S01.E06: Marcia, Marcia, Marcia

[Simon Boccanegra]

I'm sorry; I conflated Kathleen Bell (the real-estate agent who claimed well before the trial that she had heard Fuhrman make racial slurs) with Laura McKinny (the aspiring screenwriter with the tapes). I'll fix the previous post.  

[smiley13]

They haven't come to Bailey's snarky "marine to marine..." bit, yet, though they alluded to it. I

He already said the "marine to marine" line on the show, does it come up again?

[Bryce Lynch]

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.

I think the trial probably would have turned out differently because back then DNA was this mysterious, confusing thing that jurors didn't really trust or understand. Today it is what jurors trust most.

[Milburn Stone]

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.

 

Yes, yes, I remember that from the trial as well. But what I'm saying is that I'm not seeing that in the show. So far, there's no reason for the audience to believe Ito is incompetent in the courtroom, no matter how much of a starf*cker he seems like out of the courtroom. Yet we are hearing the attorneys refer to him as if he is doing a bad job. That's a mismatch with what we're seeing. Future episodes may make the case, but not so far.

[Hanahope]

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.

 

That's why I'm saying Ito was a bad judge.  He should have taken Darden's motion under advisement and reserved ruling until the point in the trial when the "N" word was going to be used and at that time decided whether there had been any foundation or relevance established that would allow the defense to question Fuhrman about it.  At least how it was shown on the TV, and how it may have been at the time, Bailey's questioning of Furhman, "did you ever use the "N" word?" has no foundation and no relevance to the case. 

 

What should have happened is that right before Clark put Furhman on the stand, she or Darden, should have raised the motion again and reminded Ito that he had reserved judgment on the motion and asked for a ruling.  It should then have preliminarily gone in the prosecution's favor and there would be no questions to Fuhrman about it at that time.  Furhman's testimony about the evidence would have essentially been unopposed since Bailey otherwise did a poor job.

 

Then, when it was the defense's case, you bring up your witnesses, who can testify as to potential bias or whatever of Fuhrman, and then bring up the real estate agent who can testify as to hearing Furhman use 'racial slurs' as evidence of that bias, then out of the jury's presence you ask the judge to revisit the motion saying now you've got your foundation should be able to ask the question about Fuhrman using the "N" word and then based on the evidence presented, Ito can make a complete decision.  If Ito says, yes you can use the word and ask the real estate agent the question, then all the defense has is the agent's testimony that Furhman used the word.  At that point, it doesn't matter if Fuhrman denies it or not, if the agent testifies she heard him use it, Fuhrman is still likely tainted to the black jurors.  But what it doesn't do is necessarily make Fuhrman a liar, a perjurer and thus give the jury the excuse to assume Fuhrman lied about the evidence.  If Furhman is put back on the stand and asked if he ever used the word, he can say, perhaps truthfully, that he didn't recall ever using the word.  Since the jury has already heard evidence that he did use it, it wouldn't do him any good to deny it.  And then the McKinney tapes don't mean shit and never get produced.

 

Thus, Ito's incompetence completely ruined the prosecution's evidence, especially the glove.

[Neurochick]

I'm in this show for Sterling K. Brown.  He's fantastic.  He was in "Supernatural," "Person of Interest" and he was the "perfect husband" in "Army Wives."

 

BTW, can someone tell me what was wrong with Marcia Clark's hair when she got it cut?  As a curly girl, I thought people were being offensive especially since I wear my hair like that now.  She looked a lot better curly than straight IMO.

 

I would have gone to that book signing to meet Chris Darden, in 1996 (I think) but that line was SO long, all my co-workers wanted me to go because they thought he was hot, "and he's around your age," they said.  Darden also prosecuted police officers who were accused of wrong-doing.  What I like about this show is that Darden knew there was just something off about Fuhrman and Clarke unfortunately was racially tone deaf.  I got what Darden was saying, Fuhrman was one of those people who might act polite to black people directly, but turns around and says all kinds of racist shit when you're not around. 

 

I remember them playing those recordings of him saying the "N" word.  I think there were about two or three witnesses who'd heard him say it, all women and all of them were really upset; one said that she was taught that word was evil and ugly and that's what it upset her. 

 

Fuhrman was an idiot to say that word in front of people who weren't wearing white sheets.

 

What they didn't show was Dr. Michael Baden giving testimony at the trial.  I believe he stated that much of the evidence was tainted because people were walking in and out of the crime scene without proper shoe coverings.  The prosecution's case had a lot of holes and all a jury needed was to have doubt, and if you have reasonable doubt (depending on your definition of reasonable), you can't convict.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Neurochick

[Simon Boccanegra]

What they didn't show was Dr. Michael Baden giving testimony at the trial.

 

They haven't shown and cannot show every witness. Dr. Baden at both the criminal and civil trials was not considered especially damaging to Simpson's accusers or helpful to his defense. But he was a defense witness, anyway, and at this point in the show's narrative, the prosecution is still calling witnesses.  

Edited March 11, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[CeeBeeGee]

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.

