Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Back on topic!

 

Back to Marcia though, she said she really wasn't a fashion person, she got the original perm so that she didn't have to fuss with her hair.  She trusted the hairdresser because she figured he knew more about fashion and hair than she did.  The actress nailed that, she starts walking in all proud of her new "do" and ends in tears.

 

I also think that she was one of those very busy women, who honestly came to court groomed and wearing (boring, off the rack, perfectly fine) business suits and her wash and wear hair, and it didn't matter one bit.  She'd never lost a murder case.  She was a very competent prosecutor, very experienced.  This trial, with all of the media, and especially when Ito allowed TV cameras, became something else entirely.  The defense team was expensively dressed, and fashionably turned out.  I think Garcetti cared more about the jury reacting to that vs Marcia's, and wanted to try to make sure it didn't impact the jury's thinking.

 

ETA above, when I said "linked in this thread" I thought I was in the real trial thread.  Dang.  Apologies.

 

ETA Thanks aethera for moving those!  The jury abuse and other stuff has now been moved to the real crime thread.

Edited by Umbelina
Link to comment

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.   

 

 

Well, I've never liked Jordana Brewster as an actress; and my post was about how her acting fell flat to me, and her portrayal came off as stilted acting. I've seen the real Denise's testimony, and her grief was real, even though it made me think, how could you defend OJ at all?

 

Marcia is getting empathy here, because of what she had to fight, and her looks were mocked.  But no one is making fun of Sarah, who is playing her; like those here are mocking Jordana, not Denise.

 

And not to stray too off topic, but that's what we, as a society do. Make fun, mock, criticize how people look or dress, etc.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Do attorneys bill by the hour for court time also?

I don't know about criminal defense, but with civil defense, yes you bill every second unless you have a different fee arrangement (like flat fee for example).

Link to comment
Also I didn't realize Cochran had his own history of alleged domestic violence.

​Me, neither.

 

Clark and Darden may have been bunglers inside the courtroom, but at least they weren't complete sleazeballs outside of it.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
This trial, with all of the media, and especially when Ito allowed TV cameras, became something else entirely.  The defense team was expensively dressed, and fashionably turned out.

 

Not completely down the line. The word that became synonymous with Barry Scheck was "rumpled." His hair was messy, and his suits a combination of ill-fitting, inexpensive, and out of style for the mid-1990s. He looked more down-market than Clark. There was some commentary on this at the time, but he wasn't really mocked. It was more as though he were substantive and down to earth in the midst of these slicker, impeccably tailored types.  

  • Love 3
Link to comment

I think the whole n-word thing has been blown out of proportion. Now, im black and ive probably been desensitized to the word because im used to people using it. I personally and not many of my friends use it all expect when we're making fun of someone. But its not a term of endearment we use with each other. But anyway, I think when they (whoever 'they' are), decided to take the actual word out of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Fin I called bullshit. Thats just going too damn far.

I wasnt really surprised to hear Bailey say it. Maybe a little suprised it was said on tv. But given the "motherfucker" we got a couple episodes ago, I guess FX has more leeway than other traditional networks.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

At the opening screen with Marcia's face I got confused and though I was watching "The People vs. Phil Spector."

This episode shows why OJ was found not guilty.

After Det. Vannatter was caught lying on tape about what he did with the shoes, gave reasonable doubt about the rest of the evidence. I bet at that point nine of the jurors zoned out through the rest of the trial. I don't think they gave a shit about the DNA evidence at this point, it didn't matter.

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

Mr. Johnny bringing up Simi Valley and Rodney King on top of what Vannatter did was the perfect setup.

Simi Valley=Ticky Tacky, Little Boxes and They all looked the same. Simi Valley was a QUIET little town.

It amazes me, Not, that people still choose to play the little pity party game for Clark-- even on a show that's bending over backwards to make her sympathetic-- when it is clear she wasn't particularly good at her job when it came to this case. Time and time again she ignored what everyone around her was telling her about things going on with the case because it didn't fit the narrative she was intent in telling. I too remember her trying to get more child support out of her ex to support her tv wardrobe and makeover expenses, she clearly was just a put upon victim, yes, bad things happened to her, but by no means was she the innocent seeker of justice in a cold, cruel, racist and sexist world.

