S01.E06: Marcia, Marcia, Marcia

[ketose]

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.

The part with the transcripts and all with Fuhrman is part of the defense case.

Considering their verdict, the jury couldn't have been mistreated enough for my liking.

 

ETA: One really crazy thing in the EW story is that Marcia's first husband was in a vegetative state, so his mother was the one to cash in on the beach photos.

Edited March 9, 2016 by ketose

[VCRTracking]

Well I've just heard the voice of Timon the meerkat say the N-word multiple times.

[Racj82]

I never thought I'd say a Ryan Murphy show was the best show on TV but here ya go. This show is great and often amazing.

[33kaitykaity]

I was supposed to cry for Marcia in this episode, and I definitely cried for Marcia.  I was also amazed, I watched the real final summation and the rings under Marcia's eyes were dark and pronounced.  The makeup people are doing an amazing job with those circles on SP.  

[TheOtherOne]

Vanity Fair's fact check of the episode.

[Asp Burger]

I was disappointed with the way they bunted Rosa Lopez. The real thing was so much funnier and zanier and more entertaining than the ficitonalized version. Remember her flirting with Judge Ito? "I will do it for you, Your Honor." Also, Darden handled that cross examination, not Clark. It was one of his few shining moments in the courtroom. I guess they gave it to Clark because it was the "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" showcase episode. 

 

Not seeing anything that would have me vote not guilty. That isn't even getting into all the evidence we know the prosecution didn't present, but I followed the trial when it was on, and they proved he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. All of the evidence pointed to Simpson. Such holes as the defense poked in the case were not really that consequential and I don't even think they were that unusual.  

[Spartan Girl]

You that part with the reporter Guy's big speech about how OJ is just another black man being taken down because he's famous, I wanted to scream: "There are PLENTY of sports stars that happen to be African American that never laid a finger on their wives!" And the sad part is that they probably aren't even as well known as OJ.

[Ina123]

I think race was the main factor but I accept your response. I don't think most or even many blacks are virulently racist/anti-white and I don't even think that shitty jury was. But I do think they allowed their emotions to overrule their common sense far too easily.

Exactly. They never used common sense. They were totally manipulated by Cochran. Too many jurors (now and then) just don't understand reasonable doubt. However, in the OJ case I have to go along with revenge. I think the jury latched onto Cochran and were thankful that he gave them something to hang their revenge on. They knew he did it. Everyone knew he did it. There wasn't a thing in the world that the Dream Team did or said that changed that.

[SimoneS]

Vanity Fair's fact check of the episode.

 

Thanks for posting the link. As someone who didn't follow the trial closely and still doesn't know much it is good to know what is fact and what is not.

Edited March 9, 2016 by SimoneS

[smiley13]

Boy was this episode heavy handed on the Clark sympathy.  

 

What shoes of OJ's did the cop take home?  I thought it was not discovered until later that OJ owned a pair of the Bruno Magli's that were in question.

 

I do not recall Darden being as charming on air during the trial as the character comes across on this show.

 

ETA: The Rick James comment was hilarious!!

Edited March 9, 2016 by smiley13

[FuriousStyles]

I did feel bad for Marcia in this episode. Her ex didn't support her and acted like a jerk. He knew she had a demanding career, and that the case was time consuming. He should have been willing to help her out more, at least for the sake of their children. It came across like he was using her working long hours and having to rely more on babysitters as leverage against her in the custody case. In the beginning of the episode, he was trying to get out of paying her more child support, in exchange for him looking after the kids more. It can be very tough trying to balance a family and a demanding/busy career, especially when you don't have much support. I thought that her ex looked bad in this situation.

I have a friend who went through the exact same thing. She took the jerk to court for child support (after he refused to give her a couple hundred a month only for child care expenses) and he turned around and sued for full custody sighting her work schedule as a reason (she's a doctor and was in the middle of her first few years of residency). He claimed his job allowed him to work from home most days out of the week, which was a lie. Some guys can be spiteful assholes.

[lovinbob]

I either didn't know or forgot the "Rick James" hair. I guess next week the straight hair makes an appearance.

