S01.E06: Marcia, Marcia, Marcia

[MargotWendice]

I was shocked to find myself in tears during this episode.

I wonder if there are gender and age differences in responses to the focus on Marcia. When I was 25 I probably would have rolled my eyes at few things portrayed in the episode. I remember thinking that sexism would never affect me, and work-life balance used to be a meaningless concept. Was I naive or an ass? Or both?

Fast forward more than a decade and I struggle to be a professional and a mother of toddler aged twins (an unplanned surprise all around) while getting a lot of feedback that I should probably be performing both roles a little bit better. Meanwhile my teaching evaluations often have comments about my hair and clothing after I spend hours preparing lectures and facilitating activities that will engage students. So I get where Marcia was coming from. You work hard and put so much into your professional life and people want to reduce you to a hairstyle. It's frustrating stuff.

[Catherinewriter]

Daisy: "Man, Johnnie Cochrane and OJ - serious pieces of poo." Is this a statement of legal content? I love it, made me laugh. 

[TobinAlbers]

 

If he did dump evidence at the airport, that was a pretty smart move, trash cans are probably emptied there fairly often, since LAX is huge, and busy.

 

In Dominick Dunne's book based on the trial (and supposedly based a lot on real facts and research) his character does investigate this and asks several workers at the airport (baggage handlers, curbside check-in attendants) and they confirmed that the smaller trash receptacles at curbside and you see around the airport are emptied out almost every 30 mins or so. If OJ dumped the evidence, it was dumped from the original container probably before his plane ever took off. By the time they would be thinking to suspect OJ and retrace his movements to collect evidence, the evidence would be looooong gone.

 

This is the one episode that I may not be able to watch again because of the 'I'm embarrassed for Marcia' factor. The two points that I had to look away was when she comes into court thinking she was all that only to have to bite her lip to keep from crying as she realizes everyone's reactions and she's having to absorb this and is just devastated. Sarah Paulson's trembling of the lip and sadness and hurt in her eyes just hit me. The second moment was at the end when even Ito takes a look at her and just knows she can't go on that day and calls a recess and she's fighting SO hard not to completely lose it so she cries quietly until she can move to her office to sob her heart out.

 

I have to say that, yes, Cochran went too far chortling at Marcia's babysitter issues, but Vance did play a beat of showing that Cochran knew he crossed a petty line after Marcia went on record to Ito calling Cochran out. The smile dropped from his face and you briefly read on his face 'Yeah, I shouldn't have done that. It was beneath me and wrong. Very cheap shot.'

 

You've got yourself a crackling script when Cuba Gooding Jr.'s OJ angrily telling Travolta's Shapiro  'If I need you, I'll jingle my zipper. Now get the hell out of here, Bob!' and Travolta cowering and hurrying out of the room ISN'T the line of the night.

 

F Lee Bailey hanging out with the Cochran crew was great. The Cochran crew about to throw down old Bailey when he mentioned the 'N' word was hilarious. Even after he explained what he was doing, you felt as someone else said that they still wanted to crack a bottle on his head in reflex of his saying it.

 

And it was...cute(?) when in court F. Lee looked to Cochran while taking a big gulp from his solo cup as if to ask 'should I still do it' and Cochran to give the nod to go for it on Fuhrman in court. Seriously, wouldn't surprise me if there was more tequila or some other form of liquid courage in that cup because Bailey was about to go in HARD on a tricky situation.

[Umbelina]

I have to mention that, even though this was Sarah's episode, DAMN!  Nathan Lane just nailed it as Bailey! 

[iMonrey]

I do think the ex had a point as far as custody -- she wasn't home ever and if he was, then he's a better option than babysitters

 

I thought so too. Going to the press was a dick move that nullified any sympathy I had for his position on this, but the whole thing made me wonder about the status of their relationship, what had caused the divorce, why she was so adamant he not have primary custody, etc. 

 

They left out the fact that Rosa Lopez took an entire week with the jury sequestered! I hope the mistreatment of the jury is addressed. It's in Toobin's book.

 

This part confused me because it looked like the jury was absent during her testimony. Was it some kind of preliminary hearing to determine if her testimony could be moved up? Or was I just not looking in the right place?

 

It also made the whole "poor Marcia Clark had to deal with sexism" plot in this episode feel manipulative, because right now Marcia is being written as if she's not bothered by anything except the criticism of her appearance and the issues with her childcare.  You know, girl things.  When it comes to the fact that she is massively fucking up this case she thought was a slam dunk, and can't seem to find a way to get ahead of the defense, she's totally unbothered!

 

I agree that my sympathy for what Clark was going through personally and emotionally is tempered by her mishandling of the case. I've felt that from the beginning. My strongest recollection of the verdict was my reaction that the prosecution had simply bungled the case and did a crap job. If I recall this was right on the tail of the same office that was unable to get a conviction in the (first) Menendez brothers trial - even after they confessed. I just thought LA prosecutors sucked at their jobs.

