S01.E08: A Jury In Jail

[pookat]

"Whatever that is--" Did none of these morons study biology in high school? I knew what DNA was. I knew about the double helix. Just pay attention and use the brains God gave you as you swore in court you would do--it is really not that difficult to understand.

I remember learning on the news that during jury selection, they asked if jurors had taken a basic biology class. Those who had were dismissed by the defense team, IIRC, so they effectively eliminated anyone with a basic understanding of DNA. Fung's explanation was horrible. I remember wishing that they had brought in an actual teacher, not a forensic scientist to explain that. It is hard to remember that DNA evidence (not knowledge of DNA itself) was still in its infancy then.

Even if the jurors had accepted the validity of DNA evidence, Sheck's whole schtick was that it was planted, so there you go.

What I've found interesting as I watch this show is how obvious it is that OJ is guilty (I thought so back then, too), but how much more I can understand the belief that a racist institution (LAPD) could go to great lengths to cover up their own ineptitude and fake evidence. I think the ability of regular people to record and publicly post bad behavior of officers who once seemed untouchable (and still see them get off) has really changed perceptions.

Edited March 23, 2016 by pookat

[toodywoody]

For these bumbling police that made so many mistakes how could they have been so great at planting all the evidence before they even had his blood sample to smear all over the victims crime scene and his house. Like they could have pulled it off with all the mistakes they made.

Then to have shoe prints from some high dollar shoes that they would have no clue could be traced back to him or that he even was photographed in. Yeah these were the same cops that messed up alot of stuff but they got all three victims blood to Rockingham along with all the other evidence.

I know not everyone got the DNA evidence, but for jurors to just come out and say that they prosecution's case was just a bunch of nothing floors me still. This case had more evidence than cases were people got convicted from circumstancial evidence. How much more evidence did this jury want? He could have stood up and went crazy and killed someone else and said he did it, had his fingerprints, videos and witnesses and he still would not have gotten convicted. The jury didn't care because it was OJ, because of Fuhrman, because it wasn't about domestic violence, because they were tired, because they didn't get it, because one said this or that. Seems they all had lame excuses for their decision. They just wanted to get home and the 2 that were for guilty decided it wasn't even worth the waste of breath and wasn't worth the other jurors making them feel bad like they did the young girl, so they just decided fuck it.

It just amazes me that they couldn't and wouldn't think of Ron and Nicole's families and how if it had been their loved ones they would have wanted a jury to give a fuck about the victims of this crime that had all this evidence pointing to one person and one person only. If his best friend could see it, why couldn't they?

[WordFreak]

Damn this show is good. I'm sorry that there are only two episodes left. Add me to the list of posters who thought the use of music in this episode was brilliant. I actually chuckled when Another One Bites the Dust came on, and thought to myself, "well played show." Fight the Power was the perfect choice for the jury revolt also.

 

Watching RK come to terms with OJ's guilt was powerful. I've always been haunted by his expression when the verdict was read, because you could clearly see his realization that OJ had gotten away with murder, and he had played a small part in that. It makes me wonder what impact that knowledge had on RK in the time after the trial, and it's a shame he's no longer around so that we might learn about that. I had trouble with Schwimmer in this role at the beginning of this show, but I've come to appreciate his performance. I thought he really nailed it last night.

 

 

[CeeBeeGee]

I remember learning on the news that during jury selection, they asked if jurors had taken a basic biology class. Those who had were dismissed by the defense team, IIRC, so they effectively eliminated anyone with a basic understanding of DNA. Fung's explanation was horrible. I remember wishing that they had brought in an actual teacher, not a forensic scientist to explain that. It is hard to remember that DNA evidence (not knowledge of DNA itself) was still in its infancy then.

Even if the jurors had accepted the validity of DNA evidence, Sheck's whole schtick was that it was planted, so there you go.

 

Seriously?! Oh my God, That definitely explains a lot. I had no idea.

 

Yes, Fung's explanation was pretty bad but if they really didn't know the first thing about DNA--still though, Marcia explained it pretty well, I thought. Doesn't matter thought 'cause everything was planted, amirite?! 

[Crs97]

I completely thought that one juror faked her "attack" because she had already tried to get off of the jury and Ito told her she had to stay.  It seemed completely contrived.  I did laugh at her comment about black people and Ross though because they had Johnnie in the background nodding his head like "She's right."

