at.

 

I understand he has a right to see evidence, but the house was not entered into evidence, was it?

Edited March 6, 2016 by MsJamieDornan

[FozzyBear]

I thought they were there to see where the Bronco had been parked, where all the blood drops were, where Kato heard noises. But, that didn't seem to be what they were looking at.

I understand he has a right to see evidence, but the house was not entered into evidence, was it?

I'm pretty sure if the jury sees it, the defendent sees it. I don't think the jury is allowed to do much of anything, other than deliberate, without the defendent present. And if the house wasn't considered evidence then I don't think the jury would be allowed to consider it and there would never have been a field trip. I think anything being presented to the jury is considered evidence and has to follow the rules of evidence.

[CookieChica]

With all due respect, since the not guilty verdict, he was found responsible for the two murders in civil court and wrote a book called "If I Did It". That goes quite a ways toward shaping public opinion.

[Kromm]

One thing that's amazing to me 20 years later is the mainstream acceptance that OJ did it. That wasn't the case back then. 

I think that corner got turned even before OJ went to jail. There were years of post-trial stories about him ambling around golf courses and never really focusing/giving back to the black community, so he wore out his welcome there. By the time the memorabilia theft accusations came out, very few people, in any community, were on his side. 

With all due respect, since the not guilty verdict, he was found responsible for the two murders in civil court and wrote a book called "If I Did It". That goes quite a ways toward shaping public opinion.

That too (although allegedly the story behind "If I Did It" is not that straightforward, the sheer arrogance in participating was the last nail, even if people doubted what the title "meant". 

[Kel Varnsen]

I think that corner got turned even before OJ went to jail. There were years of post-trial stories about him ambling around golf courses and never really focusing/giving back to the black community, so he wore out his welcome there. By the time the memorabilia theft accusations came out, very few people, in any community, were on his side. 

That too (although allegedly the story behind "If I Did It" is not that straightforward, the sheer arrogance in participating was the last nail, even if people doubted what the title "meant".

On top of all that there was OJ's speech after the trial about how he was going to use his freedom to search for the real killers. I remember many jokes about him checking one golf course after another and not finding any killers there.

[FuriousStyles]

I think the shift in attitude speaks more to the incredible job Cochran and the rest did in completely eliminating OJ from his own murder trial. Other than Kardashian, I'm sure the other defense lawyers knew OJ was the killer, and even Kardashian eventually acknowledged his own doubt about OJ's innocence. With all the evidence pointing to OJ they had to (in football terms) go for the Hail Mary. Steven Avery's (Making a Murderer) lawyers spoke about the idea of having to convince a jury that their client was framed and how difficult it is (and in their case its most likely true). But thinking about that kind strategy in a vacuum, it sounds ludicrous that a defense team would even attempt it, much less for a jury to believe it. Most juries cant even bring themselves to indict cops when they have video evidence to prove the crime, so to expect them to believe there was an all out concerted effort to frame someone, based mostly on speculation is crazy. The defense and more specifically OJ, were really lucky. They benefitted from a perfect storm of racial tension, ZERO confidence in the city's police department, and a host of blunders by the prosecution. I think if that trial had occurred anywhere else or any other time that strategy might not have worked.

But once the trial was over and people werent focused on the LAPD, and more importantly were able to actually see OJ for what he was, it was easy to say yeah he probably did do it. The guy by all accounts was pretty arrogant, and I could only imagine how that would multiply after having gotten away with killing 2 people. I mean he put out a book called "If I did it" for pete's sake. Who the hell does that?

Edited March 6, 2016 by FuriousStyles

[whiporee]

 

With all due respect, since the not guilty verdict, he was found responsible for the two murders in civil court and wrote a book called "If I Did It". That goes quite a ways toward shaping public opinion.

 

He was never going to win the civil suit. I'm surprised they found 12 people to pretend they had no preconceived opinions on the case to fill a jury. 

 

If I Did It was a money grab, clearly, but was only written that way because the narrative had become that he did it, and if you're going to try to sell something, you might as well make it what they want to buy. 