 

I'm not going to comb for them, but weren't there actual juror post-trial statements about the DNA evidence supporting this belief? Things like "I didn't understand that DNA stuff at all"?

 

Yes. Roseanne Barr interviewed three of the jurors on her short-lived talk show and they admitted that the DNA evidence went over their heads. Not so much because of the technicalities of it but because the defense "experts" said one thing about it and the prosecution "experts" said another so they didn't know who to believe and basically dismissed all of it.

[PrincessSteel]

I hope the sex with Darden was mind blowing.

I just hope that the sex with Darden WAS.

Edited March 9, 2016 by PrincessSteel

[alynch]

Oh, I know. That's exactly what I meant when I said that the Rodney King line was for our benefit: in real life, Cochran didn't have to make an explicit reference to the case, because as soon as he said "Simi Valley" the jury would associate the witness with the Rodney King cops.

 

But without the explicit reference Cochran has plausible deniability; it's much easier for the prosecution to say, "We object to the defense bringing up an unrelated case in an effort to prejudice the jury" than "We object to the defense repeating the name of the witness's city of residence, because we all know why he's mentioning it so much."

 

Yeah, hate to be Monday Morning Showrunning, but they probably should've found a way of establishing the Simi Valley connection earlier in the episode prior to the cross examination because Cochran's comment strained credulity. Had they established it earlier, they could've just had Cochran saying "Simi Valley, huh?" followed by pointed glance to the jury.

 

Also, a day later I'm still bothered by how sloppy of a job they did at condensing Bailey's cross of Fuhrman. He had a couple of lines, straight from the transcripts, that came off like total non-sequiturs due to their being no surrounding context.

[LovesLinus]

I felt so bad for the real Marcia Clark while watching this episode.

I do remember people talking about how bad she always looked, but I never knew it was this bad.

But I did laugh when she entered the courtroom & John Travolta (Robert Shapiro) gave her a thumbs up :) It seems like something he would have done. Idiot....

[AlabasterShakes]

The way this ordeal played out in the courtroom, I can see why the jury voted the way it did. Perhaps, location, race, among several other factors did help influence the outcome, but to wholly attribute the jury's deliberation and subsequent vote to it being comprised of mostly black people, with a vendetta and lacking the intelligence to adequately review the material and produce a reasonably-informed verdict, is quite telling.

You'd be hard-pressed to ever find someone that would describe me as an idiot. Yet, given the way this case was presented, I seriously doubt I'd have voted to convict. The LAPD and DAs office made blunder after blunder. And, while Marcia and Chris did their best with the hand that they were dealt, the defense poked holes in most, if not all, of their arguments, providing a ton of reasonable doubt. The prosecutors framing of the argument, their conclusion of the events, and overall narrative was a non-linear, haphazard, mess that relied heavily on the physical evidence. Physical evidence (including DNA) that would appear, under most circumstances, to be a slam dunk, but wound up being highly questionable in a case where chain of custody procedures were routinely broken and detectives perjured themselves under oath and/or were deliberately deceptive, playing fast and loose with their testimonies. Not to mention many of us now have the luxury of hindsight but also had the ability to see things play out in real time in the media back then, providing us with lots of info the jury wasn't privy to at the time.

I've never watched a Ryan Murphy show, but ACS has been great. The show continues to get better with each episode, and I'm looking at the rest of the season kind of dreading that it will be ending fairly soon. Throughout the series so far, I've lurked the forums because I enjoy reading the commentary and differing perspectives -- people who lived through it and are now revisiting the case, people who lived through it but were either too young or disinterested to care, and those who weren't around at all and are coming to it for the first time through the show.

After these last 2 episodes, I've noticed that the commentary around here has grown increasingly more intense, teetering eerily close to inappropriate with lots of generalizations being stated as fact. It's clear that this case still resonates with people for many reasons, and the responses are understandably passionate and emotional, but some of what I'm reading is becoming personal and flat out offensive, at best. The coded language being thrown about along with the contemptuously terse words for Cochran and the jury is pretty interesting. And, by interesting, I mean transparent and extremely problematic.

That said, "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" was a fantastic episode. I have always been indifferent to Clark. Never hated her or thought she was a bitch, but never really cared for her either. She was just kind of 'meh' for me. But, this episode? Man. My heart goes out to her. Clearly, she's bounced back, doing well for herself now, and looks good too. But, that pressure and the stress she was under, no way just cigarettes and tequila would have done it for me. I can't say that I wouldn't have flipped out on everyone in that courtroom. Unpolished too? Regarding media scrutiny? Oh yeah, they would have felt my wrath. Ito. Cochran. Bailey. OJ. Garcetti. The court reporter. The bailiff. Fred's mustache. Everything! Everyone!