 

As someone who has stated many times how awful I think this jury was (I repeat four hours to deliberate the evidence of a six-month trial)--I feel just as strongly about the shittiness of the Simi Valley jury. I was outraged when I heard that verdict. Just appalling. All of America could see what they did to King--a man lying helpless on the ground and they just beat the everliving s*** out of him. Again and again and again. I remember hearing a lot of rationalization about how they showed the video too many times, that the jury was numbed to its effect but come on! That should've been an open and shut case. The jury, like the Simpson jury, just did not honor their civic responsibility--and yes, I agree they were racist. On some level they didn't see Rodney King as human, as someone who shouldn't have been treated that way. I was young enough that when the first reports started trickling back to the East Coast about the riots, I remember pumping my fist in support. (I quickly learned better. Of course the riots were also in response to the Latasha Harlins murder, for which the murderer was barely punished--probation, service and a $500 fine.)

 

Same thing with the Trayvon Martin verdict--I followed that case closely and was sickened at the verdict. The jurors who gave interviews afterward sounded stupid as hell, frankly, with these vague explanations for why they sanctioned the murder of an unarmed teenager who was being stalked. As always with these cases, I really wonder if we should do away with the jury system. Too many people just kind of wander into it and either don't really consider the responsibility they've taken on or use it as some kind of platform for their own agenda. (There was a juror on the McMartin preschool sex abuse trial who lied to get seated because apparently they'd been abused as a child and really wanted to be on the jury--s/he had decided already that the defendants had to be guilty.)

[Princess Sparkle]

Poor Marcia. Geez, she really went through the ringer. I was 13 or so during the trial so I didn't catch any of the sexism then but wow. And Sarah Paulson was perfect.

Did her hairdresser troll her? Or did he really think that giving her the exact same hair two inches shorter was the shit? 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 episode didn't grab me the same way the previous episodes did but it was still really good thanks to Paulson's acting.

Oh man, that was the part that made me burst into tears. Who hasn't walked around thinking they looked AMAZING, only to realize too late that humiliatingly, you're the only one who sees it that way. Her face falling once she realized everyone was making fun of her was so heartbreaking. I'd never really warmed to Sarah Paulson on American Horror Story, but she's been great in this series, and by the time she was tearfully saying "This isn't me; I don't do this", I was ready to hand her the Emmy myself.

I have to say, even though Travolta is playing Shapiro as a bit of a caricature, I am loving every second of it. His thumbs up while Marcia walked in with her new haircut was hilarious. I do agree with whomever up thread noted that his voice sounds like the one he used in Face-Off when he was Nicolas Cage.

[Bryce Lynch]

As someone who has stated many times how awful I think this jury was (I repeat four hours to deliberate the evidence of a six-month trial)--I feel just as strongly about the shittiness of the Simi Valley jury. I was outraged when I heard that verdict. Just appalling. All of America could see what they did to King--a man lying helpless on the ground and they just beat the everliving s*** out of him. Again and again and again. I remember hearing a lot of rationalization about how they showed the video too many times, that the jury was numbed to its effect but come on! That should've been an open and shut case. The jury, like the Simpson jury, just did not honor their civic responsibility--and yes, I agree they were racist. On some level they didn't see Rodney King as human, as someone who shouldn't have been treated that way. I was young enough that when the first reports started trickling back to the East Coast about the riots, I remember pumping my fist in support. (I quickly learned better. Of course the riots were also in response to the Latasha Harlins murder, for which the murderer was barely punished--probation, service and a $500 fine.)

Same thing with the Trayvon Martin verdict--I followed that case closely and was sickened at the verdict. The jurors who gave interviews afterward sounded stupid as hell, frankly, with these vague explanations for why they sanctioned the murder of an unarmed teenager who was being stalked. As always with these cases, I really wonder if we should do away with the jury system. Too many people just kind of wander into it and either don't really consider the responsibility they've taken on or use it as some kind of platform for their own agenda. (There was a juror on the McMartin preschool sex abuse trial who lied to get seated because apparently they'd been abused as a child and really wanted to be on the jury--s/he had decided already that the defendants had to be guilty.)

I agree on King, mostly. I do get that the jury became desensitized by seeing it over and over again. I also think that slow motion can make insignificant motions look like "resisting". It reminds me how in the NFL almost nothing is a "catch" anymore as the replays show tiny movements of the ball and it is wrongly, IMO, interpreted as the receiver not having control.

Still a horrible verdict. But that jury was criticized more than the OJ jury and IIRC correctly there may have been a week of rioting, looting, arson, assault and murder in response to the verdict.

Totally disagree on the Martin case. I watched the trial closely and there was not a single shred of evidence to dispute Zimmerman's version of events and a great deal of evidence to support it, and his version was a clear justifiable use of force case

I watched the OJ case very closely as I was out of work at the time. While there is no doubt in my mind he did it and I would have voted guilty, I could understand why the jury found him not guilty.

The main reasons were the justifiable distrust of the LAPD, chain of custody issues, Fuhrman's perjury, the newness of DNA evidence, some evidence that strongly suggested the bloody socks and blood on the rear gate might have been planted and the gloves not fitting.