 

 

I think this has already been mentioned, but they actually conflated two instances because her breakdown happened the day after she was dismissed.

 

There was nothing wrong with Bailey pointing out that in the eyes of the law, the juror was not raped.  He was correct.  I am not sure why annoying Marcia had to be a witch about it.

 

 

His remark was tone-deaf, but I thought he was commenting on Marcia's argument that the juror be removed because she lied on her juror questionnaire.  His point, as I took it, was that she didn't technically lie because she wasn't the victim of a crime in the eyes of the law in 1988.  Bailey strikes me as the guy who always has to think he is the smartest person in the room, and I took his remark as, "I know the history of California law better than you."

 

I rewound that micro-scene three or four times.  Clark looking at Cochran for affirmation of the juror's statement regarding Target Vs. Ross...and Cochran giving the oh-so-subtle nod and eyebrow raise.  It was a beautiful small moment in a show full of them.

 

 

 

My favorite moment of the night, even considering DS's amazing job as RK (but I always thought DS was the strongest by far on Friends).

 

I can't believe after everything that happened, Marcia didn't continue getting rid of jurors and pushing for a mistrial.  She knew the prosecution was tanking.  Once again the dream team was two steps ahead of her.

 

Regarding the jury, I would have been angry, too, if the deputies spoke to me the way they showed on television.  In the opening scene, was the deputy not going to let them eat because they were five minutes late to dinner?!?  Did they really all have to agree on one television show?  I cannot imagine one day of someone barking orders at me like I am a naughty five year old, much less eight plus months.

 

I also thought it didn't make sense that they didn't want jurors to talk about the trial, but they let them sit at small tables during meals.  I would think discussions about the trial and alliances were happened under the deputies' noses if the show's depiction is accurate.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Crs97

[Simon Boccanegra]

While I was watching, and immediately afterward, I thought this may have been the best episode of the series so far. It presented with the minimum of dramatic license an interesting and accurate picture of the experience of the Simpson jurors, as well as the gamesmanship of attrition on both sides. The music choices stayed just on the right side of clever, and there was enough of a light touch (Cochran's affirmation of the "Black people prefer Ross" sentiment) to keep it from becoming a dreary slog. The people who played the jurors were up to the generally high standard of acting in this series. They convinced as ordinary, sometimes not terribly bright or sensitive people of that era, yanked out of their environments and just wanting it to be over.  

 

David Schwimmer's portrayal of Kardashian continues to be wonderful, and the kitchen scene between Bob and Kris is one of my favorites in the series so far. Schwimmer and Blair nailed a complex divorced-couple dynamic: bitterness, passive aggression, history, love. Besides a sibling close to your age, no one knows you as well as a long-time romantic partner, especially when it didn't turn out well. Both of you long ago stopped hiding the bad.  

 

The thing about Fung is that I certainly don't think anyone would watch his real-life testimony and think he was part of some conspiracy. He wouldn't be able to do it. He's earnest and just doesn't have any fight in him. It's easy to hammer away at him and get him to say he's not sure about things. He gives out concessions like he's passing around after-dinner mints. But there are people like that and they're not horribly incompetent at their jobs. The prosecution should have better prepared him. (In real life, one of the attorneys on the defense side actually hugged him.) 

 

I'm old-school when it comes to defendants testifying in their own behalf. I subscribe to the old saw that there is no sound louder in the courtroom than the silence of the accused. However, anyone who's seen Simpson's interviews on Up Close and with Greta van Susteren, even long after the trial, can tell why the decision was made to keep him off the stand. He would have been nearly as bad for his own case as Wayne Williams was.  

 

I have not seen much love for Kenneth Choi's Lance Ito, but I'm finding him scary-good. He has the voice and mannerisms down pat. Ito is getting a flattering portrayal, though. It would be possible to be factual and make him look much worse for his handling of the trial. I'm really not getting a hint of his deferential attitude toward Cochran or his apparent disdain for Clark, for example.  

[Ms Blue Jay]

The jurors are the "Nikki and Paulo" of The People Vs OJ Simpson.

 

LOL at this reference.

 

Funnily enough last night I saw the actual show @ACSFX tweet:  "Anyone else changing their view of Judge Ito?"  So I guess they know they are doing a flattering portrayal.