The Rick James hair is all I remember about Marcia Clark's appearance. I don't remember her having the long hair that she started the series with. In fact, tonight before the haircut, my husband said, "They're being kind to her with that wig." I just can't fathom that a hairdresser did that to her. It was heartbreaking.

 

Jordana Brewster's Denise Brown was uncanny. I wouldn't have thought of this casting but her mannerisms were spot on!

 

ETA: Thank you, Simon Boccanegra! you saved me the Googling!

Edited March 9, 2016 by lovinbob

[Simon Boccanegra]

This video of the preliminary hearing shows real Marcia Clark with the hair the series has been trying to recreate with the wig up until last night's episode.  

 

[laurakaye]

GAH!!  This episode put me through the wringer.

 

Did Judge Ito really say, "Good morning, Ms. Clark - I think?"  DID HE REALLY SAY THAT?!

 

As far as the hair goes, I thought last night's episode was going to show the point when she went from curly to straight hair.  I was all in an uproar early on because her longer hair didn't match what I remembered.  Now it does.  Sadly, those poodle perms were once in style.  I also kind of hate myself for vividly remembering her various hairstyles.  Because it shouldn't matter one bit.  But it did.

 

I kept wondering when - not IF, but WHEN - Clark would finally break down.  A person can hold their emotions in check for only so long.  And unfortunately, I know that when the emotional breakdown does occur, it tends to happen when you're doing your absolute best to hold it all in.  If Judge Ito really did call for a recess when Marcia simply couldn't continue, I give him a small prop for doing so.  He could've jumped on the misogynist bandwagon very easily at that moment and forced her to continue.

 

Before I burn out on all things related to this case, I need to get my hands on Marcia Clark's book.  I watched this as a young, married and childless 20-something.  Watching it now with kids of my own, I cannot imagine the intense pressure on her shoulders every single day of this fiasco of a trial.

 

I keep thinking this show cannot possibly get any more disturbing to watch, and every Tuesday night, I am taken aback.

Edited March 9, 2016 by laurakaye

[Simon Boccanegra]

If Judge Ito really did call for a recess when Marcia simply couldn't continue, I give him a small prop for doing so.

 

That part was accurate. She mentioned in her book that it was a singular moment of compassion, or words to that effect, from him. She really did not care for him.

 

However, at another point in the trial, he facetiously instructed the jurors not to be "distracted" by her skirts.

 

I really like the below interview with Marcia Clark, which is up to date through "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia." She seems to verify the "Ms. Clark, I think" comment, although it may not have come at the exact point in the trial that the episode had it.   

 

http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/marcia-clark-people-v-oj-simpson-episode-six.html

Edited March 9, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[dorcastrilling]

I remember Marcia Clark petitioning for more child support because she had to upgrade her wardrobe for the trial being televised. I think it was in a new expenses list she filed. If I am remembering correctly, and I believe I am, then the petition was ridiculous. I also was not on board with her not agreeing to allow the ex physical custody for the duration of the trial.

All other points raised I am on board with.

[whiporee]

 

Too many jurors (now and then) just don't understand reasonable doubt.

 

I don't know if that's true. If you think the LAPD mistreated evidenced -- and that's a reasonable assumption -- and you know they lied about things -- that's actually proven, then it's not unreasonable to think they lied about all of it. I think that's a part of every jury's instructions. 

 

Also, if two versions of the story are presented, and both of them are equally plausible, you have to take the defense's version. I think that's also in the jury instructions.    So if you're a juror, and you a) know LAPD lied about some things, b) know they mishandled at least some evidence c) think there is at least some proof that some evidence was planted, then it's a reasonable acquittal to make. 

 

I know it's not a popular sentiment these days -- and maybe this trial is to blame for it -- but the mantra has always been that in America, we'd rather see 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person go to prison. That's why our criminal justice system tilts everything toward the defense, and its why we are so harsh on police misconduct in trials. I understand disagreeing with the verdict, but I honestly think that a juror could sit through that trail and have no doubt that justice -- at least American legal justice -- demanded an acquittal. As a bystander, you might beleive the defense theories hogwash, but they were presented credibly. And Furhman did lie. Lang did take the shoes home. Vanatter (I think) did carry Simpson's blood with him to crime scenes. These things did happen. We don't have to like the verdict, but to condemn the jurors as idiots or irresponsible or working their own agenda is unfair. I think they did their jobs the best they could, and this verdict was an unfortunate, but necessary part of American jurisprudence. 