This case was rife with racist and corrupt cops who finally faced a defense team that had the ability to call out their shit. But naturally its all the fault of the stupid, racist, anti-white black jury, even though not all of the jury was black and white jurors said they didn't believe the police because of the clear misconduct and seeming lack of preparedness on the part of the prosecution and that --not the glove thing, not even the N***** thing is what made them know they had to vote not guilty. Simply put, the defense did a better job and that is why Clark and co. lost. Even Clark herself stated that if the trial was held today, she thinks it would result in a hung jury at best, even she doesn't think that a win would have taken place. But let's not deal with these realities when it's easier to spew hatred for Cochran and the black jurors.

  • Love 14
Link to comment

Yes, Clark trying to suck more money out of her soon to be ex-husband to finance a wardrobe did not sit well with me at all.   From the way they are trying to make the audience feel sorry for her, you would think Clark was profiting from this somehow and that she had creative input.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Marcia Clarks biggest mistake was trying a murder case instead of a racially driven clusterfuck. It was a tactical error on her part but to call her incompitant is to blame her for things that were beyond her control. Yes she should have taken Dardens warnings more seriously but she really thought everyone would see past The defenses games instead she got blamed for not being as savy as the defense.

.

  • Love 9
Link to comment

Folks, we're starting to move away from discussion of the episode into discussion of the whole case. I've moved some posts that feel like they belong in the full case discussion thread, as they talk directly about the verdict or other aspects beyond the episode. You can keep chatting about it over there. Thanks!

  • Love 3
Link to comment

This whole forum is getting a little weird.
With all due respect, I’ve decided to stop watching this mini series. I am a little bothered by all the outpourings of indignation as a result of a scripted drama, from people who were too young to remember the actual event. People crying for an episode and saying that Sarah Paulson deserves an Emmy … or criticizing Jordana’s teeth … seems to trivialize the murder. It’s no longer a horrific crime; it’s a television event. And that makes me sad. I hope the Goldmans and Browns are not watching.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

This episode had way too much Marcia in it for me.  Hopefully this next one will get back to the defense team which I find more interesting.

 

Fuhrman on the stand creeped me out, so I look forward to seeing play out.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

The one thing I'm surprised about is the portrayal of F. Lee Bailey. At the time, I remember him being a has been who was once thought brilliant, but had ruined his reputation with alcohol and incompetence, like his defense of Patty Hearst. Here he's shown to have huge input, and almost as influential as Cochran. I wonder if he was as impactful as the show implies.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

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

That was my first instinct, but I suppose it could be argued that it's possible someone could have switched out OJ's shoes with a pair of the same manufacturer/model/color in a size that matched the prints
Link to comment

Bit than the defense could have simple showed that those were not the correct size.

What I'm saying is that by the police taking the shoes home, the defense could argue that it's possible OJ's shoes did NOT match the prints found on the scene, so the police replaced them with new shoes (not OJ's) that now DO match (the purpose of the argument would be to get the evidence thrown out) . The defense would not simply show they weren't the correct size, because I'm sure the shoes were NOT switched out and would have been the correct size. The better option is to get the evidence tossed.

Edited by ByTor
Link to comment

No...what I'm saying is that by the police taking the shoes home, the defense could argue that it's possible OJ's shoes did NOT match the prints found on the scene, so the police replaced them with new shoes (not OJ's) that now DO match.

I understood what you were saying, my point is that if the attempted to use the match with the fake shoes, the defense could easily prove that those shoes were not the correct size so they wouldnt make that argument and the prosecution could easily prove they were the correct size.

Edited by biakbiak
  • Love 1
Link to comment

I understood what you were saying, my point is that if the attempted to use the match with the fake shoes, the defense could easily prove that those shoes were not the correct size so they wouldnt make that argument and the prosecution could easily prove they were the correct size.

I edited my post in the meantime…what I'm saying is that the "switching of the shoes" theory would be a reason to get the evidence bounced.

Link to comment

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.

 

Given the insane amount of press and coverage on this case, helped quite nicely by the famewhoring Ito, this jury had to be sequestered.

 

That said, many of the jurors reporting were anxious, if not down right desperate, to be picked for this case.  They were warned about the length of time for the trial and agreed to be seated.  This was a job and they agreed to it so while I can sympathize with the long (and seemingly unproductive, in some cases) days I absolutely will not say they were abused. 

 

Many of them also tried to work their fifteen minutes afterward so there's that.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

I edited my post in the meantime…what I'm saying is that the "switching of the shoes" theory would be a reason to get the evidence bounced.

But the entire point is the shoes weren't evidence to get bounced, they were never going to be intoduced at trial. The defense just used it as another example of sloppy police work to discredit the LAPD.

Link to comment

But the entire point is the shoes weren't evidence to get bounced, they were never going to be intoduced at trial. The defense just used it as another example of sloppy police work to discredit the LAPD.