 

I thought Selma Blair was just awful.  

 

I thought that the actor who played the female juror who instigated "Fight the Power" was fantastic.

 

Sterling K. Brown had only a few lines as Christopher Darden this episode, but with his one line to Marcia he broke my heart again any way.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[33kaitykaity]

OJ had plenty of income.  The Browns & Goldmans could not touch his NFL pension and I believe he moved to Florida for money reasons.  He was just a dummy who stole his own stuff and is now in jail because of that.  Should've been like Robert Blake and laid low.

$25K-a-month might seem like a lot to me, but it's a pittance compared to the way he was accustomed to living.  He couldn't have the life he used to have where he was welcome to play a foursome on any golf course he wanted.  I'm sorry, I know I'm trying to psychoanalyze from a distance and wording it poorly.  It might not have bubbled up and been a conscious thought, but it's just what I see when I look at him now.  

[Pepperminty]

Remember, the defense alleged that there was a good amount of OJ's blood missing.  I don't know if the police took samples of his blood, I guess they would've had to in order to do the DNA analysis.

 

I do remember them mentioning the missing blood. But the police didn't take his blood before they showed up and saw the bronco and the scene, right? This is where there's a disconnect for me.

 

What is telling is how there isn't a fourth person's DNA at the murder scene. The killer would have left something! This is what is so damning, IMO, even if you want to assume that the police planted OJ's DNA everywhere, however they managed to do that.

[toodywoody]

So these bumbling police managed to wipe the 4th persons DNA clean from the crime scene at Bundy and remove that persons hairs, fibers and shoe prints from the scene too?

The defense took a shot and most of the jurors bought and ignored common sense.

My notebook wouldn't have been filled with conjugal visits and crap, it would have been filled with how did the cops frame him and remove every shred of evidence of a 4th person there?

[partofme]

I thought Kardashian seemed awfully arrogant to assume his leaving would have any impact on the verdict.  OJ has 10 lawyers, I doubt anyone would notice his absence.  And I don't feel too bad for him because I don't think there's any proof that the real Kardashian actually felt this way.

[Setra]

For these bumbling police that made so many mistakes how could they have been so great at planting all the evidence before they even had his blood sample to smear all over the victims crime scene and his house. Like they could have pulled it off with all the mistakes they made.

Then to have shoe prints from some high dollar shoes that they would have no clue could be traced back to him or that he even was photographed in. Yeah these were the same cops that messed up alot of stuff but they got all three victims blood to Rockingham along with all the other evidence.

I know not everyone got the DNA evidence, but for jurors to just come out and say that they prosecution's case was just a bunch of nothing floors me still. This case had more evidence than cases were people got convicted from circumstancial evidence. How much more evidence did this jury want? He could have stood up and went crazy and killed someone else and said he did it, had his fingerprints, videos and witnesses and he still would not have gotten convicted. The jury didn't care because it was OJ, because of Fuhrman, because it wasn't about domestic violence, because they were tired, because they didn't get it, because one said this or that. Seems they all had lame excuses for their decision. They just wanted to get home and the 2 that were for guilty decided it wasn't even worth the waste of breath and wasn't worth the other jurors making them feel bad like they did the young girl, so they just decided fuck it.

It just amazes me that they couldn't and wouldn't think of Ron and Nicole's families and how if it had been their loved ones they would have wanted a jury to give a fuck about the victims of this crime that had all this evidence pointing to one person and one person only. If his best friend could see it, why couldn't they?

Not to be a hardass, but that has nothing to do with the law. Certainly a juror can experience these emotions, but must not take them into consideration when deciding guilt or innocence.

[benteen]

I agree Ito is getting too flattering a portrayal.  I'm surprised we didn't have a scene on this show when the decision was made to televise the trial, which was a gigantic mistake on his part.  His handling of the trial was awful.

[Dev F]

I agree Ito is getting too flattering a portrayal.  I'm surprised we didn't have a scene on this show when the decision was made to televise the trial, which was a gigantic mistake on his part.  His handling of the trial was awful.

 

I assume they're saving the really ugly Ito stuff for next week, when his wife's undisclosed connection to Mark Fuhrman will likely become a major issue.