 

And a lot of good did come from it. Police are a lot more careful now than they were about evidence collection. DNA has a lot more credibility now. As much as punishing the guilty, the courts job is to keep the government in line and make sure they follow the rules our laws have established. More than anything else, this country was formed on the fear of government power, and the courts have always been our last defense against its abuse.  I don't know whether the LAPD abused their power in this case or not, but I think it's a reasonable point of view that they did, and since that's the case, acquitting Simpson seemed a reasonable outcome. 

Edited March 9, 2016 by whiporee

[dirtypop90]

Did anyone else think this was...boring? Things picked up for me when furhman got off the elevator. I suppose I love when they focus on the teams' trial tactics and strategies, which is why I just loved the race card ep

[Tara Ariano]

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

 

American Crime Story's 'Frump Incarnate' Seeks (Dance) Partner
If the scripted Marcia Clark had a made-up dating profile, it would probably look something like this.

[drivethroo]

 

Exactly. They never used common sense. They were totally manipulated by Cochran. Too many jurors (now and then) just don't understand reasonable doubt. However, in the OJ case I have to go along with revenge. I think the jury latched onto Cochran and were thankful that he gave them something to hang their revenge on. They knew he did it. Everyone knew he did it. There wasn't a thing in the world that the Dream Team did or said that changed that.

 

Ok, so we have a situation where a LAPD cop is admitting on the stand that he took home evidence from a double homicide, which he's never done before and which is not standard procedure, but the jury was a bunch of vengeful stupid blacks trying to get revenge on the white man? Ok.

 

It came out last week that a LAPD cop took home a knife buried on the OJ property and had it for almost 20 years in his house.  (Although LAPD has now said the knife in question has nothing to do with the murders).

 

OJ was likely guilty but LAPD "enhanced" their case against a guilty man, creating reasonable doubt, allowing an acquittal.

 

It's this breakdown of trust that allowed an acquittal.  We want to be able to trust that evidence from crime scenes will be handled properly.  If you have detectives admitting on the stand they took home vital pieces of evidence from a double homicide, how can we trust that ANY of the evidence was handled properly?

 

Johnnie Cochran did NOT introduce race into the case; it was already there.  All he did was capitalize on it. 

 

I had no idea that Marcia Clark was going through all of that.  I did want to punch that cashier in the face.

[CeeBeeGee]

Ok, so we have a situation where a LAPD cop is admitting on the stand that he took home evidence from a double homicide, which he's never done before and which is not standard procedure, but the jury was a bunch of vengeful stupid blacks trying to get revenge on the white man? Ok.

 

It came out last week that a LAPD cop took home a knife buried on the OJ property and had it for almost 20 years in his house.  (Although LAPD has now said the knife in question has nothing to do with the murders).

 

OJ was likely guilty but LAPD "enhanced" their case against a guilty man, creating reasonable doubt, allowing an acquittal.

 

It's this breakdown of trust that allowed an acquittal.  We want to be able to trust that evidence from crime scenes will be handled properly.  If you have detectives admitting on the stand they took home vital pieces of evidence from a double homicide, how can we trust that ANY of the evidence was handled properly?

 

Johnnie Cochran did NOT introduce race into the case; it was already there.  All he did was capitalize on it. 

 

I had no idea that Marcia Clark was going through all of that.  I did want to punch that cashier in the face.

 

The 9-1-1 tapes weren't faked. The jury heard Nicole begging for the police, while OJ raged in the background. They saw the pictures of her injuries. We know--and yes, they knew this back then as well--that the likeliest murder suspect is the husband or wife, and this goes double for one with a history of domestic violence.