The defense did an amazing job exploiting and exaggerating the importance of all these things and also appealing to the jury for a sort of "make up verdict" on the Rodney King case and to punish the LAPD.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Bryce Lynch

[Milburn Stone]

I watched the OJ case very closely as I was out of work at the time. While there is no doubt in my mind he did it and I would have voted guilty, I could understand why the jury found him not guilty.

The main reasons were the justifiable distrust of the LAPD, chain of custody issues, Fuhrman's perjury, the newness of DNA evidence, some evidence that strongly suggested the bloody socks and blood on the rear gate might have been planted and the gloves not fitting.

The defense did an amazing job exploiting and exaggerating the importance of all these things and also appealing to the jury for a sort of "make up verdict" on the Rodney King case and to punish the LAPD.

 

While the different factors you cite all contributed to the verdict, the one and only factor among the ones you cite that could account for a mere 4-hour deliberation is the "make up verdict" factor, to go tit for tat on the Rodney King verdict. All the others, while still possibly leading to a "not guilty," would have required more than 4 hours to discuss. That one is the sole one that wouldn't have. And so that one was determinative from the beginning. (Meaning, it didn't matter what the prosecution or the defense said during six months of trial. The defense raised lots of valid questions about police procedure, but none of them mattered. Both sides could have cut to the chase by just asking the jury for a verdict on the day it was empaneled.)

Edited March 11, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[kassa]

BTW, can someone tell me what was wrong with Marcia Clark's hair when she got it cut?  As a curly girl, I thought people were being offensive especially since I wear my hair like that now.  She looked a lot better curly than straight IMO.

 

 

I think where the show is kinder to Marcia than real life is that the actress has larger, stronger facial features.  So even the exact same hair cut is not going to be as overpowering as it was to someone with much smaller, finer features.  The actress has better toned wigs/hair color for her skin tone.   Plus, the actress has professional makeup on, even when she's supposed to look haggard.  Clark did not, and over the course of a day in court, lipstick or blush would fade, eye makeup wouldn't, etc.  Maybe in a quick trip to the bathroom she could find a second to give a swipe of lipstick, but I hardly think she ever had time to take it off and apply everything fresh.

 

Meanwhile, of course, the men just looked like regular men.

 

I think the brunt of it is that outside of eyewitness interviews on the evening news, we simply were completely unaccustomed to ever seeing women on television who were not completely packaged for our consumption.  And we pretty much still are.

 

I believe he stated that much of the evidence was tainted because people were walking in and out of the crime scene without proper shoe coverings.

 

 

Corrupted blood evidence does not mutate it into being mistakable for someone else's.  Person A can dump all the DNA from Persons B, C, D and E onto a blood sample and it might make it useless for comparison, but it will never make it look like person F's blood. 

 

I think they ended up claiming that Simpson's actual blood was drawn and used to plant evidence -- if the jury bought that, at least it makes scientific sense.

[Bryce Lynch]

Yes, yes, I remember that from the trial as well. But what I'm saying is that I'm not seeing that in the show. So far, there's no reason for the audience to believe Ito is incompetent in the courtroom, no matter how much of a starf*cker he seems like out of the courtroom. Yet we are hearing the attorneys refer to him as if he is doing a bad job. That's a mismatch with what we're seeing. Future episodes may make the case, but not so far.

It might not have been explicit, but I thought he looked weak and incompetent interrupting the prosecution to put Rosa Freaking Lopez on the stand.

I do agree that his weakness hasn't been shown much. But, I think what he allowed to happen during the defense case was probably far worse and we have not seen that yet.

[Pallas]

I think the brunt of it is that outside of eyewitness interviews on the evening news, we simply were completely unaccustomed to ever seeing women on television who were not completely packaged for our consumption.  And we pretty much still are.

 

 

That's the best analysis of anything, by anyone, that I've read this week. In the heart of primary season.

[BBDi]

While the different factors you cite all contributed to the verdict, the one and only factor among the ones you cite that could account for a mere 4-hour deliberation is the "make up verdict" factor, to go tit for tat on the Rodney King verdict. All the others, while still possibly leading to a "not guilty," would have required more than 4 hours to discuss. That one is the sole one that wouldn't have. And so that one was determinative from the beginning. (Meaning, it didn't matter what the prosecution or the defense said during six months of trial. The defense raised lots of valid questions about police procedure, but none of them mattered. Both sides could have cut to the chase by just asking the jury for a verdict on the day it was empaneled.)

I wouldn't go so far as the tit for tat conclusion.

I think the short deliberation time reflects the jurors' belief that they couldn't trust anything because the couldnt trust everything. I'm sure they were eager to get out of sequestration as well.

The defense was masterful in making small issues look big and big issues look small and the prosecution never found a good way to counter that.

Johnny Cochran also gave the jury some convenient outs to avoid convicting OJ - if the glove doesn't fit, if you can't trust the messenger, etc.

