S01.E06: Marcia, Marcia, Marcia

[FuriousStyles]

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.

Agreed. Which is why I had such a hard time believing OJ was all wishy washy scared about telling Shapiro he was off first chair and wanted Cochran to take lead. He was literally on trial for his own life, the stakes couldnt be higher, and he's worried about hurting feelings or looking like a "bad guy". I'm not saying thats not how I played out, but I just didnt find it believable. OJ asserting himself here and even telling Shapiro to blow him (that was the gist of what he said right?) was more to what I'd expect from a guy who by all accounts was never shy about expressing himself even in the most vulgar of ways.

I always thought Marcia came in to the trial with that short haircut. I cant believe a paid hairdresser did that to her. Looking forward to seeing the other changes.

Someone mentioned Marcia would be even more trashed if that trial happened today with social media and all, but I think she would have a LOT more supporters today. Just for the simple fact that she's a woman working in a male dominated world. I think a lot more women identify with that and more men are sympathetic to it. Plus, I think generally the trial would have turned out a lot differently.

[Milburn Stone]

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.

 

I was once on a federal jury, and we voted to convict, even though there were some reasons to doubt. But those reasons to doubt weren't reasonable doubt, and we felt reasonably sure of our verdict. After the trial, I spoke to a long time friend who is a trial attorney, and he said we did the right thing. He said that in every trial, there are always things that don't add up, always things that create justifiable doubt. But the jury's job is not to determine if there is complete absence of doubt; the jury's job is to use its common sense as ordinary, everyday people and decide what it believes probably happened, even in the presence of some doubt, based on all the evidence presented.

 

To put it another way, the key word in "reasonable doubt" is not "doubt." The key word is "reasonable."

 

Not saying that you, in your hypothetical scenario in which you're a juror in the OJ case, would have been wrong to vote not guilty. Just passing that along for whatever it's worth.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[starri]

I know the episode was called "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" and that was the focus, it's interesting that no one has really commented on the scene with Bailey's cross of Fuhrman.  It made me incredibly uncomfortable, even though I know that was the point.  Nathan Lane is a stronger man than I, because I'm not sure I would have it in me to play that.  I don't even like reading the n-word.

 

Even as a testicular-American, I was hoping Clark would have torn the throat out of that clerk with her teeth.  I remember Ito being a buffoon, but he's so much worse than I thought at the time.  I can't really add anything except that I was damned close to tears at several points, especially with her near-breakdown at the end of the episode.

[Milburn Stone]

I remember Ito being a buffoon, but he's so much worse than I thought at the time.

 

Actually, I'm surprised so far that Ito--in terms of his in-court behavior--hasn't looked that much like a buffoon. At least to me.

 

We've heard the characters reference their disrespect for him. But as far as how he's conducting the trial itself, I'm puzzled by these references, because he seems basically OK on that score. I'm not talking about his non-trial behavior in his chambers and/or office, with his absurd pride in the Arsenio Hall photo and all that. That's definitely buffoonish. But so far, in court, it doesn't look to me like he's showing any bias, or losing control. He may be irritated with Clark, but he does grant her a recess.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[Kromm]

I know the episode was called "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" and that was the focus, it's interesting that no one has really commented on the scene with Bailey's cross of Fuhrman.

Nobody?

 

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

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.

 

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

That said, yeah... you'd think it would be even more talked about. Or perhaps many people thought the scene spoke for itself and thus don't have more to say? That's possible.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Kromm

[MargotWendice]

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 disagree that the goal of the episode was to make the viewer feel sorry for Marcia or make ex #2 look bad. It is pretty much telling the story like it was--on top of the pressures of the trial, Marcia was dealing with a custody battle and all of the negativity targeted toward her appearance (something that no one else on either side was dealing with). The scene where she was outside smoking and had arrived home after her sons were asleep showed that she was spending more time with the case than with her boys, and the fact that she called her ex to take care of the kids when she had to stay late certainly humanized him as a parent--after all,she did not ask the nanny to stay late in that scene. I did not see sugarcoating of her as a perfect mother and her ex as a demon, just a portrayal of a complicated situation.

[mostlylurking]

I will admit it I totally cried this episode.  Sarah Paulson is just breaking my heart, and making me feel really badly for Marcia Clark in the process.  It was just one sucker punch after another, and they just kept coming!  I don't know how much is being dramatized for television, but being a woman in a male dominated field myself I really felt her pain.  Men don't have to worry about their hair, their clothes, their child care.  They're men.  End of story.  Even Chris Darden wasn't getting it as bad as Marcia in a sense, because although he is African American, he is still a man and they are in a male dominated environment.  So infuriating!  When she finally broke down at the end it was tragic.  Even that douche Ito had the human decency to not pile any more on for the day.

 

Sterling Brown is also killing it.  I loved that he was the only one to help Marcia and try to make her feel better.  I'm again wondering how much is real and how much elaborated, but I think he was the only one who understood being marginalized and judged and had empathy for her.  Although the worse is obviously still to come, at least they could lean on each other.

[Inquisitionist]

I always thought Marcia came in to the trial with that short haircut.

 

She did.  From what I've read, she had her hair cut and permed at the start of the trial.  As it dragged on and her perm grew out, she didn't have time to get a new perm (and perhaps didn't want to), so she had it cut into a style she could blow-dry easily.

 

Even as a testicular-American, I was hoping Clark would have torn the throat out of that clerk with her teeth.  

 

Anything she said to that clerk would have ended up in the tabloids the next day, in an unflattering way.  I think she really had no alternative but to remain silent, as awful as that had to be for her.

[Simon Boccanegra]

I was once on a federal jury, and we voted to convict, even though there were some reasons to doubt. But those reasons to doubt weren't reasonable doubt, and we felt reasonably sure of our verdict. After the trial, I spoke to a long time friend who is a trial attorney, and he said we did the right thing. He said that in every trial, there are always things that don't add up, always things that create justifiable doubt. But the jury's job is not to determine if there is complete absence of doubt; the jury's job is to use its common sense as ordinary, everyday people and decide what it believed probably happened, even in the presence of some doubt, based on all the evidence presented.