The shoes were evidence in a sense, as they were being used for comparison purposes.  I'll drop it, don't want to derail the thread with too much over one point.

 

Moving along...I can't believe I don't recall Ito being this bad, but apparently it's an accurate depiction!

Edited by ByTor
Link to comment

Given the insane amount of press and coverage on this case, helped quite nicely by the famewhoring Ito, this jury had to be sequestered.

 

That said, many of the jurors reporting were anxious, if not down right desperate, to be picked for this case.  They were warned about the length of time for the trial and agreed to be seated.  This was a job and they agreed to it so while I can sympathize with the long (and seemingly unproductive, in some cases) days I absolutely will not say they were abused. 

 

Many of them also tried to work their fifteen minutes afterward so there's that.

 

Were they given a choice?  I didn't watch the trial on television at the time, and I don't remember this being in the miniseries.  I was on a jury panel for a trial that was expected to last quite a while, and I remember planning out my whole argument as to why it would cause undue hardship for me to serve for that long -- you can't just opt out of jury service.  But the judge on that case was very nice, and dismissed anyone who said a lengthy trial would be a big problem -- so I know judges sometimes give jurors the option to say no.

 

This whole forum is getting a little weird.

With all due respect, I’ve decided to stop watching this mini series. I am a little bothered by all the outpourings of indignation as a result of a scripted drama, from people who were too young to remember the actual event. People crying for an episode and saying that Sarah Paulson deserves an Emmy … or criticizing Jordana’s teeth … seems to trivialize the murder. It’s no longer a horrific crime; it’s a television event. And that makes me sad. I hope the Goldmans and Browns are not watching.

In all fairness: It's been a television event since June 17th, 1994.  That's what the whole show is about.

  • Love 8
Link to comment

Were they given a choice?  I didn't watch the trial on television at the time, and I don't remember this being in the miniseries.  I was on a jury panel for a trial that was expected to last quite a while, and I remember planning out my whole argument as to why it would cause undue hardship for me to serve for that long -- you can't just opt out of jury service.  But the judge on that case was very nice, and dismissed anyone who said a lengthy trial would be a big problem -- so I know judges sometimes give jurors the option to say no.

 

In all fairness: It's been a television event since June 17th, 1994.  That's what the whole show is about.

 

YES.  This case has been an "event" since it happened, thanks to the notoriety of the defendant, the gruesome nature of the crimes and the circus the criminal trial was allowed to become. 

 

When the jury was being selected, the jurors should have had the ability/option to tell the judge that sitting for such an (expectedly) extended trial would have posed a hardship (i.e., they would lose their job; their job wouldn't pay for them to be gone for so long; they had a health condition that would prevent them from serving, etc.)  From what I've read and heard about this case, many jurors were actually thrilled to be considered to sit on this trial so they weren't lacking for potential jurors.  Of course these were probably also people who had zero idea what being a juror on a case like this would truly be like.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

Yeah, and sorry, I can't give a link, but one reporter or family member talked about the last woman being called exulted in some way, then ran and skipped down to be questioned.  The phrase I remember is "It was like watching a contestant being picked on The Price Is Right TV show."

 

It's odd though.  Sequestering the jury made sense, but I do wonder if, since they got 5 hour family visitation each week, what's the point?  Yes, you are told not to talk about the case, but really?  We know they did, or most of them did, and frankly, near the end, the judge couldn't really care, he was down to 6 alternates and the prosecution hadn't even rested, let alone the defense begin. 

 

It might have been better to not bother with sequestering them, at least from a prosecution stand point.  Yes, given their racial make up, many would be pressured into voting exactly as they ended up voting, and I honestly believe it would be impossible for them to not learn about things never introduced into the trial, but a few would have also seen that just because the majority were not going to convict him, that didn't mean, as it could SEEM to when you are isolated like that, that you are the only one out there who thinks he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  Or not. 

 

In short, I don't think sequestering them changed anything about the outcome.  I see why they did it, but ... 

 

Also, from my personal experience, it sucks enough to be on a 6 week trial, with one of those weeks being deliberation since our jury was, and remained hung, even though every one of us wanted to get out of there, and a couple of people did change their votes, only to have someone on the other side finally be persuaded that they agreed with the other side of the endless debate.  We were usually at 6-6 or 7-5, with a final ending of 6-6...ugh.  Anyway, you get sick of those people, of the trial, of all of it pretty fast.  Yes, the OJ trial was much more exciting than my civil case, but months and months of that, and there were very boring segments of that trial as well, both sides tended to use 6441696775 words when 15691 would do. 