Marcia is better than me. I'd have been held in contempt and disbarred. We all have a breaking point, and after Gordon, the leaked pics, and my perm/curl absolutely refusing to get in Formation (thanks, ridethemaverick!), I'd have swiftly tossed all professional etiquette and courtroom procedure to the wind. You all would later see me in a special "Where Are They Now?" episode of 20/20: Better NOT Call Marcia, where they chronicle my courtroom meltdown and adjustment to life behind bars while awaiting appeals. And, the best I could hope for is a Lifetime made-for-tv movie, so I could use that money to send my kids to college while I remained imprisoned. Because allegedly, I may or may not have flipped my shit and had my own attempt at murder live on television.

So, yeah. Another great episode. Again, watching (and visibly/audibly reacting) as though I have NO idea how things turn out. Can't wait for next week. Back to lurking.

[Umbelina]

The opening scene of the show was about Simi Valley, and it's been mentioned (established) several times.

 

Also, they are condensing nearly a year into less than 9 hours of "show" so of course it's not going to be exact, and will be condensed to hit the main feel, not the actual words. 

That said, I don't think we are done with Fuhrman or Bailey yet.

[TexasGal]

I felt so bad for the real Marcia Clark while watching this episode.

I do remember people talking about how bad she always looked, but I never knew it was this bad.

But I did laugh when she entered the courtroom & John Travolta (Robert Shapiro) gave her a thumbs up :) It seems like something he would have done. Idiot....

Shapiro's reaction was everything. I snorted I laughed so loud. Then started wondering - was he being a dick or did he really think it looked good? And, which would be worse? Poor Marcia.

[langway]

Too bad Steven Avery didn't get this jury.

I was a newborn when this trial began so even though I know the basics, I had no idea about any of the attorneys. I feel so awful for Marcia and I'm so glad she had Darden. Adorable. If I don't get some kind of sex scene, I'm not gonna be happy :(

Cuba Gooding Jr is an awful actor though.

[Kromm]

I have to say that, yes, Cochran went too far chortling at Marcia's babysitter issues, but Vance did play a beat of showing that Cochran knew he crossed a petty line after Marcia went on record to Ito calling Cochran out. The smile dropped from his face and you briefly read on his face 'Yeah, I shouldn't have done that. It was beneath me and wrong. Very cheap shot.'

It doesn't detract from the quality of the acting, but I read that beat different from you. I read it as "uh, oh, everyone's going to think I'm a sexist bully now".  It wasn't remorse, it was a straight up "uh,oh, I fucked up".

[alynch]

The opening scene of the show was about Simi Valley, and it's been mentioned (established) several times.

 

Also, they are condensing nearly a year into less than 9 hours of "show" so of course it's not going to be exact, and will be condensed to hit the main feel, not the actual words. 

That said, I don't think we are done with Fuhrman or Bailey yet.

 

Well, they've name-dropped Rodney King a bunch of times. I don't think they did much towards establishing that it occurred in Simi Valley. After all, that seems to be the reason they felt the need to have Cochran get explicit about it when questioning the cop.

 

I'm well aware of the narrative contrivances that are required in condensing an over year-long story down to ten hours. You still have to construct it in a way that makes sense within that narrowed frame though. In that Bailey cross examination, he had a couple of lines that simply made no sense. For example, he made some crack about Clark having a bad memory. In the actual trial transcripts, this makes sense since he said that when he and Clark were disagreeing about something that was said earlier in the trial, but here the line just comes out of nowhere. It's a punchline with no set-up. He also has a line that goes something like "The prosecution opened this door" that is similarly out of nowhere. That scene played like it was initially a couple minutes longer but got cut down haphazardly.

Edited March 9, 2016 by alynch

[helenamonster]

They left out the fact that Rosa Lopez took an entire week with the jury sequestered!

 

Wait, there was a week of that nonsense?

 

However I understand the limitations they have regarding time on this show. The episodes are already running overlong (oh, FX, never change) and unfortunately real life very rarely lends itself to a pure and faithful adaptation. I think the short bit was enough to establish what was going on: a small victory for the prosecution and yet another hilarious "character" in this sideshow of a trial.

 

I wonder if there are gender and age differences in responses to the focus on Marcia. When I was 25 I probably would have rolled my eyes at few things portrayed in the episode. I remember thinking that sexism would never affect me, and work-life balance used to be a meaningless concept. Was I naive or an ass? Or both?

Fast forward more than a decade and I struggle to be a professional and a mother of toddler aged twins (an unplanned surprise all around) while getting a lot of feedback that I should probably be performing both roles a little bit better. Meanwhile my teaching evaluations often have comments about my hair and clothing after I spend hours preparing lectures and facilitating activities that will engage students. So I get where Marcia was coming from. You work hard and put so much into your professional life and people want to reduce you to a hairstyle. It's frustrating stuff.