 

To put it another way, the key word in "reasonable doubt" is not "doubt." The key word is "reasonable."

 

Good post. Vincent Bugliosi mentioned this in more than one of his books: as a prosecutor, he always stressed to the jury the difference between "doubt" and "reasonable doubt." He said it was not the People's job to prove the defendant's guilt beyond any doubt, although sometimes he believed he had done that. There are always going to be unanswered questions. Another quote of his that always sticks with me is that a murder investigation sometimes is erroneously described as being like a jigsaw puzzle, where every piece can be made to add up to the whole, but in his experience, it was more like three or four jigsaw puzzles, no one of which was entirely complete. There are pieces missing, and other pieces left over that don't fit. But if the investigation is good, you will have enough to see the picture.  

Edited March 10, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[BoogieBurns]

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?

 

As a second grader at the time, I hope that qualifies me to speak as a young 'un. This isn't destined to become a famous Hollywood crime, this is THE famous Hollywood crime. I thought the Black Dahlia was a book, so if that helps you realize how little I know about things that happened before the 90's.

 

This crime is different because of celebrity culture and hindsight. Also, for the ones of us who knew some details about the murders/trial, this is the first time we are getting a big picture. If you asked me before this series began, "How was Mark Fuhrman related to the OJ case?" My answer would have been "Is he the other one OJ murdered besides Nicole?"

 

So, we are watching this show with much lower stakes. It can't end differently than "We the jury, find Orenthal James Simpson, not guilty for the crime of murder." It's far less emotional. Plus, there is a Real Housewife(ish) along with the origin story of the Kardashians. We get to experience the trial of the century without anyone else getting murdered. Plus, OJ is in jail now, so the Karma train caught up to him.

[Hanahope]

This episode is a great reminder of why live television cameras should not be a courtroom.  It turns what is supposed to be a dignified trial into an episode of Judge Judy and worse.  People watch the show and expect to be "entertained" either by what they think is a script or by "reality stars" acting up for the camera.  Had the TV cameras not been in the courtroom, there wouldn't have been nearly as much need/consideration for Marcia Clark to have a "media consultant" and worry as much about her appearance.  She probably still would have had some consideration, because she would still want to look good for the jurors, but not as much would have played out in the tabloids, on tabloid TV, and other media outlets. 

 

I know they condensed F. Lee Bailey's cross of Furhman, but I wonder how much his questions about using the N word were just so out of the blue.  Yes, we all knew something was coming, but the way he asked the questions, no foundation, no apparent relevance (such as someone claiming Furman said that to OJ), it appears quite obvious that the questions were solely intended to prejudice Furman/prosecution and inflame the jury and that's against the Evidence Rules completely, and is exactly what Darden was saying in his motion to suppress.  If the evidence is more prejudicial than probative/relevant, the evidence is supposed to be suppressed.  I get the defense wanted to discredit Furman, but there had to be other ways to do that than just asking "did you ever use the N word?".  That's like asking him if he ever called a woman a 'bitch'.  It has nothing to do with the trial, its just meant to be mean.  I just think that Darden should have been allowed to object again to the question, before its answer (even though the mere fact of asking the question puts it in the jurors minds, no matter the answer, just as Flea said, its a win-win for the defense).  Its another example of how incompetent Ito was in handling this trial.  He should never have allowed that word to be used or asked about without some foundation for its relevance in the case.

 

I don't remember, I hope Marcia Clark gave an interview where she named that horrible hair dresser.  "Isn't this hair style given to me by X so great?"

[drivethroo]

 

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.

 

It's easier to say the black jury wanted revenge on whitey, the black jury was too stupid to comprehend anything and Johnnie Cochran was a racist asshole who ginned up black fury at whitey than to admit the LAPD was a bunch of clowns who mishandled evidence in a very high profile case and the prosecutors were outmatched by OJ's lawyers and in over their heads.

 

The Rodney King jury was not called stupid or incompetent either.  Nor was the Robert Blake jury.

 

The bottom line is juries are often called stupid, incompetent, racist etc. when they don't vote the way we think they should vote.  This particular jury gets it more than most because of the racial makeup of the jury and the fact that we all in this country believe that black people are inherently unintelligent.

 

But, but...domestic violence! OJ was beating Nicole's ass!  Why didn't they convict?!

 

At the time domestic violence was regarding as people's private business.   OJ's abuse of Nicole and Denise Brown's testimony may not have resonated with the mostly female jury because even after all the beatings the Brown family was still living it up on OJ's dime.  If it was that bad, why are you still hamming it up with him? Once the money stopped, OJ was a bad, bad man, it seems.

 

Here is the case of an actor who was beating his wife around the same time the OJ trial was going on.  Nobody seemed to care that this actor was beating his pregnant wife; he was just "troubled.  http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-08/local/me-10843_1_sasha-mitchell

Edited March 10, 2016 by drivethroo

[mojoween]

I just really have doubts the hairdresser ever even saw a picture of Farrah Fawcett, let alone allegedly styling her in person.

[BBDi]

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

As a big Rick James fan, that didn't make sense to me. Marcia's longer do was more Rick-like IMO.

[Crs97]

drivethroo, that is such a sad article that really displays how the treatment of domestic violence has changed. He did all that to her and was charged with misdemeanors. The judge denied her request to keep him from contacting them!

I can see the OJ jury discounting the domestic violence because he was only arrested once and just did a little community service. To jump from that to a vicious double murder without today's understanding of escalation? It is not surprising they didn't put it all together, unfortunately.

I really liked Scott Turow's analysis that when the prosecution takes this long to put on its case, the jury may actually see it as the sign of a weak case, especially when some of the evidence becomes "tainted."