 

At least on my jury, we got to go out to lunch at different restaurants, accompanied by our bailiff to make sure we didn't talk to others.  OJ's jury had to go upstairs to a "food room" that basically had cafeteria food, the same stuff, day after day.  They could eat as much as they wanted to, but they got sick of it fast.  Imagine eating the same stuff day after day, and craving nachos, or your mom's chicken, or some really good Chinese food, the special cinnamon rolls you usually picked up at the neighborhood bakery, or a glass of Merlot, or your favorite beer, etc.?  It's no wonder that the main thing the jurors' families started bringing from home was food items.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

The sequestration did affect the makeup of the jury. Per Toobin:  

 

The purpose of the hardship phase was to determine which jurors had irreconcilable personal conflicts with jury service and which ones would go on to the next round of inquiries. As it turned out, Ito was a soft touch: Anyone who wanted out got out. Of the 219 potential jurors who arrived on the first day, Ito excused 90 solely on the basis of their questionnaires. Most said that their employers would not pay them during long jury service or that their personal situations made such service impossible. [...] The hardship process had acted like a vacuum cleaner for educated, white, and male jurors -- all groups that had showed a predisposition in favor of the prosecution. A little less than one third of the original pool of nine hundred consisted of African-Americans. In the group that remained in the process at the questionnaire stage, their number jumped to about one half. And three quarters of the black prospective jurors were female -- the most pro-Simpson group of all.
Link to comment

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

 

Thanks for posting this. I noticed the same thing, but didn't know how to write it tactfully. 

Edited by SimoneS
  • Love 2
Link to comment

Time has made Marcia Clark, and all she did, much more sympathetic to me. Her tear, wiped away quickly, as her son hugged her - I've done that very thing.

To see her ostracized for her horrible hair (that she was SO PROUD OF, and made me love Darden more for his note to her), her style, her tampon buying...ugh. Ugh ugh ugh. Her struggle is something every woman can relate to. I'm sorry I didn't as a young teen.

 

 

Word. As a 15 year old, I felt the same way. I was all about the defense. As a 35 year old mother of 2 and business owner, I am totally feeling Marcia Clark. I want to jump into the screen and plaster her with alcohol, after giving her a very big hug. 

  • Love 5
Link to comment

This whole show is infuriating.  From watching Marcia Clark insist she's got it in the bag to F. Lee Bailey gleefully announcing he was going to destroy everyone by getting Fuhrman to lie about using the n-word.  I find myself asking if this is what lawyers are really like?  So concerned with whether or not they win that they don't stop to think about whether or not what they're doing is right.  Like did the dicks that defended OJ really think he didn't do it?  You're getting a violent murderer off...no one has any issues with that?  No one feels any remorse for the fact that the man walked free for violently killing two people?  I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.  There's no way in hell I could fight that hard for a man if I had any doubt whatsoever in his innocence.  The Kardashians love to deify Robert because he severed his relationship with OJ after the trial ended and I hate to speak ill of the dead...but no.  He still sat on that defense team and didn't do a thing to stop what was happening.  

 

Although, that guy asking if it was ok to say the n-word on TV made me laugh...mostly because that's EXACTLY what I was asking when it aired.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

YES.  This case has been an "event" since it happened, thanks to the notoriety of the defendant, the gruesome nature of the crimes and the circus the criminal trial was allowed to become. 

 

When the jury was being selected, the jurors should have had the ability/option to tell the judge that sitting for such an (expectedly) extended trial would have posed a hardship (i.e., they would lose their job; their job wouldn't pay for them to be gone for so long; they had a health condition that would prevent them from serving, etc.)  From what I've read and heard about this case, many jurors were actually thrilled to be considered to sit on this trial so they weren't lacking for potential jurors.  Of course these were probably also people who had zero idea what being a juror on a case like this would truly be like.

The hardship/length of trial issue only goes so far, because otherwise, you'd never seat a jury for a long trial.  And some trials do take weeks or months (though there's no way the Simpson trial ever should have--it was a one defendant, two victim case, six weeks, tops, should have been it.  Both the Marathon Bombing trial and the Whitey Bulger case took less time to try.).  The judge is balancing the defendant's right to an unbiased and unresentful jury with the notion that jury service is a responsibility of citizenship.   I can say that I was excited to be seated on a jury, not because the case was super-special, but because not everyone gets to discharge this (in this case) awesome responsibility, and because it's the one part of the system that I'd never gotten to see.  And there is something about actually being on a jury that makes you take it very, very seriously. 