 

I was wondering that too. I'm 21 years old now, still in college, no concept of the stress of a 70-hour work week and single motherhood, with the added pressure of two asshole ex-husbands and every eye in the country focused on me. But the sexist beats of this episode (most if not all of which appear to be true) still resonate with me as a woman. I know what it's like to be belittled and judged based on appearance and to have to spend so much of my life making sure I look "acceptable" enough to go out in public. I've gotten haircuts that I thought looked good only to be laughed at for them, and I'd hardly call my wardrobe desirable. 

 

As I mentioned, I'm 21, but I didn't identify as a feminist until I was 18 and a freshmen in college. Up until that point I thought feminists were people who burned their bras and hated all men and didn't understand that it was/is a movement to ensure equality regardless of gender. One of my professors my very first semester asked our class who considered themselves a feminist, and only one girl raised her hand. She then asked who believed men and women should be treated equally, and everyone raised their hands. That was the first time anybody had clearly explained to me that feminism and gender equality were the same thing.

 

Feminism to me also means not that I stand by women just because they are women (shoutout to all the second-wave feminists telling me to vote for Clinton because she has a vagina), but that I stand by women who are experiencing sexism even if I cannot relate to that particular sexism. I don't know what it's like to be Marcia Clark, but I do know that the perception of her competence in this trial should not be judged on her appearance or her personal marriage/childcare business. She made a lot of blunders that she deserves to be called out for, but none of those blunders are related to her gender.

Edited March 9, 2016 by helenamonster

[smiley13]

Without knowing any background about the Clark divorce, it is hard to judge her ex-husband for going to the press about the custody issues.  As the Father, it would have made sense for the children to be with him instead of sitters.

 

I did find it sad that Marcia's child knew she was home because he smelled her smoke.   Poor child.  And why the heck did she stop outside to smoke instead of getting inside to her kids?  I mean, she smoked like a chimney all day so it is not like it was her first chance all day to have one.

[Simon Boccanegra]

And, while Marcia and Chris did their best with the hand that they were dealt, the defense poked holes in most, if not all, of their arguments, providing a ton of reasonable doubt. The prosecutors framing of the argument, their conclusion of the events, and overall narrative was a non-linear, haphazard, mess that relied heavily on the physical evidence.

 

This cannot all be true. If the prosecutors presented a case you found a haphazard mess, then Marcia and Chris did not do their best with the hand they were dealt. That makes it sound as though they had an anemic case, when they had everything short of an eyewitness or a video. People have been put on death row with a fraction of the evidence, physical and circumstantial, that they had, and there was additional compelling evidence they chose not to present, such as Simpson's incriminating half-hour interview with the detectives and his "suicide note." 

 

That police interview was tape recorded (Simpson himself waived the right to have his attorney, then Howard Weitzman, present), so there would be no claiming that the two detectives falsified the transcript. I realize that that was the defense's go-to to explain away everything unfavorable to their client: the massive conspiracy orchestrated by the same LAPD that had been courteous, deferential, even solicitous to Simpson for years in his legal entanglements with his ex-wife. Here, their only recourse would have been to claim that the detectives had doctored the tape with a Simpson impersonator.  

 

So, I don't give Clark and Darden high marks at all for their work, although I respected their sincerity and I feel they did demonstrate Simpson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

some of what I'm reading is becoming personal and flat out offensive, at best. The coded language being thrown about along with the contemptuously terse words for Cochran and the jury is pretty interesting. And, by interesting, I mean transparent and extremely problematic.

 

Different antennae are more sensitive to such things, but I'll just say that neither Cochran nor this jury nor indeed the defendant is entitled to the respect of anyone here who does not feel it. If someone's point of view is, for example, "This jury was not very intelligent," there's a case to be made for that on the basis of quotations in print, on talk shows, even in books some of them co-authored, besides the evidence many here saw presented in the coverage of the trial. They are not the first or the last jury to come in for harsh criticism in a high-profile case (Rodney King, Zimmerman/Martin). 

[ketose]

That verdict always stunk of jury nullification. Maybe some of them liked Simpson. Some of them may have been pissed of at Los Angeles County for locking them up for months. Maybe a group of jurors threatened to make them stay another month if they kept voting guilty.

[Umbelina]

Without knowing any background about the Clark divorce, it is hard to judge her ex-husband for going to the press about the custody issues.  As the Father, it would have made sense for the children to be with him instead of sitters.

 

I did find it sad that Marcia's child knew she was home because he smelled her smoke.   Poor child.  And why the heck did she stop outside to smoke instead of getting inside to her kids?  I mean, she smoked like a chimney all day so it is not like it was her first chance all day to have one.