[helenamonster]

While in many ways this miniseries is showing me how the defense could have reasonably pulled off an acquittal, I still think their narrative is hard to believe. According to them, the police at the crime scene were so incompetent that they used one of Nicole's own blanket to cover her up, but at the same time they were smart enough to concoct this massive frame-up job? Which one is it? Obviously things worked out in their favor so it doesn't matter now but I still feel like they should have picked one or the other, incompetence or conspiracy.

 

I think the reason Bailey's comment bothered me (and Clark) was because it didn't seem to really address the issue. Yes, there used to be no such thing as "spousal rape," a husband could legally have sex with his wife whether she wanted to or not, but since that now (or by '95) was considered a crime, wouldn't that retroactively make the juror a victim of domestic violence? Slavery and child labor used to be legal too but people don't justify their previous existence because of this (or maybe people do and I'm lucky enough not to ever have to associate with them). Idk, I think the whole "it used to be legal" just seemed like Bailey was missing the point. It still happened and could have potentially influenced her decision.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who struggled to feel sympathy for the jury, I felt like such an asshole at the end of the episode lol. To be fair, we were seeing these people at their worst, after 8 months of being sequestered. I doubt anyone is likable after something like that.

 

Interesting how jurors who'd taken even a basic biology class were dismissed early by the defense, that puts things regarding the acceptance of the DNA evidence into a better perspective. They couldn't get away with that now, though, or they'd have to dismiss everyone who'd completed the 8th grade.

[SFoster21]

I thought Kardashian seemed awfully arrogant to assume his leaving would have any impact on the verdict. OJ has 10 lawyers, I doubt anyone would notice his absence. And I don't feel too bad for him because I don't think there's any proof that the real Kardashian actually felt this way.

He was a source for the Schiller book. His expression at the verdict tells it all. He had nothing to do with Simpson subsequently.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I will say I found myself confounded at the number of jurors dismissed--not why they were, but that they thought their lies wouldn't be found out. First guy? Who kidnapped his wife; the second guy? Fucking MET OJ, but lied about that.  And then neck shakin' woman, who didn't think/believe she was abused/raped, because, you know, "difficulties." 

 

I'm trying to figure out which one it was that showed up on Oprah, post verdict and whose mantra was "where was all da blood?" when Oprah asked why they acquitted.

 

Also, it's weird, but I found last night's episode to be the weakest.  For the reasons I stated in my original post up thread.

 

I remember when Target used to be known as Dart Drug. Back in the 70s. But by the 80s, it was gone.  I thought Target came about around the late 90s. Like 1998/1999. I really don't recall it being around the time of the murder/criminal trial.

[mojoween]

I turned 22 in '95 but didn't pay attention to the trial except for what might be on a Star magazine headline at the store so it's like this is all new to me. I'm curious for those who watched and know- are the actors playing the jury members accurate in body type, build and general demeanor? Or did they just cast random actors who were the correct racial makeup.

[ByTor]

I remember when Target used to be known as Dart Drug.

Target was formerly Dayton's Department Store. The 1st Target opened in 1962...

https://corporate.target.com/about/history/Target-through-the-years

[laurakaye]

So Fung shook everyone's hand after getting reamed on the stand...I can't find a fact-check that affirms this but it's too bizarre to not be true.  Does anyone have insight as to why Fung did this?  Did he actually shake OJ's hand as well?  Was he just completely shell-shocked?

 

As for the DNA testimony, I don't think the basics of DNA itself is difficult to understand (everyone's blood has an individual blueprint, OJ's blood = 1 in 170 million), but for the frustrated, exhausted jurors whose brains were fried, I can see where they would zone out at the too-technical discussions.  However, knowing Clark hammered it down to a simpler explanation and OJ was still found not guilty is fairly mind-blowing.  Even I (a very non-sciencey type)  can understand the impact of 1 in 170 million.  Holy crap.

[benteen]

So Fung shook everyone's hand after getting reamed on the stand...I can't find a fact-check that affirms this but it's too bizarre to not be true.  Does anyone have insight as to why Fung did this?  Did he actually shake OJ's hand as well?  Was he just completely shell-shocked?