Just my opinion. Strange to think that if the trial was held in Santa Monica it might have taken the jury the same amount of time to convict - though I hope not.

Edited March 11, 2016 by BBDi

[lovinbob]

 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.

The craziest part is that I think the clerk was actually "rooting for her" in some respect. I took it as almost "Give 'em hell!"

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.

I didn't notice that she looked especially thin, but I thought the teeth were the aspect that made her look so much like Denise Brown. Her mouth is/was just like that.

 

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.

Completely agree. There's no comparison between OJ Simpson and Sasha Mitchell, not in 1995 and not now. As for Jimmy, I agree that a spousal abuse accusation against him would be a huge story—and I also think that the general public would be absolutely loathe to believe it.

 

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. 

I read an interview (posted somewhere on this site, I think) where Marcia talked about Gil Garcetti quietly arranging to have high-end suits donated for her. I think they came from some of his political donors.

[DoubleUTeeEff]

I think the trial probably would have turned out differently because back then DNA was this mysterious, confusing thing that jurors didn't really trust or understand. Today it is what jurors trust most.

I heard that the jurors didn't even mention the DNA evidence during deliberations. 

[Daisy head]

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.

It was certainly jarring to hear that word on TV, just like the network exec said "Can they say the N word on TV???". but I just took Lane's performance as a direct reenactment of Bailey's real cross examination.  I guess I can see someone who wasn't familiar with it, like the younger crowd here, being shocked at hearing it for the first time, but having seen Bailey in action 21 years ago, I was expecting it.  It still isn't a nice word to hear, for sure, but the scene was pretty historically accurate. I can remember being startled at the time, hearing Bailey say that word, but I was even kind of expecting that, too, because it had been reported that Furhman was supposedly a racist. Sad, but it is what it is.

As someone else mentioned up thread, Jordana Brewster was the real low point to me & took me out of the moment.  She did a terrible rendition of Denise, IMO, and I had been looking forward to seeing that testimony replayed, as it was SUCH an emotional moment at the time.  I didn't feel her channeling Denise at all. Completely flat. Much worse casting than CGJ, as far as I'm concerned.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Daisy head

[kassa]

She did a terrible rendition of Denise, IMO, and I had been looking forward to seeing that testimony replayed, as it was SUCH an emotional moment at the time.  I didn't feel her channeling Denise at all. Completely flat.

 

 

I don't remember Denise's testimony, but based on the dialogue on the defense team and the shots of the jury looking less than moved, I think it was a directorial decision to paint it as another moment where Marcia thought they were nailing it, and the defense was clearly seeing that the jury did NOT believe Denise.  They thought she was acting.  So choosing to play it "flat" might have been purposeful.

[Milburn Stone]

As someone else mentioned up thread, Jordana Brewster was the real low point to me & took me out of the moment.  She did a terrible rendition of Denise, IMO...

 

It might help to have no idea who Jordana Brewster is. I'm proud to say I have no idea who Jordana Brewster is, and I thought she was uncannily accurate as Denise.

[BW Manilowe]

It might help to have no idea who Jordana Brewster is. I'm proud to say I have no idea who Jordana Brewster is, and I thought she was uncannily accurate as Denise.

Jordana Brewster began her acting career as a teen, with a recurring role in the (now cancelled) daytime drama As the World Turns. Since then, among other things, she was in a number of the Fast and Furious movies & the recent TNT network reboot/revival/whatever you wanna call it of Dallas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordana_Brewster

[Daisy head]

It might help to have no idea who Jordana Brewster is. I'm proud to say I have no idea who Jordana Brewster is, and I thought she was uncannily accurate as Denise.

Funny how people can see the same scene in completely different ways. As far as knowing Jordana Brewster, I actually thought she was pretty good in Dallas, so it had nothing to do with preconceived notions of the actress. 

I don't remember Denise's testimony, but based on the dialogue on the defense team and the shots of the jury looking less than moved, I think it was a directorial decision to paint it as another moment where Marcia thought they were nailing it, and the defense was clearly seeing that the jury did NOT believe Denise.  They thought she was acting.  So choosing to play it "flat" might have been purposeful.

Maybe you are right.  Who knows?  It would be interesting to hear the director address this, if this was indeed the intent.  Clearly the jury wasn't swayed by Denise in real life.

[smiley13]

I think the Denise testimony fell flat because she she knew about the abuse but kept on associating with OJ and so did all of their family.  It seemed that they did not want the money train to go away.

[Umbelina]

I heard that the jurors didn't even mention the DNA evidence during deliberations. 

They didn't really deliberate at all.  DNA?  Out, they say now they understood it, but thought the police tampered with it, but the obviously didn't from other statements they made before they cleaned up their media acts.  ABUSE?  Out.  They said it wasn't a domestic violence case, and were bored and annoyed with that evidence.  They only thing they asked for was the Limo Driver's testimony, and they decided that he wasn't believable.  They voted when they walked in after electing a foreperson in 2 minutes.  10-2.  The two didn't stick or even argue or try to change any minds, and immediately, on the second vote, it was 12-0.  The rest of that 4 hours was filling out the jury slips, etc.