I also think it is unfair to think we as the television audience were participating in the same case as the jury. I remember the Oliver North hearings and how those who were physically in the hearings were stunned that TV audience thought he was coming across as brave and patriotic because in real life he was coming across as anything but. Television can illuminate, but also distort.

[Simon Boccanegra]

But, but...domestic violence! OJ was beating Nicole's ass!  Why didn't they convict?!

At the time domestic violence was regarding as people's private business.

 

In the '70s and '80s and early '90s, you couldn't get away from television programs about domestic violence. There were so many "very special episodes" and TV-movies dealing with that subject that one network even aired one about a husband being physically abused by his wife. Let's not make 1994 seem as distant in social mores as the Victorian era or even the era of Mad Men.   

 

The thing is, this went beyond "beating Nicole's ass," bad as that would have been on its own. At least two other men we're seeing portrayed in this series also may have been batterers, but once they were divorced from their spouses, those women were allowed to get on with their lives and lived without fear, by all accounts.     

 

That wasn't so here. Nicole expressed, numerous times, that she was afraid for her life. Simpson was following her to restaurants when she was with other people. He was fixated on her relationships with other men. He was vindictively using the IRS against her. So there was this escalating behavior that could only end one way. The classic "If I can't have her, no one can" mentality. Nicole accurately predicted that he would kill her one day and get away with it.  

 

Ultimately, the thing that got him put behind bars was more similar than it seemed on the surface. He lost something that he thought of as his. "Motherfucker, think you can steal my shit and sell it? It is mine, motherfucker! You stole it from me!" He didn't like to lose; he didn't like to be perceived as losing, and he wasn't going to loosen his grip on what was his, ever.  

 

What I'm getting at here is that the photographs of Nicole with a bruised face weren't "the whole thing"; they were a visible consequence of something deeper in his character.  

Edited March 10, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[ridethemaverick]

It's easier to say the black jury wanted revenge on whitey, the black jury was too stupid to comprehend anything and Johnnie Cochran was a racist asshole who ginned up black fury at whitey than to admit the LAPD was a bunch of clowns who mishandled evidence in a very high profile case and the prosecutors were outmatched by OJ's lawyers and in over their heads.

The Rodney King jury was not called stupid or incompetent either. Nor was the Robert Blake jury.

The bottom line is juries are often called stupid, incompetent, racist etc. when they don't vote the way we think they should vote. This particular jury gets it more than most because of the racial makeup of the jury and the fact that we all in this country believe that black people are inherently unintelligent.

But, but...domestic violence! OJ was beating Nicole's ass! Why didn't they convict?!

At the time domestic violence was regarding as people's private business. OJ's abuse of Nicole and Denise Brown's testimony may not have resonated with the mostly female jury because even after all the beatings the Brown family was still living it up on OJ's dime. If it was that bad, why are you still hamming it up with him? Once the money stopped, OJ was a bad, bad man, it seems.

Here is the case of an actor who was beating his wife around the same time the OJ trial was going on. Nobody seemed to care that this actor was beating his pregnant wife; he was just "troubled. http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-08/local/me-10843_1_sasha-mitchell

Selective (racial) outrage. I don't even take it seriously anymore.

[AlabasterShakes]

I was once on a federal jury, and we voted to convict, even though there were some reasons to doubt. But those reasons to doubt weren't reasonable doubt, and we felt reasonably sure of our verdict. After the trial, I spoke to a long time friend who is a trial attorney, and he said we did the right thing. He said that in every trial, there are always things that don't add up, always things that create justifiable doubt. But the jury's job is not to determine if there is complete absence of doubt; the jury's job is to use its common sense as ordinary, everyday people and decide what it believed probably happened, even in the presence of some doubt, based on all the evidence presented.

 

To put it another way, the key word in "reasonable doubt" is not "doubt." The key word is "reasonable."

 

Not saying that you, in your hypothetical scenario in which you're a juror in the OJ case, would have been wrong to vote not guilty. Just passing that along for whatever it's worth.

 

I don't know the specifics of the case that you sat on as a jury member, but I do know the specifics of this one. These jurors, collectively, may very well be idiots. However, I don't think their choosing not to convict is indicative of their idiocy. There was plenty of evidence and testimony to consider that would give credence to reasonably doubting the prosecution's argument. Not saying that you, in your account of your time as a jury member on a separate case, or anyone specifically, feels as though this particular jury was full of idiots based upon the verdict. But, many people do. And, I am saying that I'm not one of them.

 

Or similarly, what whiporee said:

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.

 

The murders were brutal though. And, to think that someone could kill two people in such a cold-blooded manner and remain free is understandably infuriating, whether you're directly affected by the circumstances or not. So, the strong reactions regarding this case, even 20+ years later, are not unwarranted. It's just funny to me that this one case, in particular, brings about such prevailing outrage while similar miscarriages of justice do not generate even a fraction of the sentiment. So, it can't just be that a likely guilty man walked free because this sort of thing happens far too often without an equally immense outpouring of justifiable anger and frustration from the public at large. So, yeah. The varying perceptions and optics that exist are not lost on me.

 

Speaking of optics, someone mentioned that Garcetti was able to get suits loaned to Marcia, so that she wouldn't have to wear and be seen in off-the-rack clothing compared to the expensive tailored suits of the defense team. And, I realize it was the early 90s, so colors were a thing, but those suits looked awful on those men. I especially love seeing all of the busy patterns on the ties. It's like Brooks Brothers took one look at a Cosby sweater and thought, "Yes! That's it. Our Spring collection will be a game changer."

[MargotWendice]

Selective (racial) outrage. I don't even take it seriously anymore.

But this seems like a false comparison. Was Sasha Mitchell a very well know actor? I have no idea who he is. Of course, that shouldn't matter but people care more about a famous person perpetrating crimes than the random person who lives down the street.

I think part of the outrage was that people loved OJ. They felt fooled by him and taken in by his 'nice guy' persona. I think if Jimmy Fallon (I think he has a 'nice guy' persona) was accused of beating his wife, people would be outraged.