 

As for the DNA testimony, I don't think the basics of DNA itself is difficult to understand (everyone's blood has an individual blueprint, OJ's blood = 1 in 170 million), but for the frustrated, exhausted jurors whose brains were fried, I can see where they would zone out at the too-technical discussions.  However, knowing Clark hammered it down to a simpler explanation and OJ was still found not guilty is fairly mind-blowing.  Even I (a very non-sciencey type)  can understand the impact of 1 in 170 million.  Holy crap.

 

It might have been IGN's website but they showed a picture of Fung shaking the hands of OJ's legal team.

[SFoster21]

I turned 22 in '95 but didn't pay attention to the trial except for what might be on a Star magazine headline at the store so it's like this is all new to me. I'm curious for those who watched and know- are the actors playing the jury members accurate in body type, build and general demeanor? Or did they just cast random actors who were the correct racial makeup.

Yeah. The dignified lady was pretty close to reality. She was voted Foreman. (Her book is Madam Foreman.) The Tracy lady as well. Jeannette Harris was way less matronly; actually, sort of attractive until she spoke. Michael Knox was very attractive, dignified and well spoken. The rest, I couldn't say.

Edited March 23, 2016 by SFoster21

[Simon Boccanegra]

I still think their narrative is hard to believe. According to them, the police at the crime scene were so incompetent that they used one of Nicole's own blanket to cover her up, but at the same time they were smart enough to concoct this massive frame-up job? Which one is it? Obviously things worked out in their favor so it doesn't matter now but I still feel like they should have picked one or the other, incompetence or conspiracy.

 

It was definitely the buckshot approach, and they banked on it all running together into a "problems with the People's case" impression that would play with a sympathetic jury. But yes, it was full of contradictions. At times Cochran suggested the LAPD knowingly framed an innocent man, hinting at other leads the LAPD did not follow up on (drug kingpins); at least one other time, he flat out said the LAPD strongly believed Simpson was guilty and "didn't want to lose," so they falsified evidence against him. So, you know, which was it? They framed an innocent man or they framed a guilty man? Then they tried to have it both ways on a sophisticated conspiracy versus incompetent bunglers.  

 

Also (other topic, not still a response to the poster quoted above), there was so much written about this case in 1994-95 that it's easy to verify details for yourself rather than depending on the fact-check pieces, which sometimes don't give enough detail. Here's the Daily News in April 1995:  

 

After bounding from the stand, the LAPD criminalist shook lead defense attorney Johnnie Cochran's hand. Then he was hugged by Simpson lawyer Robert Shapiro who had apologized in court the day before for making a racially insensitive joke last week to two writers at Fung's expense. In a surreal moment, Simpson stood, flashed his nearly forgotten trademark smile and extended his hand to Fung.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Crs97]

I also found a 1995 article. From that reporter's perspective, Fung shook the prosecution's hands and then Cochran approached him with a hand outstretched. Fung was surprised, but shook it and then the rest of the defense lined up. The reporter said the bailiffs were taken by surprise, as they hadn't allowed OJ to shake hands with anyone else.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1995-04-19/news/9504190183_1_simpson-defense-team-defense-lawyers

[Ms Blue Jay]

Was Fung starstruck and 'honoured' that was part of the Trial of the Century, which is why he shook everyone's hands?

 

The husband raping his wife -- did the wife report it, or did the police charge the husband?  Maybe the wife did not 'feel' she was the victim of a crime.  The most important thing would be her perspective whether she was the victim of a crime or not.  Maybe she didn't knowingly lie.  It's really confusing for the show to say "She was a victim of a crime at the time when this wasn't a crime in law."  How did anyone even know about it?   (Obviously I am as anti-rape as they come and if she was raped, she was raped, by fact.  But this was a VERY confusing plot point.)

 

Seing Asian people speak perfect English in America on a show based in 1995.  If you took any 1990s (or 2000s, probably) American sitcom or movie at face value you would never have known that was the case.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Ms Blue Jay

[iMonrey]

 

I went to high school in the '80s. And I understood what DNA was during the trial, and why it tied OJ so completely to the scene.

 

It's not a case of whether or not you understand how DNA works; it's a case of the defense team tearing apart the testimony about the DNA evidence. Fung was thoroughly discredited and so was most of the evidence collecting done by the LAPD. So there's no reason to believe the DNA evidence proves anything if you don't believe it was properly collected, handled or tested.