 

It's my memory, too, that the Simpson case was when people started using the "n-word" euphemism. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment

This whole show is infuriating.  From watching Marcia Clark insist she's got it in the bag to F. Lee Bailey gleefully announcing he was going to destroy everyone by getting Fuhrman to lie about using the n-word.  I find myself asking if this is what lawyers are really like?  So concerned with whether or not they win that they don't stop to think about whether or not what they're doing is right.  Like did the dicks that defended OJ really think he didn't do it?  You're getting a violent murderer off...no one has any issues with that?  No one feels any remorse for the fact that the man walked free for violently killing two people?  I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.  There's no way in hell I could fight that hard for a man if I had any doubt whatsoever in his innocence.  The Kardashians love to deify Robert because he severed his relationship with OJ after the trial ended and I hate to speak ill of the dead...but no.  He still sat on that defense team and didn't do a thing to stop what was happening.  

 

Although, that guy asking if it was ok to say the n-word on TV made me laugh...mostly because that's EXACTLY what I was asking when it aired.

 

I guarantee you every one of those attorneys knew Simpson was guilty from get.  Possibly Robert Kardashian didn't; he might have believed in his innocence at first but by the end of the trial, there's no doubt in my mind he knew he was guilty.  Watch him during the reading of the verdict; that is not the face of someone who is relieved and overjoyed their friend has been acquitted.   I can't fault him because, really - - what could he have done?  Short of leaving the defense team, he was in a terrible position, one I would relate to A.C. Cowlings, who I also think knew his friend was guilty.  Both of these men were also friends with Nicole; they both claimed they loved her as a friend.  I cannot imagine how devastating it would be to be stuck in the middle like that.

 

Defense attorneys are a certain breed, especially criminal defense.  An attorney's job is to present the best case possible for their client, regardless of guilt or innocence.  You have to accept that a guilty person may go free because of it but that's part of the job.  I suppose you can also rationalize that by saying that if the prosecution did their job, it wouldn't happen.  I think it's really similar to attorneys who defend insurance companies from making payouts.  It's distasteful to some but it's their job and everyone, no matter who you are, is entitled to adequate legal representation.

 

I don't have issue with any of the defense attorneys representing Simpson.   What left a very bad taste in my mouth was turning the case away from the brutal murder of two innocent people to a debate on the "n" word and exactly how corrupt the LAPD is or was.  The "n" word had no business in this trial.  I hate it, it's a filthy word but it, and race, had nothing to do with why Nicole and Ron were killed.  Mark Fuhrman may have been the biggest racist to ever walk in LA and a shit person but in this case, he did nothing wrong.  In fact, he appeared to follow procedure by the book and did his job.  We could argue that Lange, while not being accused of being a racist, did NOT by taking the shoes home and carrying around a blood sample. 

 

In any event, I also hold Ito responsible for not keeping the defense under control.  He had to have known what a powder keg he was allowing to be lit by tolerating the defense's theatrics and baiting the jury (and the nation) with the "n" word.   Had Mark Fuhrman been the only detective at the scene and if he had a history of framing people, go right ahead.  But there was none of that.  The defense basically threw crap at the wall to see what would stick and with Cochran making sly references to Lange living in Simi Valley, he knew darn well and good the jury would connect the dots to Rodney King - - which again, had nothing to do with Ron and Nicole being murdered. 

  • Love 6
Link to comment

yeah, Ito had no control over that court.

 

Remember in the beginning where  the defense lawyers are talking about disrupting and confusing every single thing the prosecution lawyers said, something like "If they say the sky is blue, we object because clouds may roll in any moment" or whatever it was, or because "the sky is black in Alaska for most of the year, and also, at NIGHT here, and you could ague it's got white dots, because stars look like white dots, or maybe miniature flashlights, and then sometimes the sky is red, for example at sunset, and it's golden at sunrise, so the prosecution is OVERSIMPLIFYING your honor, we OBJECT!"

 

Basically, THAT is why the trial took so very very long.  Ito should have shut that shit down.  Yes, he fined and cited a couple of prosecution witnesses, but he never had control of the courtroom.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

This whole show is infuriating.  From watching Marcia Clark insist she's got it in the bag to F. Lee Bailey gleefully announcing he was going to destroy everyone by getting Fuhrman to lie about using the n-word.  I find myself asking if this is what lawyers are really like?  So concerned with whether or not they win that they don't stop to think about whether or not what they're doing is right.  Like did the dicks that defended OJ really think he didn't do it?  You're getting a violent murderer off...no one has any issues with that?  No one feels any remorse for the fact that the man walked free for violently killing two people?  I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.  There's no way in hell I could fight that hard for a man if I had any doubt whatsoever in his innocence.  The Kardashians love to deify Robert because he severed his relationship with OJ after the trial ended and I hate to speak ill of the dead...but no.  He still sat on that defense team and didn't do a thing to stop what was happening.  