 

When my ex (who knew Nicole and casually knew OJ) first heard the news, it was because a mutual friend called him and said "did you hear the news? OJ murdered Nicole."  Everyone knew. But the jury refused to hear it. They refused to acknowledge the link between OJ's history as a violent abuser of Nicole and her extremely violent, extremely personal murder. Like Clark said in the Vulture interview "At the end of the day, people will not believe what they do not want to believe."

[ridethemaverick]

It's obvious to me why the jury acquitted. If you can't trust the evidence, there's your reasonable doubt.

This revenge theory sounds like sour grapes to me, especially because it requires the belief that the four non-black jurors also wanted revenge.

[CeeBeeGee]

It's obvious to me why the jury acquitted. If you can't trust the evidence, there's your reasonable doubt.

This revenge theory sounds like sour grapes to me, especially because it requires the belief that the four non-black jurors also wanted revenge.

 

"Sour grapes"? You're reducing anger and frustration because two horribly murdered victims never got justice while their killer smirked in court day after day to "sour grapes"? Seriously? This isn't a football game.

[Asp Burger]

I have trouble with this revisionist view of the trial as something where the defense explained away everything the prosecution presented. Not so. Because they couldn't. There was just too much. Innuendo and smokescreens are not reasonable doubt. Some of the witnesses they presented to refute the physical evidence were terrible, like "world-renowned" Dr. Henry Lee, who was so forcefully repudiated that he ended up saying he regretted even getting involved and would resist any defense subpoena to reappear.

 

The prosecution had some bad witnesses too, of course.    

Edited March 9, 2016 by Asp Burger

[ridethemaverick]

"Sour grapes"? You're reducing anger and frustration because two horribly murdered victims never got justice while their killer smirked in court day after day to "sour grapes"? Seriously? This isn't a football game.

I sure am. Lots of killers aren't convicted because of reasonable doubt. The jurors may even feel the defendant did it but just can't convict because one or more key pieces of evidence are questionable or the timeline is off or a key witness lied. The list goes on. That's just how our legal system works. Always has.

I get the anger and frustration. I've seen plenty of tragic cases end this way.

[BananaRama]

I am heartbroken. Poor Marcia. I didn't know that she had suffered such treatment. I am glad that FX is broadcasting "American Crime Story" so people can see what went on behind the scenes.

[drivethroo]

 

At the end of the day, people will not believe what they do not want to believe."

 

 

You certainly got that right!

 

I knew Marcia Clark had been blasted for her appearance but never knew about the divorce, the custody battles or even the nude photos.  I saw the photos last night.  She didn't look half bad.  I'm sure Christopher Darden didn't think so either.

Edited March 9, 2016 by drivethroo

[toodywoody]

Can someone tell me what shoes the detective took home?

[BooBear]

But Jesus fucking Christ the shit Marcia went through pisses me off beyond belief. That bullshit would never happen to a man, it just wouldn't.

It doesn't matter what she wears or how she does her hair! It DOESN'T!

This is a common issue even today in courts. I hope to god judges are watching this show (and care). The sexism comes from the fact that most Judges are men and most have wives at home taking care of their stuff (and kids). If the court day is 9 to 5 -- it is 9 to 5. None of this "staying late" crud which obviously gives an edge to men.  On the dress, there are plenty of Judges even today who will comment on a woman's dress and appearance. The sexism today is still pretty bad.

[WordFreak]

Watching this show is like watching a horrible trainwreck, yet I can't look away. While uncomfortable and painful to witness, it's fascinating.  And yes, Sarah Paulson killed it in this episode; give her the Emmy now.

 

As angry as I was watching Marcia be constantly scrutinized for her appearance and for her struggles balancing the case with being a mom, I admit I did laugh at the Rick James comment.  Not much else to add that hasn't already been said; I'm just looking forward to the next episode.

[LGGirl]

Great episode.

Just reminds me of how much I really hated Cochran and Ito.

I don't get why the prosecution did not immediately object as soon as Bailey used the "N" word? If that happened then it was bad lawyering.

I always thought the jury deliberated for only 4 hours because they just wanted out of there. I agree that they should have deliberated much longer. No way they could have discussed all that evidence in four hours. But being sequestered for that long was jury abuse. The trial lasted much longer than needed. If the initial vote was 10 to 2 to convict then the verdict would go the other way.