 

I think the Denise testimony fell flat because she she knew about the abuse but kept on associating with OJ and so did all of their family.  It seemed that they did not want the money train to go away.

That's a myth.  She didn't know he was beating her.  She realized it after clearing out her house, and finding her diary there.  She knew he could be an asshole, grabbing her crotch and saying 'this is mine' though.  At least that's what she says.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Umbelina

[smiley13]

 

That's a myth.  She didn't know he was beating her.  She realized it after clearing out her house, and finding her diary there.  She knew he could be an asshole, grabbing her crotch and saying 'this is mine' though.  At least that's what she says.

I have read that Nicole had Denise photograph her with bruising, etc, so it appears that yes, Denise did know.  She stated it in her testimony.

 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/browntest.html

Edited March 12, 2016 by smiley13

[Umbelina]

Thanks.  I JUST watched her being interviewed saying that about her sister.  Oh wait, that might have been a different sister, but it was after the trial.  I may look for it later.  I should have known that, I read that testimony!  Sorry, and thanks again.

[smiley13]

Thanks.  I JUST watched her being interviewed saying that about her sister.  Oh wait, that might have been a different sister, but it was after the trial.  I may look for it later.  I should have known that, I read that testimony!  Sorry, and thanks again.

You're welcome, there is so much information out there it is easy to get it confused.

[FozzyBear]

One thing that strikes me about this is what a difference a generation makes. I'm in the middle to younger end of Gen X and I literally can't imagine any of my female friends thinking their appearance won't impact their professional life. Should it? No. Will it? Hell yes! We all came of age during this stuff and we learned a shitty, unfair lesson about PR, especially for women. I feel like there was a particular type of professional baby boomer woman (of which Clarke seems to be) that thought paying to much attention to appearances would make her seem silly and girly...and that woman was killed in the press. I've seen other posters bring up Clinton and I think that's a fair comparison. Skip ahead a generation and I can't imagine any professional female getting to a position as competitive as DA in Los Angeles without thinking her appearance would criticized. If the OJ trial were to happen today the DAs office would have been working with a PR team from day 1 and how the prosecution team looked on camera would have come up before they ever saw a courtroom.

[Daisy head]

I need a gif of Travolta/Shapiro's "thumbs up" in my life

[helenamonster]

One thing that strikes me about this is what a difference a generation makes. I'm in the middle to younger end of Gen X and I literally can't imagine any of my female friends thinking their appearance won't impact their professional life. Should it? No. Will it? Hell yes! We all came of age during this stuff and we learned a shitty, unfair lesson about PR, especially for women. I feel like there was a particular type of professional baby boomer woman (of which Clarke seems to be) that thought paying to much attention to appearances would make her seem silly and girly...and that woman was killed in the press. I've seen other posters bring up Clinton and I think that's a fair comparison. Skip ahead a generation and I can't imagine any professional female getting to a position as competitive as DA in Los Angeles without thinking her appearance would criticized. If the OJ trial were to happen today the DAs office would have been working with a PR team from day 1 and how the prosecution team looked on camera would have come up before they ever saw a courtroom.

 

This is a very interesting and most likely correct analysis. I think of one of the final episodes of Mad Men where Peggy makes a comment to Joan that people would take her more seriously if she didn't dress as she did, especially considering how she already looks (very attractive woman with curves and large breasts). Obviously Peggy and Joan are of an earlier generation than Clark, but I can see where that line of thinking would come from for her. I'd never thought to look at it that way with regards to Clark but it makes absolute total sense. And yes, you're right...I wouldn't dream of going to a job interview or anywhere where my professionalism was up for judgment without my hair, makeup, and clothing being absolutely pristine and flattering.

 

Regarding the n-word...maybe this is a generational thing, but I was not shocked to hear Lane/Bailey say it. Maybe I watch too much tv. Also, I'm white, but a lot of young black people use the n-word quite frequently in casual conversation. My understanding is that the black community has reclaimed the word to take its power away from white people. Go to the Vine channel of any of the more popular black Viners and you won't have trouble hearing them use it. I have a white friend who tries to use it in the same way that our black friends do and they always tell her to stop. Now, if I were to hear a white person in real life use the word in the disparaging, disgustingly racist way that it was once frequently employed by white people, either to a black person's face or behind their backs, I would probably be shocked and hopefully would have the ovaries to reprimand them. And of course I would never use it myself, ever. But as a person living in a racially diverse community with access to racially diverse content on the internet, it doesn't shock me to hear it.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I wasn't shocked to hear the n-word either. And I'm not a young'n. Shows from the 70s and 80s(Hill Street Blues) said it, and Law&Order even had a guest star say it in the seventh or eighth season (1997 or 1998), and it wasn't for shock value, nor egregious. Of course, in syndication, it's bleeped out except on TNT.

I can't say I liked it; it's an ugly, ugly word, but it is part of our history and I think it's a copout when the word is bleeped. And for what it's worth, I'm not white.

[88Keys]

It was nice to see the female attorney get some lines. Her facial expressions are great but she didn't leave Lab Rats just to pull faces.