 

Although, that guy asking if it was ok to say the n-word on TV made me laugh...mostly because that's EXACTLY what I was asking when it aired.

Agreeed. Big reasons I am also not a lawyer.

Link to comment

I guarantee you every one of those attorneys knew Simpson was guilty from get.  Possibly Robert Kardashian didn't; he might have believed in his innocence at first but by the end of the trial, there's no doubt in my mind he knew he was guilty.  Watch him during the reading of the verdict; that is not the face of someone who is relieved and overjoyed their friend has been acquitted.   I can't fault him because, really - - what could he have done?  Short of leaving the defense team, he was in a terrible position, one I would relate to A.C. Cowlings, who I also think knew his friend was guilty.  Both of these men were also friends with Nicole; they both claimed they loved her as a friend.  I cannot imagine how devastating it would be to be stuck in the middle like that.

 

I just don't see this as a valid excuse.  The man killed your friend and from the looks of it, not accidentally or without meaning.  What kind of loyalty is there after that?  You loved them both, you knew he was beating her...you sat by and watched.  You were blinded by the glory and the fame.  I have no sympathy for either of them.  That's not just about them.  That goes for Kris Jenner and Faye Resnick.  The saddest part about this whole thing was the amount of people he had taking up for HIM...where were they when she was getting the shit kicked out of her?  

I didn't like the scenes where Faye is recounting how obsessed with each other they were.  It came off to me like she was saying Nicole deserved what happened to her because she went back to him time and time again and wanted him as bad as he wanted her.  If that's what Faye's book suggests then I think I finally understand why it is everyone hates her and thinks she's a famewhore.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

I just don't see this as a valid excuse. The man killed your friend and from the looks of it, not accidentally or without meaning. What kind of loyalty is there after that? You loved them both, you knew he was beating her...you sat by and watched. You were blinded by the glory and the fame. I have no sympathy for either of them. That's not just about them. That goes for Kris Jenner and Faye Resnick. The saddest part about this whole thing was the amount of people he had taking up for HIM...where were they when she was getting the shit kicked out of her?

I didn't like the scenes where Faye is recounting how obsessed with each other they were. It came off to me like she was saying Nicole deserved what happened to her because she went back to him time and time again and wanted him as bad as he wanted her. If that's what Faye's book suggests then I think I finally understand why it is everyone hates her and thinks she's a famewhore.

I think RK honestly thought OJ was innocent at first. And if he thought his friend was innocent why wouldn't he stand by him? As for him starting to suspect otherwise...he had already been named as one of Oj's lawyers. Aren't there rules about how and when a lawyer can step down?

  • Love 3
Link to comment

yeah, Ito had no control over that court.

 

Remember in the beginning where  the defense lawyers are talking about disrupting and confusing every single thing the prosecution lawyers said, something like "If they say the sky is blue, we object because clouds may roll in any moment" or whatever it was, or because "the sky is black in Alaska for most of the year, and also, at NIGHT here, and you could ague it's got white dots, because stars look like white dots, or maybe miniature flashlights, and then sometimes the sky is red, for example at sunset, and it's golden at sunrise, so the prosecution is OVERSIMPLIFYING your honor, we OBJECT!"

 

Basically, THAT is why the trial took so very very long.  Ito should have shut that shit down.  Yes, he fined and cited a couple of prosecution witnesses, but he never had control of the courtroom.

 

The defense was sly with these maneuvers because they destroyed the prosecution's momentum and got under their skin. It's a tried and true trick.

 

Irving Kanarek was infamous for this - - taking a trial that should last a week and stretching it out for months, to wear down everyone concerned.  The Manson trial was so lengthy in part because Kanarek was involved. 

 

Ito clearly favored the defense, regardless of what he may have said or sworn to uphold.  He made comments about number 32 (Simpson's pro jersey number.)  He addressed them formally (Mr. Cochran, Mr. Shapiro, etc.) and addressed the prosecution casually (Marcia, Chris.)  He prevented the prosecution from wearing angel pins that at least Nicole's family was wearing in memory of her - - these were basic angel pins with no names or anything else, small and relatively discreet, but he allowed the defense to come to court all wearing matching African print ties.  Don't think a jury doesn't pick up on things like that. 