And yes, it appears that most juries on these high profile cases don't understand reasonable doubt.

[Daisy]

I am bad :( I laughed at the Rick James comment. but boy do I remember those looks of "wtf?" when you think you are so adorably/sexily/whatever-ly positive put together and that sinking feeling of ooh. waiiiit. 

Like I said last week - this is seriously hard to remember that this is real life. so those who had to live through this. wow. Like I was all...I really want Marcia & Darden to kiss/have sex/make each other feel better ... then I'm like... but wait probably not because it didn't happen, then... maybe it DID HAPPEN. I also wanted to punch everyone who made her feel 2 inches tall. her husband is a dirt squirrel. the hair designer was dumb. Gill was dumb. She was getting it from every angle.. + this trial..

 

I am lost. What shoes did the detective take home? Why was he telling this to JOHNNY?! Why did he take them home? 

Man Johnny Cochrane (and OJ) - serious pieces of poo.  

[Isabella15]

Can someone tell me what shoes the detective took home?

 

They were tennis shoes that LAPD took from Simpson's house (with the search warrant)  to compare shoe size with the prints found at the crime scene.   There's actually footage of Tom Lange carrying the shoes in this news clip :  at around 1:05:

 

Police Search Bundy Drive and Simpson Home:  June 14, 1994

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObsQqE3XnZ8

Edited March 9, 2016 by Isabella15

[Dev F]

I don't get why the prosecution did not immediately object as soon as Bailey used the "N" word? If that happened then it was bad lawyering.

 

We saw that this was a major topic of discussion at the preliminary hearing, so I'm guessing Ito had already ruled that this line of questioning was fair game and further objections would've been pointless.

 

Though it seems like the prosecution certainly should've objected to Cochran's "Simi Valley, like the Rodney King officers, amirite?" comment. I assume that was creative license for our benefit; if Cochran just said "Simi Valley, huh?" the jury would know exactly what he was implying, but we in the audience probably wouldn't.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Dev F

[toodywoody]

They were tennis shoes that LAPD took from Simpson's house (with the search warrant) to compare shoe size with the prints found at the crime scene. There's actually footage of Tom Lange carrying the shoes in this news clip : at around 1:05:

Police Search Bundy Drive and Simpson Home: June 14, 1994

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObsQqE3XnZ8

Thank you. Thank you.

I understand they shouldn't have been left in the car, but they weren't THE shoes. I know he should have booked them directly into evidence and that was a serious mistake. I guess what I'm trying to say is that they weren't the shoes used in the murder, but they were OJ's, and only being used for comparison purposes. He still should have done it.

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.

[Inquisitionist]

According to this article, the LAPD changed many policies and procedures after the Simpson trial illuminated certain problems.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Though it seems like the prosecution certainly should've objected to Cochran's "Simi Valley, like the Rodney King officers, amirite?" comment. I assume that was creative license for our benefit; if Cochran just said "Simi Valley, huh?" the jury would know exactly what he was implying, but we in the audience probably wouldn't.

 

That's correct. Clark surely would have objected to a statement as blatant as the one we heard in the show. But Cochran did, in that cross-examination of Lange, keep referring to Simi Valley in his questions, even after it was established that that was where Lange lived. So, the show took something that wasn't at all subtle in the first place and made it sledgehammer-unsubtle, but all these years later, it probably had to be done. I don't think the average viewer hears "Simi Valley" and makes the same connection now. 

 

A similar incident in the real case: One of the officers who visited the crime scene was a Sergeant Coon. Clark felt it necessary to make clear to the jury that this was not the notorious Stacey Koon of the King case. In her direct examination of the patrol officer who named Sergeant Coon, she asked a question to get that on the record.  