[meep.meep]

 

As for the DNA testimony, I don't think the basics of DNA itself is difficult to understand (everyone's blood has an individual blueprint, OJ's blood = 1 in 170 million), but for the frustrated, exhausted jurors whose brains were fried, I can see where they would zone out at the too-technical discussions.  However, knowing Clark hammered it down to a simpler explanation and OJ was still found not guilty is fairly mind-blowing.  Even I (a very non-sciencey type)  can understand the impact of 1 in 170 million.  Holy crap.

 

The part about the DNA evidence in this episode that I found hard to take was the analysis of the blood at Rockingham.  I think that's what they were using the 1 in 170 million odds for.  To find OJ's blood at his own house doesn't seem very strange to me.  To find Ron Goldman's blood there would have been damning.  Someone in their own home is going to get a paper cut or scratch on their foot, and so their own blood will be found in their own home.  So, that's when you start questioning the chain of control over evidence.

 

The stuff with the jury was really interesting.

[Tara Ariano]

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

 

It's Never That Simple On American Crime Story
The case wasn't 'about' just one thing. Is the show so watchable because it understands that?

[BBDi]

He was a source for the Schiller book. His expression at the verdict tells it all. He had nothing to do with Simpson subsequently.

I realize he did have a change of heart over time, but I saw the brief interview he did with Barbara Walter the day of the acquittal and he was all smiles. Maybe it was just the adrenaline or a feeling of relief that the trial was over - but he did express happiness with the verdict.

I believe it was several months or a year after that when he did another, longer interview with BW where he seems to have changed his tune.

[BW Manilowe]

This whole episode was well played out tonight by all involved. Marcia looked hot tonight. (And yes I said that out loud.)

The one thing that made me sick to my stomach was the elimination of the jurors, like they were playing some kind of Milton Bradley board game. Do they really switch out jurors whenever they feel like it in real trials?

I hope they film The Casey Anthony Trial, that ought to be a whoot. And, yes I know a child was murdered but these series really have nothing to to with the victims being murdered, It's all about the silly things that go on behind the scenes that the writers can give us a good laugh at and something serious to ponder over.

Please let's remember there are the real murder and trial and then we have The People vs OJ. They are two different things.

Cheeky. "If the knife has rust you must not bust" I believe OJ made that quote up. So I heard allegedly

Lifetime did a TV movie about the Casey Anthony trial, Prosecuting Casey Anthony, in 2013. Rob Lowe starred as the prosecutor in the case.

[SFoster21]

Lifetime did a TV movie about the Casey Anthony trial, Prosecuting Casey Anthony, in 2013. Rob Lowe starred as the prosecutor in the case.

That movie was not factual; defense counsel wrote a book that is very illuminating.

[BW Manilowe]

That movie was not factual; defense counsel wrote a book that is very illuminating.

That's cool. I was just pointing out the Casey Anthony trial has already been done for TV. And I was going to add, but didn't get back to my post before you replied, that the 2013 movie still wouldn't preclude ACS from doing their own take on the Casey Anthony trial, if they wanted & if the series goes beyond the apparently already planned second season on Hurricane Katrina.

Edited March 23, 2016 by BW Manilowe

[desertflower]

My notebook wouldn't have been filled with conjugal visits and crap, it would have been filled with how did the cops frame him and remove every shred of evidence of a 4th person there?

Yeah, that's the rub right there. I can understand if the jury was swayed by the defense's takedown of the DNA guy, but how did they forget/look past/choose to ignore that there was NO evidence of anyone else there? Blood from Nicole, Ron, and OJ but from no one else?? No hairs, no fibers, no blood, nothing from the "real killer". Crazy.

Not enough Sterling K. Brown in this episode! (Yes, I know he didn't have much to do with this plot but I wanna see more of him anyway. :)

[SFoster21]

I wish they would tell the story, as well. Many aspects are poorly understood by the general public. I'm trained as a lawyer, so I enjoy true crime trials. Rich murderers are very difficult to convict.

[Earmuffs Mom]

Another article with a video embedded from the Barbara Walters interview with Kardashian:

 

http://www.refinery29.com/2016/03/106653/robert-kardashian-oj-simpson-guilty

[SoSueMe]

 

I thought Selma Blair was just awful.  