I am certainly not saying race is not a factor here, but I think there is a complex interconnected-ness of race/gender/celebrity/wealth that cannot be reduced to one element.

Edited March 10, 2016 by MargotWendice

[Grneyedldy]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but with this episode being about Marcia (and her hair), I couldn't help but think of it:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw_CtUR9Lh0

[BW Manilowe]

But this seems like a false comparison. Was Sasha Mitchell a very well know actor? I have no idea who he is. Of course, that shouldn't matter but people care more about a famous person perpetrating crimes than the random person who lives down the street.

I think part of the outrage was that people loved OJ. They felt fooled by him and taken in by his 'nice guy' persona. I think if Jimmy Fallon (I think he has a 'nice guy' persona) was accused of beating his wife, people would be outraged.

I am certainly not saying race is not a factor here, but I think there is a complex interconnected-ness of race/gender/celebrity/wealth that cannot be reduced to one element.

At the time this happened, Sasha Mitchell was on the fairly popular sitcom Step by Step which starred Dallas' Patrick Duffy & Three's Company's Suzanne Somers as the parents of a blended (but mismatched) family--their characters entered into a whirlwind marriage after meeting while on vacation; the show was part of ABC's TGIF Friday night primetime sitcom block. Sasha Mitchell played, in the show's later seasons, Patrick Duffy's character's not too bright nephew who came to live with the blended family.

Sasha Mitchell's also known for playing another character who, it turns out, was also a nephew of another character played by actor Patrick Duffy. He was in some of the last seasons of the original CBS version of Dallas, where he played James Ewing, the long-lost, illegitimate, oldest son of Larry Hagman's JR Ewing & the nephew of Patrick Duffy's Bobby Ewing, JR's younger brother.

Edited March 10, 2016 by BW Manilowe

[Crs97]

I thought the point wasn't Sasha=OJ, but was Sasha=representation of how little the legal system punished domestic abusers.

[Kromm]

At the time domestic violence was regarding as people's private business.

In the '70s and '80s and early '90s, you couldn't get away from television programs about domestic violence. There were so many "very special episodes" and TV-movies dealing with that subject that one network even aired one about a husband being physically abused by his wife. Let's not make 1994 seem as distant in social mores as the Victorian era or even the era of Mad Men.

Agreed (with Simon).

drivethroo, my memory of the time seems pretty different from yours. Like Simon mentions, this was the age of such things being dramatized and made into TV movies. Ever hear of The Burning Bed? That was 1984 and was well planted in people's heads a decade later.

Of course exploiting stuff like this for crappy TV movie revenge fantasies vs. changing the behavior of a whole generation TOOK a whole generation. But I'd say plenty of people still got mad, and very publicly about domestic abuse back then. The problem is that celebrities like OJ got a pass (and some still probably do). And you didn't have the Internet to pound people to bits on the side if the major media didn't cover a story (the tabloid papers often would, but because they lied about so much else were often inherently disbelieved about celeb domestic abuse stories).

Edited March 10, 2016 by Kromm

[kassa]

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

 

 

It was worse.  Dear God, it was even worse.  

 

As for Clark and Darden and whether they ever had an affair or not, they’re both so coy about the topic I conclude that they either did or merely want us to think they did.  So fine, I will.

 

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.

 

 

It’s a tightrope, because, yeah, obviously this case is going to suck up your life for a year (though I think originally they thought it would be 6 mos) and they had only filed for divorce a couple of days before the murder.  So if you look at it from his point of view, he had been living with the kids in the house (one assumes) until very recently, moves out, and then suddenly the custodial parent is never home (and let’s be honest, even when she is, she’s likely working).  What sucks is going to the press about it.  

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.

 

 

They had him say on camera that she had LIED when she said she needed to get home to the kids, and that she was using the children as pawns to manipulate the court.  That’s a pretty huge damn cheap shot, not just within the divorce/custody trial, but her professional career.

 

This was the first episode where I thought Cuba brought more of the OJ essence.  Not the look or the voice, but the way he spoke when chewing out his defense team. I could see OJ saying those very words in that cadence.  They also seemed to be shooting from a lower angle.  (Cuba’s still wrong for the part, but at least the behavior part of the acting was more OJ-reminiscent)

 

Someone mentioned Marcia would be even more trashed if that trial happened today with social media and all, but I think she would have a LOT more supporters today. Just for the simple fact that she's a woman working in a male dominated world. I think a lot more women identify with that and more men are sympathetic to it. Plus

 

 

You know what, though?  We thought the same thing at the time.  That we were so advanced.  Look, a female prosecutor going after the biggest defendant in the country!  They didn't yank the case away from her to put some old grey haired suit in that chair! You've come a long way, baby!  Then the stuff like childcare came up, and it became “Marcia falls short on the feminist front, because she needs to handle her home business better so sexist asses can’t point to her as What Happens When Women Think They Can Have It All” – she caught it on all sides, and I think it could conceivably be even WORSE today, because the internet has created a world where angry people can find their people, and their mutual support emboldens them to be far bolder than they’d ever dare on their own. I'm 52 and I don't see a lot of evidence that we've progressed vs regressed in the last 20 years when it comes to women's issues.

 

I just really have doubts the hairdresser ever even saw a picture of Farrah Fawcett, let alone allegedly styling her in person.

 

 

Her hairdresser actually was the guy who created the famous Farrah cut.  But I think the cut he gave her was the straightened one we see in future episodes, not the Portuguese Water Dog pouf.  If he’s still alive, he must be screaming!

Edited March 10, 2016 by kassa

[BoogieBurns]

But, when did Farrah have a Jheri curl? That's the real unasnwered question in this forum.

[tvfanatic13]

Stellar performances all around!

Off topic- how many more episodes are there? I would love for this to go on forever but alas....