Edited March 9, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[lofidelity]

One thing that I find interesting about this episode and about the series' dramatization of the case in general is obviously we are supposed to feel for Marcia in this episode, and probably also identify with her at some points in other episodes (for example in the beginning when she kept reminding everyone two people were brutally murdered, they deserved justice, OJ should be punished for what he did etc.) but they keep giving her these insanely optimistic lines like "The gloves are our conviction" in the preview for next week.  The Dream Team has been outsmarting her at almost every turn, they're finding weaknesses in what she thought was solid evidence, and she knows Fuhrman's racism is going to be an issue -- and yet the writers still have her acting as if this case is a slam dunk. 

 

In recent interviews, Clark says that in reality, she was aware through most of the trial that the prosecution's case was in trouble and that Cochran's showmanship was working with the jury.  I haven't read her or Darden's book so I don't know if this is just hindsight being 20/20, but it just seems like odd characterization for the show to give her this almost-sunny optimism about the case all the time.  At this point, it's so unreasonable for her to be so optimistic about the case that it makes her a lot less sympathetic in my eyes, because I'm impatient with how tone-deaf she is about everything around her.

 

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!  But someone insulting her appearance, sure, that would be what bothers her, because that's what women care about, right?  I mean, as a woman, I totally understand why it would bother her and how belittling it is and how much it makes you want to scream that you are a goddamn professional with both a brain and a heart -- but I feel like, by showing her struggling with the criticism of her appearance/mothering/menstruation and not showing her struggling with how difficult the case itself has become, the show is belittling her just as much as the tampon cashier did.

Edited March 9, 2016 by lofidelity

[Ina123]

The 9-1-1 tapes weren't faked. The jury heard Nicole begging for the police, while OJ raged in the background. They saw the pictures of her injuries. We know--and yes, they knew this back then as well--that the likeliest murder suspect is the husband or wife, and this goes double for one with a history of domestic violence.

 

When my ex (who knew Nicole and casually knew OJ) first heard the news, it was because a mutual friend called him and said "did you hear the news? OJ murdered Nicole."  Everyone knew. But the jury refused to hear it. They refused to acknowledge the link between OJ's history as a violent abuser of Nicole and her extremely violent, extremely personal murder. Like Clark said in the Vulture interview "At the end of the day, people will not believe what they do not want to believe."

I could not agree more. Many say there was too much police misconduct. So what if Fuhman lied about saying  the n-word. Poor choice he made. Sorry, it does not discount everything. Throw out all the Furhman stuff and he's still guilty. What about OJ changing his story 3 times about how he got the cut on his hand? You telling me that someone can't remember how they got a cut from last night?

 

The other side is just what CeeBeeGee said. The tapes were there. We all heard them and they were real. He was an inch away from killing her several times. She was cut and black and blue.Geeze. What more do you want? He was pissed because of the snub after Sidney's recital. That's what I call not even caring about reasonable/unreasonable doubt. That jury had no intentions of finding him guilty. And I will always believe that this jury just didn't understand the significance of DNA. In the time they took, they could not have even discussed it.

[PJ123]

Excellent episode.   Funny with the TV executives discussing the preemption of soaps.  One can say this was the beginning of the end of soaps on TV.

[Ina123]

Also, I bet the bloody clothes and/or knife or some evidence went in that trashcan at the airport. What I've wondered after watching a lot of true crime down thru the years is why they didn't go to the dump site to search. The only reason I can think of is that the witness came in too long after the trash was dumped, making it impossible. I've seen many times when someone said they threw evidence in the trash or a dumpster, the cops dig to find it at the dump.If it's pretty near the time it's disposed of, the guys driving the trucks can put them in a general area. Especially the trucks from the airport. Evidence has actually been found that way.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Ina123

[KenyaJ]

And to see her strut into the courtroom like Flawless, Feeling Myself, and Formation were on a loop in her head was heartbreaking. I can't lie, OJ's face when he saw her made me chuckle but everything after that made me cry.

 

This comment cracked me up! I can't remember the last time I cringed more while watching a TV show than I did while watching her walk into the courtroom. That was so awful. Poor Marcia. Everything about this episode made me want to wrap her in a little bubble that was impervious to the rampant sexism going on around her.  And as awful as it all was, that comment from the clerk in the market was what made my mouth literally drop open. I can't say with certainty that I wouldn't have punched him if I'd been in her shoes.