 

 

 

 

Selma Blair's wig was awful. And yet both of Paulson's seemed very natural. Yeah, sometimes I'm shallow.  

[Emme]

A genius on HitFix's review just pointed this out:

 

Susan Beaubian, the actress who played the jury foreperson, also played the real OJ's wife in The Naked Gun movie. Stunt casting!

Beaubian also appeared in a number of episodes of Numb3rs - the show that starred Rob Morrow (Scheck)!

[SFoster21]

The OJ jury may have seemed un-jurylike, but Betty Broderick stole her exes keys from her daughter's purse, drove to his house and emptied the gun into him and his new wife. She had a history of violent acts toward him. The first jury hung! The second only convicted her of second-degree murder. Likewise, the Menendez brothers. Juries do what they do; defense counsel builds a case that the murderer is the victim. Happens alot. This case is not that unusual.

Unlike OJ, Menendezes and BB admitted the killings. They still almost walked.

Edited March 23, 2016 by SFoster21

[Umbelina]

I turned 22 in '95 but didn't pay attention to the trial except for what might be on a Star magazine headline at the store so it's like this is all new to me. I'm curious for those who watched and know- are the actors playing the jury members accurate in body type, build and general demeanor? Or did they just cast random actors who were the correct racial makeup.

Remember, they never showed the jury on television.  Not once.

 

So anything we knew about the jury was from Dominick Dunne or other reporters talking about them.  Then of course, dismissed jurors often talked on camera or were interviewed, and after the trial there were interviews, print and media, and a few books as well.

 

During the trial?  We never knew who was up there or what they were doing first hand.

[Apprentice79]

Remember, they never showed the jury on television.  Not once.

 

So anything we knew about the jury was from Dominick Dunne or other reporters talking about them.  Then of course, dismissed jurors often talked on camera or were interviewed, and after the trial there were interviews, print and media, and a few books as well.

 

During the trial?  We never knew who was up there or what they were doing first hand.

We were told that there were 12 jurors and 12 alternates....We were also told about their race and gender. Those that seemed pro prosecution and pro defense..There were reports about a white female juror and black female juror who had a scuffle at the hotel...Both got dismissed..The show took alot of dramatic license when it came to Tracy, she had a breakdown  at home, the following day after she got dismissed. Both  sides agreed to let her go, after she repeatedly asked to be release from jury dury....A black male juror and a white female juror had problems as well. there were racial tensions. Both were dismissed...This white female knew what DNA stood for  in voire dire and she was pro prosecution and the defense hated her..The show was accurate in that both the defense and prosecution were targeting jurors that they did not like to be dismissed from the panel...Marcia was targeting Black women and Johnny was targeting Whites...Ito allowed them to play games with his jury....

Edited March 23, 2016 by Apprentice79

[Inquisitionist]

Remember, the defense alleged that there was a good amount of OJ's blood missing.  I don't know if the police took samples of his blood, I guess they would've had to in order to do the DNA analysis.

 

Missing from where?  And missing since when?  The blood evidence was all found the first night of the investigation, I thought.

 

For these bumbling police that made so many mistakes how could they have been so great at planting all the evidence before they even had his blood sample to smear all over the victims crime scene and his house. Like they could have pulled it off with all the mistakes they made.

 

The inconsistencies in the defense's "theories" are staggering, but they're not the ones that had to prove anything, alas.

 

The part about the DNA evidence in this episode that I found hard to take was the analysis of the blood at Rockingham.  I think that's what they were using the 1 in 170 million odds for.  To find OJ's blood at his own house doesn't seem very strange to me.  

 

Someone else will correct me if I'm wrong, but the I thought the odds were that the DNA could have belonged to anyone else. 

[Trillian]

While I was watching, and immediately afterward, I thought this may have been the best episode of the series so far. It presented with the minimum of dramatic license an interesting and accurate picture of the experience of the Simpson jurors, as well as the gamesmanship of attrition on both sides. The music choices stayed just on the right side of clever, and there was enough of a light touch (Cochran's affirmation of the "Black people prefer Ross" sentiment) to keep it from becoming a dreary slog. The people who played the jurors were up to the generally high standard of acting in this series. They convinced as ordinary, sometimes not terribly bright or sensitive people of that era, yanked out of their environments and just wanting it to be over.