People still smoked back then, everywhere.  If you've never been a smoker it may be hard to see why after getting home after a horrible day the first thing you want is a smoke.  Been there, done that.  ;)  (Quit about 20 years ago, still miss it, still use Nicorette.  it's a powerful addiction.)

 

My impression of the Marcia Clark divorce was that her husband didn't want to pay child support, so the whole thing about getting custody of the kids was simply a money thing.  The trial and her work hours gave him a chance to pounce harder on that, and he did.  They don't talk about it now according to that interview with MC above, but I do know she ended up with custody, no idea if he made out financially on child support, probably. 

[AlabasterShakes]

So, I don't give Clark and Darden high marks at all for their work, although I respected their sincerity and I feel they did demonstrate Simpson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I was being generous of their performance, especially in light of the added behind the scenes things going on both personal and professional, but the sentiment of what I said remains the same, and I could see why the jury had reasonable doubt without questioning their collective intelligence.

Different antennae are more sensitive to such things, but I'll just say that neither Cochran nor this jury nor indeed the defendant is entitled to the respect of anyone here who does not feel it. If someone's point of view is, for example, "This jury was not very intelligent," there's a case to be made for that on the basis of quotations in print, on talk shows, even in books some of them co-authored, besides the evidence many here saw presented in the coverage of the trial. They are not the first or the last jury to come in for harsh criticism in a high-profile case (Rodney King, Zimmerman/Martin).

Again, I find it to be pretty interesting.

Still looking forward to the introduction of Marcia's straight hair and the way they handle the gloves. Have a feeling Cuba is going to channel Radio for the facial expressions.

Edited March 10, 2016 by AlabasterShakes

[TattleTeeny]

There's so much I would like to type out and discuss but, oh, this day. So can I just say (and please forgive me if it's been addressed; I'm about to go read everything) that I barely saw a difference in her appearance after the haircut! I really don't recall Real Marcia's makeover history (though I thought she went from curls to short and straight?) but I guess I was expecting something more on the show?

 

I remember the obsession with Marcia Clark's hair and what she wore, if it had been a man, there would have been nothing said.

 

Yup. And had she been more of a typical "babe," any points she scored would likely have been attributed to that instead of her prowess.

Edited March 10, 2016 by TattleTeeny

[smiley13]

There's so much I would like to type out and discuss but, oh, this day. So can I just say (and please forgive me if it's been addressed; I'm about to go read everything) that I barely saw a difference in her appearance after the haircut! I really don't recall Real Marcia's makeover history (though I thought she went from curls to short and straight?) but I guess I was expecting something more on the show?

I would think that they will address her next hair makeover in a future episode.

[TattleTeeny]

Ahhh, OK, so I'm remembering a more drastic change then? Still, ugh--the men's reactions (even Darden's, though he was so cool and kind about it) to this relatively small appearance update seemed overblown. Looked like an ordinary trim to me!

[ketose]

I saw straight hair in the preview for what I assume is next week's episode.

 

I read an interview (the Vulture one?) where Marcia Clark said that she decided one day that it would be easier to blow out her hair rather than get another perm. Also, Gil Garcetti managed to get suits donated by people he knew that looked better than the off-the-rack ones she was wearing earlier. Of course, the Dream Team all had $2000 suit money.

[Inquisitionist]

When one has an acrimonious divorce, as it appears Marcia and Gordon did, it's difficult to trust that what the other party is offering is genuine.  I suspect Marcia feared that agreeing to a "temporary" arrangement of the boys living with Gordon during the trial would have led to him and his attorney using that against her in the future, arguing for Gordon to have permanent primary custody even after the trial ended ("the boys are settled in here now, it would be unfair to uproot them," yadda yadda yadda).

Edited March 10, 2016 by Inquisitionist

[MargotWendice]

When one has an acrimonious divorce, as it appears Marcia and Gordon did, it's difficult to trust that what the other party is offering is genuine.  I suspect that Marcia feared that agreeing to a "temporary" arrangement of the boys living with Gordon during the trial would have led to him and his attorney using that against her in the future, arguing for Gordon to have permanent primary custody even after the trial ended ("the boys are settled in here now, it would be unfair to uproot them," yadda yadda yadda).

Absolutely. This is one of those situations where we don't know if he was a good dad or she was a good mom, but I cannot blame her for wanting to maintain custody. I am sure she though the trial was temporary but custody arrangements would be permanent.

And of course if she didn't fight for custody she would be lambasted for being a bad mother because we have different standards when women are not custodial parents.

[Anela]

Whatever other bullshit is in this show, this is definitely the role of a lifetime for Sarah Paulson.

 

My fear is that if she IS nominated for this among a cast with a lot of black actors, and none of them get nominated, that a "thing" will be made of that and derail her chances of actually winning after people get on that train.

IMO a lot of the show is bullshit, but that doesn't prevent some really great actors from totally committing. 

Hopefully, a few of them will be nominated. Vance is doing a great job, too. And the man who plays Darden. 