 

I know it's not a popular sentiment these days -- and maybe this trial is to blame for it -- but the mantra has always been that in America, we'd rather see 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person go to prison. That's why our criminal justice system tilts everything toward the defense, and its why we are so harsh on police misconduct in trials. 

 

This has been on my mind a lot lately, especially because I'm in the middle of preparing for a hearing on a motion to suppress. I see people every day who are guilty beyond any doubt in my mind but end up having the charges against them dismissed due to sloppy police work or police misconduct. And those results often feel morally wrong, but I know they're legally right, because the system absolutely needs to be held to the highest of standards. I know it's no comfort to the Browns and the Goldmans, but, if nothing else, I'm glad this case caused a lot of law enforcement agencies to raise their standards significantly.

[Kbilly]

Agree with all that Sarah Paulson broke my heart. I had a physical reaction to her embarrassment(s). 

 

I keep hearing John Travolta like he's doing Nick Cage in Face Off.

 

I thought it looked familiar and many people commented on twitter that the bar where Bailey and team were drinking and discussing Fuhrman approach is the bar from New Girl!

 

I was so distracted by how thin Jordana Brewster is and how her teeth don't seem to be able to be held in her face--I missed what she was saying.

[Simon Boccanegra]

And I will always believe that this jury just didn't understand the significance of DNA.

 

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"? One juror just parroted back a defense attorney's "Garbage in, garbage out." As if improper collection or storage of blood evidence would cause it not to give an inconclusive result but to give an erroneous result that happened to point to the person who was married to one of the victims, beat her, stalked her, had her telling friends and acquaintances she was afraid he was going to kill her, caused her to put her will and photographs in a safe deposit box shortly before her murder, had no alibi for the time of the murders, had deep cuts on his hands and claimed he just got them "running around" or "playing golf"... 

[Umbelina]

I am bad :( I laughed at the Rick James comment. but boy do I remember those looks of "wtf?" when you think you are so adorably/sexily/whatever-ly positive put together and that sinking feeling of ooh. waiiiit. 

Like I said last week - this is seriously hard to remember that this is real life. so those who had to live through this. wow. Like I was all...I really want Marcia & Darden to kiss/have sex/make each other feel better ... then I'm like... but wait probably not because it didn't happen, then... maybe it DID HAPPEN. I also wanted to punch everyone who made her feel 2 inches tall. her husband is a dirt squirrel. the hair designer was dumb. Gill was dumb. She was getting it from every angle.. + this trial..

 

I am lost. What shoes did the detective take home? Why was he telling this to JOHNNY?! Why did he take them home? 

Man Johnny Cochrane (and OJ) - serious pieces of poo.  

The shoes weren't even really evidence, they were just taken to compare shoe sizes, so the truth is, booking them then or booking them in the morning made absolutely no difference.  The shoe size wasn't going to change.  Yes, it looked sloppy though.

 

He didn't tell Cochran, in one of the fact check things posted it says he told a private investigator, who then told the defense attorneys.

 

We saw that this was a major topic of discussion at the preliminary hearing, so I'm guessing Ito had already ruled that this line of questioning was fair game and further objections would've been pointless.

 

Though it seems like the prosecution certainly should've objected to Cochran's "Simi Valley, like the Rodney King officers, amirite?" comment. I assume that was creative license for our benefit; if Cochran just said "Simi Valley, huh?" the jury would know exactly what he was implying, but we in the audience probably wouldn't.

You can't un-ring that bell.  Not then, not now, and he had plenty of legitimate opportunity to keep saying "Simi Valley" during cross anyway.  I don't really know if that was done for the 2016 watchers of this show, because honestly?  The jury HEARD and KNEW immediately what he was implying.  Rodney King was recent, it's why they opened the show with it.

Excellent episode.   Funny with the TV executives discussing the preemption of soaps.  One can say this was the beginning of the end of soaps on TV.

It was.  Reality TV was much cheaper to produce than soaps or scripted shows.  Many say this trial brought us all the "reality" crap that's on TV today.