 

And I think the narrative changed before that book came out. I think a lot of it had to do with him saying after the trial he was going to try to find the real killers, and then he went golfing. But I can't blame him for that -- if I had been falsely accused (according to him, not me), publicly tried and condemned and then acquitted, I wouldn't care about finding anyone. I'd just want my life back. But the way people ran with that statement -- and the way he went back to life as though nothing had happened -- might have been part of the reason the story shifted.  

[Joimiaroxeu]

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.

I couldn't agree more. Wonder what kind of shenanigans the Emmys can pull to get them both nominated but not have to compete in the same category?

 

At the time I wasn't particularly sympathetic to Darden's plight, especially when the rumors started that he and Clark were lovers. However this show is making me see that the guy was getting screwed from all sides--both the prosecution and the defense--and it would've taken a very strong person to keep going through it all. I might have to go check out his book.

[FuriousStyles]

He was never going to win the civil suit. I'm surprised they found 12 people to pretend they had no preconceived opinions on the case to fill a jury.

If I Did It was a money grab, clearly, but was only written that way because the narrative had become that he did it, and if you're going to try to sell something, you might as well make it what they want to buy.

And I think the narrative changed before that book came out. I think a lot of it had to do with him saying after the trial he was going to try to find the real killers, and then he went golfing. But I can't blame him for that -- if I had been falsely accused (according to him, not me), publicly tried and condemned and then acquitted, I wouldn't care about finding anyone. I'd just want my life back. But the way people ran with that statement -- and the way he went back to life as though nothing had happened -- might have been part of the reason the story shifted.

I'm watching the Secret Tapes thing about OJ. The ghost writer said that his boss or whover came up with the book idea wanted to get a "confession" out of OJ, but had to frame it in a way that would be more appealing for him to accept doing it, because according to them, he was never going to straight up confess. So they decided that framing it as a hypothetical (*IF* I did it) was the way to go.

I think the book was virtually the last straw for anyone still on the fence. By the time that book came out there was a new generation of people. A generation (mine) who dont know OJ as a Hall of Fame football player or a movie star, but almost exclusively as that has been celebrity who most likely killed 2 people and somehow got away with it.

[Dev F]

I couldn't agree more. Wonder what kind of shenanigans the Emmys can pull to get them both nominated but not have to compete in the same category?

 

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to submit Vance for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Miniseries or Movie and Brown for Outstanding Supporting Actor.

[MargotWendice]

And I think the narrative changed before that book came out. I think a lot of it had to do with him saying after the trial he was going to try to find the real killers, and then he went golfing. But I can't blame him for that -- if I had been falsely accused (according to him, not me), publicly tried and condemned and then acquitted, I wouldn't care about finding anyone. I'd just want my life back. But the way people ran with that statement -- and the way he went back to life as though nothing had happened -- might have been part of the reason the story shifted.  

While it is impossible to understand the operation of another person's mind--especially someone like OJ--I think many people would be more driven to find the real killer than to just get their life back. After all, OJ has been through hell and some random person just got away with it? I mean, forget that the mother of your children, this person who was supposedly your 'best friend' was brutally slaughtered--you were falsely accused and some guy committed murder and got to walk away. A narcissist like OJ would find this especially difficult to take. 

[SFoster21]

While it is impossible to understand the operation of another person's mind--especially someone like OJ--I think many people would be more driven to find the real killer than to just get their life back. After all, OJ has been through hell and some random person just got away with it? I mean, forget that the mother of your children, this person who was supposedly your 'best friend' was brutally slaughtered--you were falsely accused and some guy committed murder and got to walk away. A narcissist like OJ would find this especially difficult to take.

The self-examination necessary would have been too much. Still, his utter denial was what led him to jail in the end. The assets that he either "stored" or "sold" to subvert the civil trial verdict were what he was trying to recover when he was finally brought to justice. In that instance, his own accomplices were unwilling to fall with him. He no longer had loyal friends or fans.

Maybe he had a subconcious need to be punished, or he so totally bought the myth of his "innocence" that reality bit him. Whatever; in jail now, good g-d riddance. What's more, a longer sentence than most get for stalking or even killing a love object (check out the stats on killing your SO). The mills grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine.

And, if he gets out: hello, try to volunteer at the library with a felony record. There are jails and jails. Paul Newman says it in Cool Hand Luke: there's just a new boss to please.