I think RK honestly thought OJ was innocent at first. And if he thought his friend was innocent why wouldn't he stand by him? As for him starting to suspect otherwise...he had already been named as one of Oj's lawyers. Aren't there rules about how and when a lawyer can step down?

 

Kardashian was basically one of Simpson's attorneys in name only, to keep him in the loop and everything that may have transpired between them confidential.

 

He could have left the "Dream Team" with Simpson's permission - - he would need to file a form with the court and he would be relieved of any duties, but he would still be prevented from discussing anything that he was privy to as Simpson's attorney.   (Had he done this it would have been clear as day for most that he no longer believed in Simpson.)

  • Love 3
Link to comment

Yeah, Kardasian was pretty much trapped.

 

At first, he couldn't conceive that his friend did it.

Then, other lawyers knew they had to put Kardasian on the team so he couldn't testify about anything OJ said or did.  So he renewed his license.

Then, apparently that whole threatening thing with the other lawyer did happen, the evidence was coming in, Kardashian, I really think, knew there was no way OJ didn't do it, so he did participate in that book after the fact, and cut OJ from his life.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Yeah, Kardasian was pretty much trapped.

At first, he couldn't conceive that his friend did it.

Then, other lawyers knew they had to put Kardasian on the team so he couldn't testify about anything OJ said or did. So he renewed his license.

Then, apparently that whole threatening thing with the other lawyer did happen, the evidence was coming in, Kardashian, I really think, knew there was no way OJ didn't do it, so he did participate in that book after the fact, and cut OJ from his life.

I also have my suspicion that RK's acknowledgment came in n phases. At first he likely believed OJ had nothing to do with it at all, then maybe that he knew something but wasn't there and wasn't involved, then maybe that he was involved somehow but didn't kill Nicole, then maybe he did it but it was an accident, then he did it but he was so high he didn't know what he was doing, then oh shit my BFF is a psychopath. By the end of the trial it seems pretty clear he believed OJ to be guilty, but how long it took him to get there is probably still fuzzy even for him.
  • Love 2
Link to comment

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?

  

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

He definitely was famous - had a movie career and did commercials as well as being a football player. I am not, and never have been, an American football fan and could not name today even one current player in the NFL, but I knew exactly who he was, even if I was hazy on his sports history beyond the fact that he was apparently some great player.

Pre-Internet, this crime was the television equivalent of going viral. (Remember, there were also fewer tv channels then). It started with the Bronco chase, as I recall - I remember being glued to the TV set watching that slow speed chase with incredible fascination. Even the voiceover news commentators kept repeating "can you believe we're sitting here staring at this Bronco for so long"? After that, the trial was always on - always something interesting to watch - it really was the 90's Twiiter.

  • Love 3
Link to comment

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

I met Vannatta the following summer. He was friends with a man in a small town here in Indiana. He came and spoke at the park to a fairly small but fascinated (by the trial) group. My daughter and I (fascinated) went. He just spoke casually, answered questions and we ate a supper from KFC and had a great time. I can't remember too much except he was an older cop who happened to be involved in this case very close to his retirement. His only really negative comments were about OJ. He saw it as a circus, but just a much, much bigger circus than some other cases. I'd say he was fairly burnt out at the time this case started. His world view was more conservative than mine, but he seemed a pretty good guy, really. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Pre-Internet, this crime was the television equivalent of going viral.

 

Oh yeah. Just before here, this was where my life kicked in. I was studying abroad in London (undergrad) for the Bronco chase, etc., and my friend *emailed* me about it. I could only check my email once a day. When I got back, I only paid mild attention to the case because I had limited access to tv. Once 1995 rolled around, I was tuning into CNN everyday and we listened to the radio in the lab we were working. 

 

Being a guy and in his early 20s, I completely missed the crushing sexism of Clark. The whole "Marcia Clark, I think" was crushing in this episode, and may have been the best scene of the series for me. I didn't even know anything about the beach pics until this episode.

 

I vividly recall Fuhrman on the stand.

Fuhrman on the stand creeped me out, so I look forward to seeing play out.

 

Yeah, the tv Fuhrman was much more personable and professional than the real life one. He was not good on the stand at all. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Oh yeah. Just before here, this was where my life kicked in. I was studying abroad in London (undergrad) for the Bronco chase, etc., and my friend *emailed* me about it. I could only check my email once a day. When I got back, I only paid mild attention to the case because I had limited access to tv. Once 1995 rolled around, I was tuning into CNN everyday and we listened to the radio in the lab we were working.