[Bama]

I found some interesting information about the custody/Clark divorce from articles written at the time.

 

She filed for divorce three days before the murders, so this was obviously a very fresh wound for both of them.

 

The crack Cochran made about Clark using child care issues as and excuse and her angry retort was reported pretty much the way we saw.

 

 

 

The tug between work and children has already emerged in the trial.                  

Last Friday, Marcia Clark said she could not stay late for a proposed evening session because she had other obligations. This week, defense attorney Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. suggested that Clark may have used child care as a ruse to delay the testimony of defense witness Rosa Lopez.

Clark retorted indignantly that she was "offended as a woman, as a single parent, as a prosecutor and as an officer of the court."

[Chaos Theory]

The trial was obviously about racism but what the show is making more and more evident is how much it is also about sexism and most of us were guilty of it. How easy it was to make Nichole into a money grubbing slut. How easy it was to turn the focus from a guy who might have killed his wife and focus on what the lead attorney was wearing and what her hair looked like.

Back then I didn't care. I was more interested in the spectacle. Now it fills me with sadness that the woman had to put up with so much.

[FuriousStyles]

The way this ordeal played out in the courtroom, I can see why the jury voted the way it did. Perhaps, location, race, among several other factors did help influence the outcome, but to wholly attribute the jury's deliberation and subsequent vote to it being comprised of mostly black people, with a vendetta and lacking the intelligence to adequately review the material and produce a reasonably-informed verdict, is quite telling.

Right. I'd love to know what the people who think this about the OJ jury, think about the Rodney King jury. Because how could anyone not call those white jurors racist idiots or having their own agenda when they actually had VIDEO evidence. They saw the crime with their own eyes and still acquitted.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Holy Crapola! I wanted to be awake to watch this, but with a new job, I was exhausted and just watched it. Watching what the real Marcia went through? I remember some of it, because, as I've stated, I tried to stay away from the actual trial, but even living on the East Coast, you couldn't totally stay away from it  unless you didn't have a television or radio and didn't read the papers. Basically, lived in a hut.  I can't add to how powerful this episode was (and the music!) any better than what so many of you have already stated.  Except maybe for this: that I thought Jordana Skeletor was just beyond awful. Her crying was stitled and stiff, and I didn't see her breaking down as the real life Denise did when she told of the time that OJ grabbed Nicole's crotch.

 

Tonight: I didn't see Ron Carver. I saw, saw Johnnie Cochran. Kudos, Mr. Vance. Kudos!!!!!

 

 

 

At the opening screen with Marcia's face I got confused and though I was watching "The People vs. Phil Spector."
This episode shows why OJ was found not guilty.
After Det. Vannatter was caught lying on tape about what he did with the shoes, gave reasonable doubt about the rest of the evidence. I bet at that point nine of the jurors zoned out through the rest of the trial. I don't think they gave a shit about the DNA evidence at this point, it didn't matter.

Det. Vannatter not only lied about taking the shoes home, but he lied about how he took them home. IIRC he just threw them in the trunk of his car and did not put them in anything.

Mr. Johnny bringing up Simi Valley and Rodney King on top of what Vannatter did was the perfect setup.
Simi Valley=Ticky Tacky, Little Boxes and They all looked the same. Simi Valley was a QUIET little town.

 

That wasn't Detective VanAtter. It was Detective Lange who took the shoes home.

 

ETA: Oh! I'm glad that they had OJ say, after the disaster that was Rosa, going forward, OJ wanted a say in what his team was going to do, and to know what they were going to do, before they did it. That matches up with what Schiller said in the documentary.

 

And the few times I saw the trial, OJ didn't have that...mean, dirty look/menace that Cuba did last night.  I mean, the real OJ was always clean shaven; his brow was never furrowed to  the point where his forehead looked like the head of a Sharpei dog. I'm not sure what exactly, Cuba was going for.

Edited March 10, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[TexasGal]

I wonder how much further the show is going to go with the romantic vibes between Darden and Clark since it's never been confirmed by either of them. I rewatched today, and all I can say is, I wish I could find a man to give me those looks of empathy and support that they've got Darden giving her. Swoon!

[suomi]

re the curiosity about an affair/no affair, Marcia has stated that the answer is "irrelevant." Which is also how she described Fuhrman's use of the n-word. She didn't deny it, she simply described it as not mattering. So, that answers it for me. She and Chris definitely did the deed.

[suomi]

Also, why were there so many dumb mistakes that the police made? These weren't rookies, these were detectives that had been on the job for years. Did they just not give a fuck or were they star struck. I don't understand why there were so many mistakes like this on the same crime. Number one I don't think the same detectives should have been working both crime scenes. They should have had one set at Nicole's and rhe other at OJ's.