[Cccharley]

One thing that's amazing to me 20 years later is the mainstream acceptance that OJ did it. That wasn't the case back then.

I'm white, I was 29 in 1995 and I can tell you that when the trial was over, I didn't think it a miscarriage of justice or anything of the sort. I didn't know whether he did it but I certainly had no problem with the verdict. To me, it seemed very possible -- if not obvious -- that the LAPD planted at least some of the evidence (the missing blood from the vial, the bleed through on the single drop on the sock), and the prosecution never answered a lot of questions that were important to me -- what happened to all the blood, what happened to the bloody clothes. I wasn't alone back then -- there were plenty of people outraged at the verdict, but there were also plenty of reasonable ones who agreed with it. Hell, the glove alone was practically reasonable doubt (I remember after the defense's closing arguments, Geraldo Rivera came on his nightly show -- all OJ all the time -- and said he thought it now impossible for a conviction, and he was anti-OJ). But there wasn't a mentality that said the prosecution screwed up or that it was a miscarriage or that Simpson's guilt was so obvious that anyone could see it.

But now -- reading this forum and elsewhere, and even in my own head -- there doesn't seem to be a lot of question as to whether he committed the crime. But no new evidence has appeared, it's just that the narrative that OJ was a murdered has won out. It's a very odd cultural shift, and I wonder whether it was a factor of the civil suit, or the myriad of books that have come out or a better understanding of DNA or what. But it is interesting watching the thing again -- and reading this and other forums -- how much the conversation has shifted in 20 years. Because back then there wasn't nearly the consensus about his guilt that there is now.

Not me or anyone I knew. We all thought he was guilty as hell. I was 30 or so. There was no question I our minds he did it. Perhaps he had help but he was guilty

Edited March 6, 2016 by Cccharley

[Ina123]

One thing that's amazing to me 20 years later is the mainstream acceptance that OJ did it. That wasn't the case back then. 

 

I'm white, I was 29 in 1995 ...

I am totally amazed at this comment. Did you not see the thousands of people on street corners all around the US with looks of disbelief when they heard not guilty? You could hardly find a white person who didn't think he did it. History is not being re-written. Even blacks thought he did it. They thought "not-guilty" was payback.

[BW Manilowe]

I couldn't agree more. Wonder what kind of shenanigans the Emmys can pull to get them both nominated but not have to compete in the same category?

At the time I wasn't particularly sympathetic to Darden's plight, especially when the rumors started that he and Clark were lovers. However this show is making me see that the guy was getting screwed from all sides--both the prosecution and the defense--and it would've taken a very strong person to keep going through it all. I might have to go check out his book.

The producers/the actors themselves can put 1 of them up as Lead Actor (I'd argue for Courtney B. Vance for that) & the other as Supporting Actor in a Limited Series or Movie (if the show meets the requirements for the number of episodes for that genre), or the same 2 categories in the Drama genre (if it doesn't meet the requirements for the number of episodes in the Limited Series genre).

They do this all the time, if the competition within 1 show is that strong & all the performances can, arguably, fit in the same acting category. Among other times at the Emmys, it happened when, after winning 2 Emmys as Supporting Actress in a Drama, against many of her female castmates, The West Wing's Allison Janney was moved up to the Lead Actress in a Drama category, where she went on to win 2 more Emmys for the same role.

It also happened at this year's Oscars. Alicia Vikander was, arguably, a/the lead actress in The Danish Girl & should've been nominated as Lead Actress for the role. But, it was felt that her potential Lead Actress competition was so strong she had little to no chance to win that award. To give her a better chance at winning, she was promoted for the Supporting Actress category because it was felt she had weaker potential competition there. She was ultimately nominated in that category &, as we recently saw, she won the Oscar.

Edited March 6, 2016 by BW Manilowe

[susannot]

It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to submit Vance for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Miniseries or Movie and Brown for Outstanding Supporting Actor.

Yesss.  For me,  Vance is disappearing into his role, and I believe I am watching Johnnie Cochran on the screen. I forget that I am watching an actor.  He is amazing. I wonder what his daughters think about their father come back to life?

 

I feel the same way about Karen Paulson as Marcia Clark.