Being a guy and in his early 20s, I completely missed the crushing sexism of Clark. The whole "Marcia Clark, I think" was crushing in this episode, and may have been the best scene of the series for me. I didn't even know anything about the beach pics until this episode.

I vividly recall Fuhrman on the stand.

Yeah, the tv Fuhrman was much more personable and professional than the real life one. He was not good on the stand at all.

Yeah, I kind of like that they included Darren's concerns with Furhman's affect, even if it's not completely accurate (might be, just not sure). He was very off-putting. He's the same way in interviews too. There's this barely controlled rage right below the surface.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Marcia was on The View and said it wasn't even a new hairstyle. She had it blown out. She also said that the DA did really want her to

Change her clothes and he got some for her or something like that.

I like seeing her now. She looks good. She went through hell. She should join The View full time

  • Love 3
Link to comment

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

 

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

Thank you!!  When this happened, I thought it was me; rewound, rewatched, and thought "what am I not understanding about Marcia's bad memory?" And asked myself a similar question about what prosecutors said that opened the door to what Bailey was saying.  Rewound, rewatched yet again, and... nothing.  I hate when producers do this - do they get some kind of kick out of making their viewers feel stupid?

 

Simi Valley meant nothing to me either.  Maybe I'm dense (see above!), and I am familiar with the Rodney King situation, but the first episode was several weeks ago, and someone living in Simi Valley just didn't set off any alarm bells for me, nor would I have assumed that the cops in that town had anything to do with the cop on the stand.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Simi Valley meant nothing to me either.  Maybe I'm dense (see above!), and I am familiar with the Rodney King situation, but the first episode was several weeks ago, and someone living in Simi Valley just didn't set off any alarm bells for me, nor would I have assumed that the cops in that town had anything to do with the cop on the stand.

The cops in the Rodney King case were LAPD but the jury that acquitted them were Simi Valley residents.  That jury was pulled from Det. Vannader's neighbors, the parents of his kid's friends, etc and Cochran wanted OJ's jury to equate Vannader with Rodney King's jury.

 

Slightly OT: It also happens to be where the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library (opened in 1991) is located celebrating the life of the man who popularized the term "welfare queen" and kicked off his 1980 Presidential (General Election) Campaign in the very same tiny Mississippi town where where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 60s. 

  • Love 8
Link to comment

Did anyone notice when Marcia walked through the halls of the courthouse with her new hairstyle that Darden was having a debate with a reported and Dominic Dunne, and when she got in the court room Darden was sitting at the prosecution table?  She went directly in.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

When that awful checkout guy made the joke about the tampons, I loudly said to the TV "May I speak with your manager, please?" because that's exactly what I would have said in that situation. Get the jerk fired.

ITA with everyone who says Sarah Paulson deserves an Emmy for this episode alone.

Having watched a bunch of the trial IRL, one thing I've noticed is the lack of lawyers on the defense side. Kardashian, IIRC, was sitting by OJ almost every day of the trial, and Carl Douglas was only there during the DNA portion. And it looks like Gerald Uelmen's role has been eliminated and his lines given to other lawyers, probably to keep the proceedings clear to the audience.

One final point: When Fuhrman was asked if he'd planted any evidence and he took the fifth, he HAD to take the Fifth. The Fifth Amendment offers a blanket protection, not a specific one. In other words, once you begin taking the Fifth, you have to take it for EVERYTHING. They could have asked Fuhrman if he'd shot Abraham Lincoln, and he still would have had to take the Fifth.

Edited by Sir RaiderDuck OMS
  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 3/8/2016 at 9:00 PM, ketose said:

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

 

I spent a few moments during the episode thinking "Laugh it up, Johnnie. You're dead now."

 

Ito's circus was a case study in how cameras in the courtroom can thwart justice. People's dislike of the Marcia Clark "character" was entirely because of the daily TV exposure.

I remember how terrible that hair was at the time.  I don't even know how it happened.  If she had even just pinned it back...

I felt bad for her watching it now because I thought maybe she just really liked it.  Her hair looked so much better a few weeks later when it was straightened.  So, so much better.

It is wildly unfair as none of the men were ever judged for their beer guts and balding heads. 

I was watching a documentary on the Susan Smith trial.  The judge was interviewed and said specifically that he refused cameras in the courtroom based on the oj trial.  By contrast the oj trial took 9 months, the Susan Smith trial....17 days.

  • Love 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...