She didn't really leave Lab Rats- she was always just a recurring. And she got to be in the finale. (Yes, I'm a grown-up Lab Rats fan. Please don't judge). The actress's name is Angel Parker. I've tweeted with her a few times. She's pretty sweet. And we have the exact same birthday, so we're totally connected and all.

Other than that, can't really say anything that hasn't already been said. That hurt to watch. I'm hating Johnnie Cochran more and more, though I will grudgingly admit he represented his client well.

And what the hell was the detective thinking, taking evidence home with him?

[Bryce Lynch]

This is a very interesting and most likely correct analysis. I think of one of the final episodes of Mad Men where Peggy makes a comment to Joan that people would take her more seriously if she didn't dress as she did, especially considering how she already looks (very attractive woman with curves and large breasts). Obviously Peggy and Joan are of an earlier generation than Clark, but I can see where that line of thinking would come from for her. I'd never thought to look at it that way with regards to Clark but it makes absolute total sense. And yes, you're right...I wouldn't dream of going to a job interview or anywhere where my professionalism was up for judgment without my hair, makeup, and clothing being absolutely pristine and flattering.

Regarding the n-word...maybe this is a generational thing, but I was not shocked to hear Lane/Bailey say it. Maybe I watch too much tv. Also, I'm white, but a lot of young black people use the n-word quite frequently in casual conversation. My understanding is that the black community has reclaimed the word to take its power away from white people. Go to the Vine channel of any of the more popular black Viners and you won't have trouble hearing them use it. I have a white friend who tries to use it in the same way that our black friends do and they always tell her to stop. Now, if I were to hear a white person in real life use the word in the disparaging, disgustingly racist way that it was once frequently employed by white people, either to a black person's face or behind their backs, I would probably be shocked and hopefully would have the ovaries to reprimand them. And of course I would never use it myself, ever. But as a person living in a racially diverse community with access to racially diverse content on the internet, it doesn't shock me to hear it.

I was born in the late 60s and grew up in the 70s. When I was growing up it was considered extremely rude (beyond rude actually) for white people to call people the n-word or to refer to them that way. Black people seemed to use it much less frequently as well.

However, it was perfectly acceptable and not shocking at all to SAY the word if you were describing someone else saying it, or when reading it in literature. Nobody ever called it the n-word back then.

It was used by bad, racist characters on TV programs, even family shows like "Little House on the Prarie". It was never condoned, but it wasn't considered a dirty word that could not be spoken on TV.

I don't know when it became the ultimate curse word I would guess it was around the start on the 21st Century that saying "the n-word" became common. I recall the actual word being said on NYPD Blue in the mid 90s.

I can see how it would be jarring to those who grew up with people saying "n-word" rather than the actual word when testifying and such.

[helenamonster]

But that's the thing, I'm a child of the '90s, I grew up around people saying "the n-word" as opposed to the word itself and I am not shocked to hear it, even coming from a white man. It's not the word that shocks me, it's the context. If we're looking at the in-show context, Bailey was using the word to ask Fuhrman if he'd ever said it. He himself was not using it to describe a black person either to their face or behind their back; he was not using it in the grossly racist way that it was originally intended for. Then there's also the layer of this being a tv show that prevents this from shocking me. Bailey's a real person but this depiction is fictionalized and it's not like I can confront the character. Hearing people of any race on tv saying it does not shock me. Hearing black people in real life use it does not shock me. Only a non-black person in real life using the word to be intentionally racist shocks me.

[Umbelina]

She didn't really leave Lab Rats- she was always just a recurring. And she got to be in the finale. (Yes, I'm a grown-up Lab Rats fan. Please don't judge). The actress's name is Angel Parker. I've tweeted with her a few times. She's pretty sweet. And we have the exact same birthday, so we're totally connected and all.

Other than that, can't really say anything that hasn't already been said. That hurt to watch. I'm hating Johnnie Cochran more and more, though I will grudgingly admit he represented his client well.

And what the hell was the detective thinking, taking evidence home with him?

It wasn't really evidence, it was a pair of shoes, probably to compare size, but still, I agree...STUPID.

 

I kind of wonder if the fact that they were first called to come to the scene at 3AM had anything to do with it?  Did anyone catch what time it was when he drove home with the shoes in the car?  Shoes that had nothing to do with the murder, BTW.   It's not an excuse at all, but detouring downtown in rush hour instead of just heading home might have had something to do with it.  I don't even remember if the prosecutors pointed out that the shoes were not evidence?  Or if they were ever introduced as evidence?  Or maybe I have it all wrong, I'm sleepy today.http://www.moldea.com/dismissed.html

 

Oh, and I hate that word, and I hate it no matter who uses it.  The only time it feels OK to me is in some kind of historical novel staying true to the times.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Umbelina

[7isBlue]

He already said the "marine to marine" line on the show, does it come up again?

Really? I watched the episode twice and missed it. Doh!