 

The actor playing Chris Darden is excellent and would deserve a supporting actor nomination, but is not quite up to the level of the two leads.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I feel the same way about Karen Paulson as Marcia Clark.

It's Sarah Paulson.

[Glaze Crazy]

I've only caught up with this series yesterday when FX ran all the episodes.  I also lived through this in real time and this episode is where I found myself really pissed off (again) at how this played out back then and now.  I give credit to some incredible acting by Courtney B. Vance, for one.  He's really captured the essence of how smart, manipulating and calculating Cochran was. 

 

Sterling K. Brown is doing a great job at showing how Chris Darden had more of the real pulse of the black community in LA, by way of still having roots there through his mom and dad, vs. his DA team.  OJ had all but renounced his connection to that life long ago.  I would add that, in some ways, Cochran could be seen as having left it behind, physically at least.

 

Sarah Paulson's Marcia Clark is so frustrating yet mesmerizing to watch.  Clark is so obviously out of touch on how it's going south on her while trying to behave like real justice will rise to the top after the smoke clears.

 

I'll stick with it for now, even though I find myself shaking my head at the ridiculousness of that whole fiasco.  As an adult in my 30's when this happened, I wanted OJ to not be guilty at first, since I remember him as relatively charming and funny during his years after the NFL.  It was difficult to keep that perception up after the overkill of the trial coverage and commentary.  It really started to look like he did it but would still probably not be found guilty, if only by reason of celebrity.  I still recall a convo with a friend of mine, many years later, about the afterlife.  She hoped it included the answers to perplexing things like "Did OJ really do it or not?"  She died several years ago and I always hoped she got her answer.

[Superpole2000]

I don't mind some degree of dramatization, but this show is getting a little too sloppy with the facts. The story is ridiculous enough. It doesn't need to be exaggerated or distorted. There were three or four moments in this episode where I thought, "Oh come on. That's not how it happened!"

[DangerousMinds]

Not me or anyone I knew. We all thought he was guilty as hell. I was 30 or so. There was no question I our minds he did it. Perhaps he had help but he was guilty

Neither I nor anyone else I knew ever doubted that OJ was guilty the first time around. I was 27 and didn't even pay full attention as my life was in full upheaval, but the facts and the evidence always seemed very straightforward to me. I'm sure there were many on the fence but I never knew any.

Edited March 7, 2016 by DangerousMinds

[whiporee]

I'm just saying ... we had the trial on TV at work, so I watched it pretty much front to back. And I had doubts. 

 

Maybe that was the difference -- I watched it a lot, and so the defense's arguments made more sense to me because I saw them all play out live.

[Kromm]

I couldn't agree more. Wonder what kind of shenanigans the Emmys can pull to get them both nominated but not have to compete in the same category?

The line is loose because this is an ensemble, but I think Darden is really portrayed as a supporting character, whereas Cochrane is clearly one of the main ones.

 

Marcia Clark is the clear, sole female lead. No debates.

 

The male leads and supporting roles are tougher to suss out due to egos, star billing, etc. Cochrane, narratively, is a clear lead even if we see less of him for a few eps.  We see his home life apart from the OJ stuff and that's telling.

 

Initially they make it seem like Robert Kardashian might be the lead, and they DO use him as a POV character throughout, but he kind of gets shoved to the side narratively. So I think he winds up as a supporting character, even though I suppose Schwimmer's ,management may try and Emmy submit him for a lead (he'd have more of a chance with a supporting nom though). 

 

OJ himself will be talked about as a lead role, even though in many ways he turns into the most supporting of supporting roles. But Cuba is a big name and the show is ABOUT this role on paper so it will be submitted in that category for sure.

 

Shapiro starts out as a supporting character, almost becomes a lead for a bit, then like happened in real life becomes a grimacing face on the sidelines. But Travolta is the "name" here, so again they may submit him as if he's the lead.

 

Honestly though Darden (even though he gets some "home" scenes) is shown as orbiting around Clark's character. She's the focus of that part of the story, ergo he's the supporting role. This is vs. Cochrane, who even when Shapiro is leading that end, isn't shown orbiting around anyway. Not just in terms of personality but in terms of when and how they show him, he's the main face and voice in many of his scenes.