Aaaand, another point for Fuhrman. He was the most junior detective at Rockingham so he did as he was told, but in his book he relates that he was blown away when Vannatter told him to go back to Bundy to take another look at the first glove. At that point Rockingham had been declared a crime scene and the lead detective gave a clearly counter-productive order to a junior detective. PDs have quasi-military protocols so questioning superiors re their decisions is not on the menu. Fuhrman surely had faults but he and his partner were sharp LEOs with great instincts.

[alynch]

Aaaand, another point for Fuhrman. He was the most junior detective at Rockingham so he did as he was told, but in his book he relates that he was blown away when Vannatter told him to go back to Bundy to take another look at the first glove.

 

Christ, did anyone involved in this case not end up writing a book?

[Bryce Lynch]

"This is better than any daytime soap we've got."

I see you, Ryan Murphy.

This was a brutal episode to sit through. My skin prickled with recognition when Marcia walked through the court in her new hair cut. I've lived that moment - change your hair (or something else about your appearance), think you look awesome, then people still look at you like you're the ugliest thing that ever walked the earth." Woof! I cannot imagine what it must have been like to endure that level of scrutinty (the whole damn world was watching!).

The soundtrack on this show - "Kiss from a Rose" sent me back to being in the movie theater with my sister watching Batman Forever. And they included "Sour Times" by Portishead, too? The music director on this show also deserves an Emmy.

The list of punchables was LONG in this ep. From Johnnie Cochran mocking Marcia's childcare issues in open court to Garcetti offering to hook Marcia up some image consultants to that awful drug store clerk who really deserved to be smacked in the head with that box of tampons, I lost count of how many assholes I wanted to reach through the TV and straight up strangle.

I disagree about Garcetti. Marcia needed an image consultant and she certainly understood that by the end of the episode, if not earlier.

A prosecutor shouldn't need an image consultant, but sadly the media circus and all its shallowness and viciousness made it necessary.

The episode really made me rethink how I view and comment on public figures and especially those who aren't public figures by choice. It is easy to forget that they are real people, with real problems and feelings. The episode showed that she was a real human being, being ripped apart for merely trying to do her job.

On the bright side, Marcia should be thankful they didn't have twitter back then. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if this happened when more than a handful of people had internet access?

Edited March 10, 2016 by Bryce Lynch

[suomi]

Christ, did anyone involved in this case not end up writing a book?

Ito, Rosa Lopez, and Lange and Vannatter. Oh, and Bailey, and Scheck. AFAIK.

[Simon Boccanegra]

I never would have thought that Ryan Murphy would create a show that would reopen discussions from 20 years ago of legal, racial, and gender issues, and that the discussions would be largely substantive, as they have been. I've found his prior work in television crude, derivative, and exploitative, and his name was what made me wary of this series. 

 

So, I'll give him that. He proved me wrong.  

[ptuscadero]

Ditto on the Emmy. That moment when Marcia Clark gazed hopefully into the mirror and kind of whispered, "Farrah?" made me want to deliver the statue straight to Sarah Paulson's house.

[alynch]

I never would have thought that Ryan Murphy would create a show that would reopen discussions from 20 years ago of legal, racial, and gender issues, and that the discussions would be largely substantive, as they have been. I've found his prior work in television crude, derivative, and exploitative, and his name was what made me wary of this series. 

 

So, I'll give him that. He proved me wrong.  

 

I'm a bit less generous to him in my assessment (perhaps unfairly) and much more inclined to give most of the credit to Alexander & Karaszewski. This show is way more similar to their past work than it is to anything Murphy's ever done, after all. This also makes me very prepared for a drop in quality come season 2 since they will no longer be involved but Murphy will be.

[ennui]

I never would have thought that Ryan Murphy would create a show that would reopen discussions from 20 years ago of legal, racial, and gender issues, and that the discussions would be largely substantive, as they have been. I've found his prior work in television crude, derivative, and exploitative, and his name was what made me wary of this series. 

 

So, I'll give him that. He proved me wrong.  

I’m a little puzzled by the passionate responses from those too young to remember this trial. Is the Brown-Goldman murder destined to become a famous Hollywood crime, like Monroe’s suicide and the Black Dahlia? People are murdered every day. Murderers are occasionally acquitted. Innocent people are sentenced. Why is this crime so different? The consensus seems to be that OJ wasn’t that famous, so … ?

Maybe the young ‘uns can explain?

[Umbelina]

He was famous, but I think having the trial televised prompted all the books and the media, which kept it in the media, which made him more famous.

[MsJamieDornan]

Funniest line of the series "who turned  her into Rick James?"