[alynch]

I was once on a federal jury, and we voted to convict, even though there were some reasons to doubt. But those reasons to doubt weren't reasonable doubt, and we felt reasonably sure of our verdict. After the trial, I spoke to a long time friend who is a trial attorney, and he said we did the right thing. He said that in every trial, there are always things that don't add up, always things that create justifiable doubt. But the jury's job is not to determine if there is complete absence of doubt; the jury's job is to use its common sense as ordinary, everyday people and decide what it believes probably happened, even in the presence of some doubt, based on all the evidence presented.

 

To put it another way, the key word in "reasonable doubt" is not "doubt." The key word is "reasonable."

 

Not saying that you, in your hypothetical scenario in which you're a juror in the OJ case, would have been wrong to vote not guilty. Just passing that along for whatever it's worth.

 

I've never really liked the "reasonable doubt" standard. It's too vague. Different people have different definitions of reasonable. They'd be better off just putting a number on it, like civil cases do. Civil cases use a "more likely than not" burden of proof (i.e. vote guilty if you're more than 50% sure). Criminal cases would obviously have to use a much higher number than 50%. I'm guessing the reason they don't do that for criminal cases is because it would basically function as a tacit admission that a certain percentage of criminal convictions are of innocent people.

[drivethroo]

I bring up Sasha Mitchell as an example of how the outrage about domestic violence was selective.

 

As was pointed out, Sasha Mitchell was part of a popular TGIF show (ABC's popular Friday night sitcom bloc).  SM was certainly well known enough that his charges were publicized.  Yet, there was pretty much a shrug.  I believe the article I cited said down towards the bottom there was no adverse affect on his career (at the time).  But this was going on at the same time everyone was outraged over OJ's abuse.

 

I'll give you a more recent example of selective outrage over domestic violence: Chris Brown.  People blasted Brown for beating on Rihanna (which they should have) and when Rihanna went back to him they ran to the nearest camera and mic to say how abusers never change, Rihanna should run far away from him, etc.

 

Yet with the girl he dated after Rihanna, nobody ran to the mic to warn her to stay away from Chris Brown.  Nobody was concerned about her welfare. 

 

I'll bring up a more recent example: Dr. Dre.  Dr. Dre gave that female reporter some Beats By Dre in that bathroom back in 1991 and nobody was that outraged at the time.  25 years later when Straight Outta Compton comes to the silver screen, there was a momentary flap about him beating the woman & a couple of ex-girlfriends stated he had beaten them too, and that was about it.  Not too much outrage.  He issued a PR statement and that was it.

 

I bring up all this to say that people may wonder why the jury didn't see that OJ was abusing Nicole & conclude he killed her.  Men barely get reprimanded TODAY for domestic violence.  Nobody was really all that outraged about it back in the 90s, even with the Burning Bed type movies.

 

It's been said Nicole predicted he would kill her and get away with it, and she was correct.  Why is that? Because nobody really gave a crap if OJ beat Nicole, not as long as they got autographs & could pal around with a celebrity.  The Kris Jenner character tells the Robert Kardashian character that OJ killed Nicole & they both knew it.  But didn't Kris Jenner take her kids vacationing with OJ & Nicole just a few months before Nicole was murdered? You know this man has been abusing your best friend but you go on vacation with him? She may have been vacationing with Nicole and not OJ per se but OJ was footing the bill.  This man is a vile abuser but we'll look the other way as long as vacation is paid for?

 

All of this was going on at the time of Burning Bed, Lifetime Movies, etc.

 

Some people felt at the time, and may still feel this way, that if OJ had killed his first wife Marguerite the case never would've gotten this amount of attention.  Nobody would've cared that much.  Ironically I think OJ probably would've gotten convicted had he killed his first wife.  Or maybe not, like Robert Blake, but people wouldn't have been worked up about it like they were worked up by OJ & Nicole.

[BBDi]

The most depressing thing about this episode and the discussions we are having >20 years down the road is that

1. Law enforcement and the justice system still treat people of color unequally

2. Domestic violence still happens, and often is allowed by "the system" to happen

3. Women still take shit at work for not conforming to expectations of how they should look and act

I think arguing about which injustices are worse and who suffers the most obscures the fact that none of this should be part of our everyday world.

[helenamonster]

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?

 

Young 'un here (born in July of '94). This case/story/whatever you want to call it is legend, and I think mostly because of the way it took over the entire media cycle as it occurred. My parents talked to me about this case the way I will one day talk to my children about 9/11, or, hell, the 2016 presidential election. Its effect on popular culture can still be felt to this day. It changed a lot of things and could arguably be labeled the definitive moment of the '90s.

 

Now, I might be an anomaly. I have a somewhat unhealthy obsessions with true crime. I've read a lot about the Manson murders, Columbine, Jonestown, Bundy, etc. But not everyone my age is interested in this story. My best friend from high school and I studied this case quite extensively as part of our senior year sociology class, so we've been texting about it and relating events back to what we learned in class. However, another one of my close friends has absolutely no interest in this show, and scoffed when I told him I watched it because it was a Ryan Murphy show that was sure to be totally mishandled and disgustingly racist. I think the young 'uns with an intense interest in this show came into it, like myself, with relatively extensive background knowledge about the case. However, I can't say it inspires the same reactions among people my age and younger who did not know much, if anything, about it.

 

Stellar performances all around!

Off topic- how many more episodes are there? I would love for this to go on forever but alas....

 

4 more episodes, 10 total.

 

I also thought I'd throw my two cents in regarding Clark's custody problems. My parents divorced when I was 3, and my mother had primary custody. I was with my dad Wednesday nights and every other weekend, and alternated between my parents for the major holidays. I never knew the exact specifics of their custody agreement (as I was 3 there was no need or purpose in explaining it to me), but there were many nights where my mother either had to work late or attend some work-related event (she's in commercial real estate and a lot of her job is taking clients out to dinner and baseball games). She didn't work as many hours as Clark did in this case, but on those nights I would be watched by a sitter, not my father. My parents lived 15-20 minutes away from each other, it would not have been an inconvenience, I was very close with my father and he was not incapable of having me on those nights. But they were very committed to sticking to the custody agreement, and their divorce was, as far as I know, was not in the least bit acrimonious, certainly not to the level Clark's was. So my point here is that, based on my own experience, custody can be very tricky and messing with or changing agreements can be a huge hassle that might otherwise become irreversible. 