 

Also, I bet the bloody clothes and/or knife or some evidence went in that trashcan at the airport. What I've wondered after watching a lot of true crime down thru the years is why they didn't go to the dump site to search. The only reason I can think of is that the witness came in too long after the trash was dumped, making it impossible. I've seen many times when someone said they threw evidence in the trash or a dumpster, the cops dig to find it at the dump.If it's pretty near the time it's disposed of, the guys driving the trucks can put them in a general area. Especially the trucks from the airport. Evidence has actually been found that way.

They did search, but the task was enormous, and they really didn't have the man power.  I mean, seriously, they only searched OJ's place for what?  7 hours.  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.  By they time the body was found and it was time to search trash?  Long gone.

 

This comment cracked me up! I can't remember the last time I cringed more while watching a TV show than I did while watching her walk into the courtroom. That was so awful. Poor Marcia. Everything about this episode made me want to wrap her in a little bubble that was impervious to the rampant sexism going on around her.  And as awful as it all was, that comment from the clerk in the market was what made my mouth literally drop open. I can't say with certainty that I wouldn't have punched him if I'd been in her shoes.

 

(snip)

That used to happen all the time, snide comments.  I'm kind of ashamed to admit it, because in general I was a pretty strong woman, but at one drugstore in my neighborhood in San Francisco, the only one open late at night, I once sheepishly admitted to my boyfriend that I was reluctant to go in to buy Tampax because of the guys in the store.  He looked at me kind of incredulously, and then just walked in and got them for me.  We had quite a talk about that later, he was amazed that it was an issue at all, but did get it. 

[Kromm]

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.

I never thought I'd say a Ryan Murphy show was the best show on TV but here ya go. This show is great and often amazing.

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

[Umbelina]

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"? One juror just parroted back a defense attorney's "Garbage in, garbage out." As if improper collection or storage of blood evidence would cause it not to give an inconclusive result but to give an erroneous result that happened to point to the person who was married to one of the victims, beat her, stalked her, had her telling friends and acquaintances she was afraid he was going to kill her, caused her to put her will and photographs in a safe deposit box shortly before her murder, had no alibi for the time of the murders, had deep cuts on his hands and claimed he just got them "running around" or "playing golf"... 

There WERE some pretty idiotic comments made by the jury, before they wised up and realized they'd better sound smarter.

 

The one about "A billion to one?  There aren't even a billion people in the world!" comes to mind.  There were others.  They got slicker as time went on.  Another was about the hair evidence, they said stuff like "that could have been any black person's hair!"  So, no, they didn't get it, they didn't discuss it.  They didn't care that Nicole said "he's going to kill me" and they heard her voice saying that.  They didn't care about domestic violence, and I suspect that was because it was much more common then, and not discussed as much, and stats say it's even more common in African American marriages.  They didn't discuss it because, as Johnny said "this isn't a domestic violence case."  The jury was actually ANGRY at Marcia for wasting their time with that.

 

I put this photo of Marcia Clark in the "BS" thread, along with a nice interview with her, but I just had to put it here as well.  The most unreal thing of this TV series is Marcia's hair.  In real life, it was much worse.  So, for those of you who didn't see it at the time, and wonder about those tears?  Here you go.  http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/marcia-clark-people-v-oj-simpson-episode-six.html

Marcia Clark on Episode 6 of The People v. O.J. Simpson: ‘They Get the Big Stuff Right’

Edited March 9, 2016 by Umbelina

[Dev F]

I don't really know if that was done for the 2016 watchers of this show, because honestly?  The jury HEARD and KNEW immediately what he was implying.  Rodney King was recent, it's why they opened the show with it. 

 

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."

Edited March 9, 2016 by Dev F

[Racj82]

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.

via various sources, they have done lot more things factually instead of taking liberties. While also taking liberties with certain things that make sense in context. Not really a lot of bullshit here.

[Catherinewriter]

Simon Boccanegra, thanks for posting the interview with Marcia Clark, I'm so pleased for her that she thinks the show is doing well with the main points, including the trashing of her. I wonder what happened to the custody issue. Haven't watched this episode yet, but am sure I will want to put my fish through the TV.