[HeShallBMySquishy]

Just to point out, this is NOT a Ryan Murphy Show. It was created by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski. Murphy's involvement is minimal at best; he's one of seven Executive Producers and has directed three episodes. He hasn't even written an episode. Every episode thread and most articles still refer to this as a Ryan Murphy Show. It is not. /minor nitpick

 

Also, Sterling K. Brown dancing? And shirtless in boxers? HELL YEAH! /shallow

Edited March 10, 2016 by HeShallBMySquishy

[LennieBriscoe]

.Can we just give out the major Emmys now? And may I add: Sterling is really transforming my memory of Chris Darden. ;-)

 

Lange and Vannatter wrote the book "Evidence Dismissed."

Edited March 10, 2016 by LennieBriscoe

[Kromm]

Without knowing any background about the Clark divorce, it is hard to judge her ex-husband for going to the press about the custody issues.  As the Father, it would have made sense for the children to be with him instead of sitters.

 

I did find it sad that Marcia's child knew she was home because he smelled her smoke.   Poor child.  And why the heck did she stop outside to smoke instead of getting inside to her kids?  I mean, she smoked like a chimney all day so it is not like it was her first chance all day to have one.

Is there a specific poster who was doing so, or do you mean that you think it's the intention of the show to try and make us judge the ex?

 

We should really refer to him as Ex #2. The show was quite clear in talking about the fact that she had two exes and their various and potential misdeeds differ from each other (although apparently something the show doesn't tell us is that Ex #1's mother is the one who sold that photo of Clark, not the Ex himself).

 

The insidious part--the part that the show might later tell us but I doubt it--is that the ex mother-in-law probably sold them because this is exactly what The Dream Team wanted to happen. Clark doesn't come right out and say they made this happen, she hedges, but you can see where the dots connect. In her memoir, Without A Doubt. she says:

 

“In my mind’s eye, I could see Gaby and me and our Italian train-conductor friend. We were playful and giddy. I’d shed my top. It was so innocent… I later learned that a private eye, hoping to curry favor with the Dream Team, had tracked her down in Israel and put her in touch with the Enquirer.”

See this is her hedging her bets. The whole "private eye, hoping to curry favor with the Dream Team" was a way for her to avoid saying that they actually engaged the Private Eye to do this (probably something that can't be proved, unless there's a clear money trail).

Edited March 10, 2016 by Kromm

[smiley13]

Is there a specific poster who was doing so, or do you mean that you think it's the intention of the show to try and make us judge the ex?

It seemed to me that the show was being very heavy handed in making Ex #2 look bad.  As I said, it is hard for me to judge him based on what was shown.  Maybe the guy just wanted to take care of his own children instead of having them dumped off with sitters because she was so busy. Or maybe he was just trying to make Marcia look bad in the press.  Since this episode was totally designed to make the world feel sorry for Marcia Clark, I think they tried to make him look bad,

[Kromm]

It seemed to me that the show was being very heavy handed in making Ex #2 look bad.  As I said, it is hard for me to judge him based on what was shown.  Maybe the guy just wanted to take care of his own children instead of having them dumped off with sitters because she was so busy. Or maybe he was just trying to make Marcia look bad in the press.  Since this episode was totally designed to make the world feel sorry for Marcia Clark, I think they tried to make him look bad,

I don't know if that's true. I mean while the show clearly communicated that Marcia felt this was the case, we didn't hear anything planted in the exes mouth to further villainize him. We literally only heard him say that he wanted to take care of the kids because Marcia couldn't. There weren't sneers put on his character, or cheap verbal shots. Most of that actually came from Marcia's side.  Because it's her narrative we heard her say it was because he wanted to avoid paying child support, and that always strikes people in the guts, but I think we are capable of recognizing that the show might have been illustrating a case where the guy was holding back money as leverage (or maybe like a lot of people he was just eternally short of money and the support payments are what fell by the wayside sometimes). We don't know, and the show doesn't give us anything other than Clark's words. Which is actually realistic. It's how most people hear about conflicts like this--through just the words/storytelling of one side.

That said, him actually going to the press is a real thing that happened and it IS easier to extrapolate a bad motive from that. That part is less subjective than interpreting Marcia's words about him and us seeing his character somewhat stonefaced in response.

[Bryce Lynch]

.Can we just give out the major Emmys now? And may I add: Sterling is really transforming my memory of Chris Darden. ;-)

Lange and Vannatter wrote the book "Evidence Dismissed."

Speaking of Lange and Vantter I am eagerly awaiting Jackie Chiles...I mean Johnny Cocorane, unfairly but brilliantly calling them the "twin demons of deception".

Johnny was truly an evil genius.

[benteen]

I got a chance to watch this yesterday and I thought it was a great hour of television.  I felt pretty bad for Marcia by the end of it.  Sarah Paulson is doing a great job along with Sterling Brown and Courtney Vance.

 

Bruce Greenwood continues to make me laugh.  The bit where he tells Marcia how unfair the coverage of her has been and then in the next breath talks about media consultants that can help her, leading to him talking/mumbling as he's walking away was pretty damn funny.