 

Regarding this show, I could kind of see Ex #2's point...until he went to the press. He lost all standing with the issue then, imo. That's your personal fucking business, there is no need to air it out in public. That came off as nothing but spiteful and callous. Fuck him.

 

Oh, and it was Ex #1's mother who sold the picture to the tabloids? Fuck her.

[Milburn Stone]

I've never really liked the "reasonable doubt" standard. It's too vague. Different people have different definitions of reasonable. 

 

True, but I think the real problem is that too many jurors just forget to apply the reasonable standard at all, and end up confusing "doubt" with "reasonable doubt," as if they are the same thing--which they're not.

 

The variation in definitions of "reasonable" is supposed to be ironed out by the jury of 12 peers coming to a shared understanding of the concept through their deliberations.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[Umbelina]

The Rodney King jury was not called stupid or incompetent either.

 

In what universe?  I was horrified at that jury, every single person I knew what horrified by that jury decision, news articles were plentiful condemning that decision, shocked newscasters had trouble announcing it. 

 

Also, comparing press on domestic violence that leads to murder is much different that comparing domestic violence that did not.  OF COURSE OJ got more attention!  He murdered, viciously, two people while his children were asleep upstairs.  The trial was televised, and this case was in the public eye for more than a year.  The Bronco chase alone caught people's attention.  Apples and Oranges. 

I know the episode was called "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" and that was the focus, it's interesting that no one has really commented on the scene with Bailey's cross of Fuhrman.  It made me incredibly uncomfortable, even though I know that was the point.  Nathan Lane is a stronger man than I, because I'm not sure I would have it in me to play that.  I don't even like reading the n-word.

 

You think that was shocking?  I watched it live, and was speechless and horrified for days.  I don't think I could even speak, almost not breathe during that.  Nathan Lane was spectacular.  In my memory, that word was said a lot more during the trial than they showed on this episode.  Also, Baily did it for more than one reason, yeah, obviously, to try to inflame the jury, but also to push Fuhrman into auto-denial, he was very confrontational, and Fuhrman's later responses were stronger than the actor showed.  Baily kept it up, rapid fire, and he DID push Fuhman's buttons. 

Actually, I'm surprised so far that Ito--in terms of his in-court behavior--hasn't looked that much like a buffoon. At least to me.

 

We've heard the characters reference their disrespect for him. But as far as how he's conducting the trial itself, I'm puzzled by these references, because he seems basically OK on that score. I'm not talking about his non-trial behavior in his chambers and/or office, with his absurd pride in the Arsenio Hall photo and all that. That's definitely buffoonish. But so far, in court, it doesn't look to me like he's showing any bias, or losing control. He may be irritated with Clark, but he does grant her a recess.

The show can't possibly cover all of Ito's idiocy and mistakes.  Books document it very well.  He was a joke, and not just for this:

 

 

 

Sterling Brown is also killing it.  I loved that he was the only one to help Marcia and try to make her feel better.  I'm again wondering how much is real and how much elaborated, but I think he was the only one who understood being marginalized and judged and had empathy for her.  Although the worse is obviously still to come, at least they could lean on each other.

I think the show is really capturing their relationship.  I read both of their books, and watched the shows of support for one another during the trial, subtle, but clear.

 

This episode is a great reminder of why live television cameras should not be a courtroom.  It turns what is supposed to be a dignified trial into an episode of Judge Judy and worse.  People watch the show and expect to be "entertained" either by what they think is a script or by "reality stars" acting up for the camera.  Had the TV cameras not been in the courtroom, there wouldn't have been nearly as much need/consideration for Marcia Clark to have a "media consultant" and worry as much about her appearance.  She probably still would have had some consideration, because she would still want to look good for the jurors, but not as much would have played out in the tabloids, on tabloid TV, and other media outlets. 

 

I know they condensed F. Lee Bailey's cross of Furhman, but I wonder how much his questions about using the N word were just so out of the blue.  Yes, we all knew something was coming, but the way he asked the questions, no foundation, no apparent relevance (such as someone claiming Furman said that to OJ), it appears quite obvious that the questions were solely intended to prejudice Furman/prosecution and inflame the jury and that's against the Evidence Rules completely, and is exactly what Darden was saying in his motion to suppress.  If the evidence is more prejudicial than probative/relevant, the evidence is supposed to be suppressed.  I get the defense wanted to discredit Furman, but there had to be other ways to do that than just asking "did you ever use the N word?".  That's like asking him if he ever called a woman a 'bitch'.  It has nothing to do with the trial, its just meant to be mean.  I just think that Darden should have been allowed to object again to the question, before its answer (even though the mere fact of asking the question puts it in the jurors minds, no matter the answer, just as Flea said, its a win-win for the defense).  Its another example of how incompetent Ito was in handling this trial.  He should never have allowed that word to be used or asked about without some foundation for its relevance in the case.

 

Do you remember that other episode when Darden tried to get Ito to bar that word?  Obviously Ito allowed it.  Darden had already argued the point out of the site of the jury.  He lost.

I totally agree that televising this trial was a terrible mistake.  I was glad they did at the time, and who knows?  Maybe it's good because it IS still so relevant today, when we are sadly still facing racial and police issues.  This particular case didn't have one damn thing to do with that as far as  OJ was concerned, but the taint of other actions against other African Americans certainly did.  The police kissed OJ's ass through, what did they say, 92 different domestic violence incidents, kissed his ass during the Bronco chase, when any other criminal, white or black, would have, at the very least had their tires shot out, kissed his ass because he was famous and nice. 

They fucking shut down an LA freeway for him!  Unbelievable.