[rho]

One thing that strikes me about this is what a difference a generation makes. I'm in the middle to younger end of Gen X and I literally can't imagine any of my female friends thinking their appearance won't impact their professional life. Should it? No. Will it? Hell yes! We all came of age during this stuff and we learned a shitty, unfair lesson about PR, especially for women. I feel like there was a particular type of professional baby boomer woman (of which Clarke seems to be) that thought paying to much attention to appearances would make her seem silly and girly...and that woman was killed in the press. I've seen other posters bring up Clinton and I think that's a fair comparison. Skip ahead a generation and I can't imagine any professional female getting to a position as competitive as DA in Los Angeles without thinking her appearance would criticized. If the OJ trial were to happen today the DAs office would have been working with a PR team from day 1 and how the prosecution team looked on camera would have come up before they ever saw a courtroom.

 

Clark comes off really naive in many ways. She has a very idealistic view of the case and her role on the prosecution. I'm not sure if that was how she really felt or if it is being exemplified on the show. But I definitely agree that today there would be a PR specialist involved on both sides of the case. I wonder how the case would have played out had Twitter and Instagram been around. I think a lot of the curveballs the prosecution faced could have been prevented by an intern digging through Facebook. Or if Nicole Brown had 50K followers on Instagram. Would there be a different perception of her or OJ?

 

Total side note regarding Denise, I always thought she looked like an angry Angie Harmon or Courtney Cox but Jordana pulled it off for me in this episode. At least the little we saw of her. I wish we got some more of the non-lawyers outside the courtroom

[Simon Boccanegra]

If every part of this story had been shifted forward a couple of decades, OJ and Nicole might have had a reality-TV show while they were married, like Whitney/Bobby and Jessica/Nick. I can see someone pitching that to OJ. "Your football career is winding down. You have a high 'Q' rating. You obviously like the cameras. You have a young wife who looks like a model, and adorable children. People all over the country could tune in every week and see you two hanging around the mansion, hobnobbing with your A-list friends, going to exclusive clubs and parties...The Juice Box!" 

 

It might help to have no idea who Jordana Brewster is. I'm proud to say I have no idea who Jordana Brewster is, and I thought she was uncannily accurate as Denise.

 

Same here, and you know...I don't want to sound as though I'm up on a high horse and being harsh on anyone personally, but most viewers here seemed to sympathize with what Marcia Clark went through, as presented in this episode, the focus on her appearance. So it might be worth examining responses like "I couldn't even concentrate on anything Jordana Brewster said as Denise Brown because she's so thin and her teeth stick out." Maybe someday you'll be summoned for jury duty and you'll get a female prosecutor who is very thin and has teeth that stick out. Or fat and with a prominent mole. Or any number of things that aren't such easy fixes as Clark's unflattering perm and off-the-rack suits. I know that acting is a more appearance-oriented profession than law, but even so, I don't think we should make someone's work all about that.   

Edited March 12, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[kassa]

I could be wrong, but I think this trial brought us "the n-word" euphemism. It was not a term I ever heard until I was an adult. It would have been referred to as "a racial slur" or something in most newscasts. The OJ trial made it such a topic of conversation that media outlets that prior to this would have allowed it in more lofty analysis pieces were not going to have all the random Toms, Dicks, and Harrys commenting 24 hrs a day on the case dropping it casually.

In the 70s, though, yes, it was used occasionally on regular broadcast television (negatively). I think it was even used in All in the family in that episode where they're robbed (held hostage). (Not by Archie). It would have been used in news stories where someone was provoked by being called that word. It was considered unpleasant but not verboten so long as it was being referred to not used against somebody. But that was a much more rigidly controlled media environment. Once it was 24/7 they needed blanket policies to guard against people going rogue with it, hence calling it "the n word."

Edited March 13, 2016 by kassa

[TattleTeeny]

I heard an old, old episode of Howard Stern yesterday and in it, Robin Quivers was talking about a dinner date with...Christopher Darden! I did not remember this at all; it would be funny if it were mentioned in the show.

[Simon Boccanegra]

I think it was even used in All in the family in that episode where they're robbed (held hostage). (Not by Archie).

 

I remember a Jeffersons in which, I think, George and Florence were taking a CPR class that had some racists in it, and Florence gave a demonstration mannequin mouth to mouth. One of the bad guys was supposed to go next, and he said he had no intention of putting his mouth on a doll that had been kissed by...well, you get it.

 

I hate the euphemism "the n-word," though. Saying that would make me feel six years old. If I don't feel comfortable quoting something accurately (and I really think that straight reportage should be fine, and maybe giving a word the taboo power of a magic spell isn't the way to go), I just say "He used a racial slur" and people will get it.  

[ketose]

I remember a Jeffersons in which, I think, George and Florence were taking a CPR class that had some racists in it, and Florence gave a demonstration mannequin mouth to mouth. One of the bad guys was supposed to go next, and he said he had no intention of putting his mouth on a doll that had been kissed by...well, you get it.

 

I hate the euphemism "the n-word," though. Saying that would make me feel six years old. If I don't feel comfortable quoting something accurately (and I really think that straight reportage should be fine, and maybe giving a word the taboo power of a magic spell isn't the way to go), I just say "He used a racial slur" and people will get it.  