 

Oh, I also wanted to say I had such a mini crush on the real Darden during the trial.  I think Sterling K is doing a fantastic job of capturing his voice, his gentleness, his barely concealed rage at times.  After I read his book I liked him even more.

Edited March 10, 2016 by Umbelina

[meep.meep]

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?

 

Is this some form of humor that I'm too old to understand?

 

We're watching a dramatization of the Brown-Goldman murder twenty years later, because it was the famous Hollywood crime.  This crime is so different because the defendant was so rich and so famous.  This crime is different because the defendant used his wealth to buy himself a not guilty verdict by bringing in every high powered attorney he could get.  This crime is different because the judge decided to let the trial be televised so that every single person in America could watch it week after week.

 

And if you cannot understand how famous OJ Simpson was, you will never understand why this was such an important case.   Imagine that Tom Brady murdered his wife.  Imagine that Michael Jordan murdered his wife.  OJ Simpson was more famous and more beloved than either of them. 

[itainttippithebird]

 

Dr. Dre gave that female reporter some Beats By Dre in that bathroom back in 1991

 

Welp, that's an incredibly flippant way to refer to a woman's brutal attack in the midst of all of this discussion of domestic violence.

[rho]

But this seems like a false comparison. Was Sasha Mitchell a very well know actor? I have no idea who he is. Of course, that shouldn't matter but people care more about a famous person perpetrating crimes than the random person who lives down the street.

I think part of the outrage was that people loved OJ. They felt fooled by him and taken in by his 'nice guy' persona. I think if Jimmy Fallon (I think he has a 'nice guy' persona) was accused of beating his wife, people would be outraged.

I am certainly not saying race is not a factor here, but I think there is a complex interconnected-ness of race/gender/celebrity/wealth that cannot be reduced to one element.

 

Sasha Mitchell was eventually acquitted of all charges. His wife was a drug addict who endangered their children and all of the abuse allegations stemmed from him trying to keep her away from the kids while she was high. He was written off the show so he could fight the charges and was eventually granted full custody of their four children. The wife gets very limited visitation rights, something like 4 times per year.

 

I don't think it's fair to compare the two cases. For one, Sasha Mitchell has never been a household name. He was a marginal character on a sitcom at best. But more importantly Nicole isn't here to share her own story. It's a shame that Faye's book paints her as a party girl because that image became her legacy. 

 

I'll reserve my own opinions about Jimmy Fallon, but I think a more apt comparison would be the recent allegations against both Bill Cosby and Stephen Collins. They were the "family men" on tv when I was growing up and both have been accused of sexual assault but only one of them has been charged. LAPD dropped their investigation against Collins despite the fact that they have a confession on tape and he admitted to the crimes in a recent interview. It's not a domestic assault case, but it does show how fame can act as a shield for a long time. I also think it is another example of continued hypocrisy and racism in the LAPD, especially where celebrities are concerned.

Edited March 11, 2016 by rho

[Bama]

 

It's just funny to me that this one case, in particular, brings about such prevailing outrage while similar miscarriages of justice do not generate even a fraction of the sentiment.

Well, if other similar miscarriages of justice were committed by someone as famous and beloved as OJ was and the other similar miscarriages of justice were shown live on every TV station 8 hours a day, followed by 4 hours of primetime coverage every single week day for 18 months then maybe the level of outrage would be comparable.

 

To compare this case to any other case - Robert Blake, Phil Spector, Menedez brothers, chose any case - will always be an apples to refrigerators comparison.

 

There has never be a crime/case/trial like the OJ Simpson one.  And there likely never will be again.

[whiporee]

 

In my memory, that word was said a lot more during the trial than they showed on this episode. Also, Baily did it for more than one reason, yeah, obviously, to try to inflame the jury, but also to push Fuhrman into auto-denial, he was very confrontational, and Fuhrman's later responses were stronger than the actor showed.  Baily kept it up, rapid fire, and he DID push Fuhman's buttons.

 

I think they are saving it for when his tapes came out. I remember that was when Bailey took off on him over and over again -- this one was just setting the stage. 

 

I don't know if they are going to show that or not (I think they have to), but as I remember it, Bailey's assault on Fuhrman didn't occur until the tapes came out. 

 

On the domestic abuse argument, I could be remembering this wrong, too, but I think the point at the time was that introducing it would allow the defense to say -- as crass as this sounds -- that there are millions of reported cases of domestic abuse that do not end up in homicide, and would also open the door to questions about Nicole's past of continuing to go back to him. Kardashian talked about that in one of the previous episodes, that they always kept going back to each other, and that it was mutual. So, and I might remember this wrong, that was the reason it wasn't pressed for harder by the prosecution. But I might be wrong about that.  

Edited March 11, 2016 by whiporee

[Umbelina]

True, but his rapid fire thing did make Furhman continue to say NO.  For example, on the one about "refer to" and "ever in your life use the word" or whatever it was, had it been a slow questioning, Fuhrman might have had time to say, "Well, I used it in a screenplay about crime, fictional."  But Bailey did get his goat, no time, just temper. 

 

Furhman's replies in real life seemed stronger and progressively with temper being forcefully controlled.  I dunno, it felt like two guys squaring off to me, and that is exactly what Bailey wanted.

 

I could be wrong.  Let's go to the video tape!  It's probably out there.  I just posted Rosa Lopez's in the media or real life crime thread.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Umbelina

[Kel Varnsen]

The police kissed OJ's ass through, what did they say, 92 different domestic violence incidents, kissed his ass during the Bronco chase, when any other criminal, white or black, would have, at the very least had their tires shot out, kissed his ass because he was famous and nice. 

They fucking shut down an LA freeway for him!  Unbelievable.

 .

Do cops ever actually try to shoot a cars tires out? You see it on tv but i don't think i have ever heard about it happening in real life. Setting up road blocks is i think what usually happens because from what i understand shooting the tires of a moving car from a moving car is not only incredibly hard but also dangerous.

[Umbelina]

Dangerous for the people in the car, but that freeway was cleared for a long time.

 

I probably got the "shoot out his tires" from the comment on the show from Marcia, but still, we've seen car chases since, and no way to the police stay a respectful distance away.

[rho]

Do cops ever actually try to shoot a cars tires out? You see it on tv but i don't think i have ever heard about it happening in real life. Setting up road blocks is i think what usually happens because from what i understand shooting the tires of a moving car from a moving car is not only incredibly hard but also dangerous.

 

It's pretty rare in real life. Any firearm class will teach not to waste a bullet because they ricochet and/or tear through everything costing unnecessary damage. Even a sniper would have trouble hitting a target moving at that velocity. A spike strip would be a safer bet and more effective but still not foolproof. In most car chases, they usually just follow until the suspect runs out of gas. If AC made it as far as Camp Pendleton, then they might have pulled out the big guns.

[riverheightsnancy]

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.

I am surprised that there wasn't a designer or two that wanted to donate clothes to Marcia. I remember when the first lady wore a certain designer during Obama's inauguration and it blew off the shelves. I would think that a designer would have leapt at the chance to dress someone in clothes that would be seen everyday for months on most networks and publications. You can't buy that type of press. 

[Kromm]

It was kind of weird that people fixated with that on The Dancing Itos but hardly mentioned the weirdness of "sexy Marcia Clark".

[Umbelina]

Because the Dancing Itos was an ongoing gag.  They may have shown up nightly on Jay Leno, but Marcia didn't.

 

I wish I could find the one I remember best, it was all Itos, like a chorus line, actually most were like that, but there was one that even made me laugh, and I found nothing funny about that trial.

[7isBlue]

True, but his rapid fire thing did make Furhman continue to say NO.  For example, on the one about "refer to" and "ever in your life use the word" or whatever it was, had it been a slow questioning, Fuhrman might have had time to say, "Well, I used it in a screenplay about crime, fictional."  But Bailey did get his goat, no time, just temper. 

 

Furhman's replies in real life seemed stronger and progressively with temper being forcefully controlled.  I dunno, it felt like two guys squaring off to me, and that is exactly what Bailey wanted.

 

I could be wrong.  Let's go to the video tape!  It's probably out there.  I just posted Rosa Lopez's in the media or real life crime thread.

They haven't come to Bailey's snarky "marine to marine..." bit, yet, though they alluded to it. I hope they don't condense the testimony too much. I remember that whole exchange as if it were yesterday. It was TRULY shocking to hear him hammer Fuhrman with the N-word.

[ketose]

I remember back when "domestic abuse" was called "wife beating," which is obviously a much smaller subset.

[suomi]

But large enough a subset that "naming" a garment for it was/is acceptable.

[Bryce Lynch]

Actually, I'm surprised so far that Ito--in terms of his in-court behavior--hasn't looked that much like a buffoon. At least to me.

We've heard the characters reference their disrespect for him. But as far as how he's conducting the trial itself, I'm puzzled by these references, because he seems basically OK on that score. I'm not talking about his non-trial behavior in his chambers and/or office, with his absurd pride in the Arsenio Hall photo and all that. That's definitely buffoonish. But so far, in court, it doesn't look to me like he's showing any bias, or losing control. He may be irritated with Clark, but he does grant her a recess.

From what I recall of the trial, Ito was not so much a buffoon as he was pathetically weak. He allowed the lawyers (particularly the defense lawyers) to get away with murder (pun intended) during the trial.

He had no control over his courtroom and allowed the jury to hear testimony and comments by the lawyers that they never should have been allowed to hear.

[Simon Boccanegra]

I don't know if they are going to show that or not (I think they have to), but as I remember it, Bailey's assault on Fuhrman didn't occur until the tapes came out.

 

Bailey's largely ineffective cross-examination of Furhman was his one and only shot. Furhman took the fifth on recall after the McKinny tapes surfaced. So, there isn't going to be any Bailey v. Fuhrman Round Two unless this show goes further into fictionalization than it has to date.  

 

Here's what happened. Bailey, who did have a well-earned reputation as a great cross-examiner (although his greatest successes were many years before the Simpson trial), raised expectations for himself very high by talking to the media about how he could not wait to get at Fuhrman. He was licking his chops for it. He was going to destroy Fuhrman. But when the actual cross took place, Fuhrman came through extremely well. Here's how the New York Times summed it up in March 1995:  

 

For three days, the 61-year-old Mr. Bailey went at Mr. Fuhrman, the detective whom O. J. Simpson's lawyers have accused of planting incriminating evidence. But by the time Mr. Fuhrman stepped down, the consensus was that Mr. Bailey had not produced, that for all of his noises beforehand, the last roar of the lion was really more of a meow. Mr. Bailey was roundly second-guessed. Worse, perhaps, he was pitied.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/03/19/us/a-cross-examination-ends-and-judging-begins-for-simpson-lawyer.html?pagewanted=all

 

Because almost everything in this case seemed to break the defense's way, about five months later, Laura McKinny and her tapes surfaced. McKinny was far from a Simpson sympathizer, but she had a history with Fuhrman, she had something in her possession she felt was relevant, and she came forward through her own lawyer. Bailey and the rest of the defense team had no idea those tapes existed at the time Fuhrman was on the stand, so Bailey was not laying groundwork for their eventual release.

 

Fuhrman had denied using this racial slur in the last ten years, and here now was evidence he had done so as recently as eight years ago. Fuhrman was damaged in the eyes of the jury (more by the tapes than by anything Bailey did), and some people then retrospectively elevated Bailey's cross-examination to effective, or even "brilliant"...which is extremely generous, in my opinion. Bailey had tried and failed to score many other points over three days, and the one he did manage to secure was blind luck. 

Edited March 11, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Athena5217]

I'm confused. If no one knew about Bell's tapes at the time of Furman's initial testimony, then why did Darden ask to bar mention of the "n" word in court? I thought Darden's speech was made because of those tapes?