I remember a Jeffersons where George was calling Tom Willis a "honkey" and he said something like "What if I called you a n----r?" because George meant his slur in the same way. Slurs against Whites just never really took off in that fashion, though.

[Milburn Stone]

I hate the euphemism "the n-word," though. Saying that would make me feel six years old.

 

I share your contempt for this childish euphemism which has infected our discourse. And yet...when I'm in a restaurant, say, and a friend says the original word--not because he's being racist, but for valid reasons like he's reporting to me some racist having said it--I cringe and actually become somewhat frightened that other people in the restaurant will hear my friend and fail to realize he's using the word without racist intent. In that situation, I will admire my friend's courage in saying the word while at the same time wishing he hadn't. And yes, I'll look around hoping there are no black people in earshot who may have heard only that word jump out at them from our conversation and understandably misperceived my friend's meaning. (I'm not afraid of their retribution; as a Jew who has experienced anti-Semitism, I can imagine their pain, and am preemptively distressed on their behalf.) I run through, in my head, the tortured explanations I'll have to make, if confronted, to defuse their anger.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[Simon Boccanegra]

I share your contempt for this childish euphemism which has infected our discourse. And yet...when I'm in a restaurant, say, and a friend says the original word--not because he's being racist, but for valid reasons like he's reporting to me some racist having said it--I cringe and actually become somewhat frightened that other people in the restaurant will hear my friend and fail to realize he's using the word without racist intent. In that situation, I will admire my friend's courage in saying the word while at the same time wishing he hadn't. And yes, I'll look around hoping there are no black people in earshot who may have heard only that word jump out at them from our conversation and understandably misperceived my friend's meaning.

 

Exactly. I don't know if you have watched Curb Your Enthusiasm, which specializes in uncomfortable comedy, but that was a plot of an episode. The scene was even in a restaurant (or cafeteria). Larry was retelling an incident he had witnessed, and in fact was doing so in a way that made clear he disapproved (if you were listening to all the words around it, and his tone), but of course an African-American doctor was walking by at just the worst moment. Ruh-roh.   

 

I couldn't believe how disrespectful both sides were concerning the jury's time. Not only the court delays but how the arguments were presented. A simple point that could have been made in two minutes took twenty.

 

Yep. And many of the witnesses stayed on the stand for much longer than they needed to be there, as direct and cross and redirect dragged on. But then Clark and Darden gave very short closing arguments for a case of this complexity, touched lightly on evidentiary points that were very strongly in their favor, and didn't say enough to knock down the conspiracy/contamination arguments. So, as much as I hate to engage in "20-years-later quarterbacking," the time allocation (especially on the People's side) seemed to me to be weirdly out of balance in this case.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Tunia]

I couldn't believe how disrespectful both sides were concerning the jury's time. Not only the court delays but how the arguments were presented. A simple point that could have been made in two minutes took twenty.

 

Do attorneys bill by the hour for court time also?

[smiley13]

Completely agree with this. It was jury abuse. I couldn't believe how disrespectful both sides were concerning the jury's time. Not only the court delays but how the arguments were presented. A simple point that could have been made in two minutes took twenty. I think the jury got in there, took a vote, and didn't have the will to argue about it. Nobody mentioned this at the time. It was all about race and jury nullification.

I have never heard anyone say "jury abuse" before.  Yes, they were sequestered for an extended period of time, but how exactly were they "abused"?

[Chaos Theory]

I have never heard anyone say "jury abuse" before. Yes, they were sequestered for an extended period of time, but how exactly were they "abused"?

It's human nature to want to get back to your family. Sequestering a jury that doesn't need to be sequestered or keeping them sequestered for extended periods of time is considered by some to be abusive. Sequestered juries can't go to work or see their families (even on days where there is no trial so if a trial gets extended for a week to prepare a witness or whatever reason it is not like the jury goes home or back to work). so many will give quick uniformed verdicts just to get back to their lives.

You can make a point that is what happened on this case.

Edited March 12, 2016 by Chaos Theory

[ketose]

The reality is that the defense put in most of the delays as a tactic. Ito also could have curtailed some of the extended arguments as well. My guess is that the city reached a point where continually slapping down the defense would look like rigging the game so that OJ would be convicted.

 

Long trials like this are what puts fear into normal people about serving on juries. Your peers often end up being people who are retired or unemployed and didn't try hard to get out of jury duty.

Edited March 12, 2016 by ketose

[FozzyBear]

I have never heard anyone say "jury abuse" before. Yes, they were sequestered for an extended period of time, but how exactly were they "abused"?

I remember it being a discussion at the time, although I don't think anyone used the term abuse. Still, they were sequestered for a year. People missed out on promotions, income, family events, life in general. I think it had been a long time since a jury had been sequestered that long. I remember it being one of the many stories happening around the trial. People were talking about how the jury was losing their freedom too.

[ketose]

I get the feeling many of the jury weren't doing well after people found out what verdict they gave.