David Schwimmer's portrayal of Kardashian continues to be wonderful, and the kitchen scene between Bob and Kris is one of my favorites in the series so far. Schwimmer and Blair nailed a complex divorced-couple dynamic: bitterness, passive aggression, history, love. Besides a sibling close to your age, no one knows you as well as a long-time romantic partner, especially when it didn't turn out well. Both of you long ago stopped hiding the bad.

The thing about Fung is that I certainly don't think anyone would watch his real-life testimony and think he was part of some conspiracy. He wouldn't be able to do it. He's earnest and just doesn't have any fight in him. It's easy to hammer away at him and get him to say he's not sure about things. He gives out concessions like he's passing around after-dinner mints. But there are people like that and they're not horribly incompetent at their jobs. The prosecution should have better prepared him. (In real life, one of the attorneys on the defense side actually hugged him.)

I'm old-school when it comes to defendants testifying in their own behalf. I subscribe to the old saw that there is no sound louder in the courtroom than the silence of the accused. However, anyone who's seen Simpson's interviews on Up Close and with Greta van Susteren, even long after the trial, can tell why the decision was made to keep him off the stand. He would have been nearly as bad for his own case as Wayne Williams was.

I have not seen much love for Kenneth Choi's Lance Ito, but I'm finding him scary-good. He has the voice and mannerisms down pat. Ito is getting a flattering portrayal, though. It would be possible to be factual and make him look much worse for his handling of the trial. I'm really not getting a hint of his deferential attitude toward Cochran or his apparent disdain for Clark, for example.

Brilliant observations, but "ordinary, sometimes not terribly bright or sensitive people of that era" - of that era? Hey, it wasn't the Stone Age: we even had electricity back then.

That said, I graduated high school in 1981 and (a very fine) law school in 1991, with a couple of university degrees in between and I had only the foggiest notion during the trial what DNA is. I was even surprised, a few years later, when a criminal defence lawyer friend of mine (I practised civil law) told me about a case she was trying to plead out since - since, as she said, "they've got DNA evidence and you can't fight that". This is not to excuse the jury's wilful ignorance, but to say that even a fairly well-educated and legally-trained person at the time may have needed to be educated on DNA. This jury just refused to be educated.

I thought Kardashian seemed awfully arrogant to assume his leaving would have any impact on the verdict. OJ has 10 lawyers, I doubt anyone would notice his absence. And I don't feel too bad for him because I don't think there's any proof that the real Kardashian actually felt this way.

His leaving would have created incredibly bad optics. Kardashian wasn't just one member of his legal team, he was known to be a close friend. Whenever a lawyer suddenly withdraws from a case it raises questions of what caused the breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship but when that lawyer is also a good friend? It screams guilt.

Not to mention the fact that RK himself was protected, to a certain extent, by the solicitor-client relationship as anyone trying to go after him for the suspect activities of taking the bag out of the house had to tread very lightly over questions of privilege.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Trillian

[Umbelina]

Yes, as I said, we never got to watch them on television, and to this day, some of them have never come forward or been identified other than by the generic breakdown "older male, white, or younger female, black."

 

So during the trial, with the exception of interviews of the dismissed jurors, all we knew we knew second hand, from reporters in the courtroom.  For example, we didn't see the day when most jurors wore black to court, but we did hear about that.  We didn't see a juror with a disgusted look on their face, or not paying attention, but we did, occasionally, hear about it. 

[Bryce Lynch]

Jury duty sucks, no question of that. But I still don't have one shred of pity for that jury. They obviously didn't take their job seriously, they just wanted to be on the OJ train.

That Kardashian scene was actually touching. Never thought I'd type that sentence.

Fuck you Cochran, fuck you Bailey, and fuck you OJ.

I don't think the lawyers or the judge took justice seriously and they certainly didn't treat the jurors like human beings.

They held them captive for 8 1/2 months. Even prisoners can watch TV and lift weights and can talk to one another without being monitored.

I think the rule should be that if a jury is sequestered, the lawyers of the party or parties who requested sequestration and the judge should be semi-sequestered as well. They could go out into the world to work on the case, but would be forced to live and sleep in the same hotel as the jurors under essentially the same conditions.

If sequestration is SO essential to justice in a case, the officers of the court who insisted on it an ordered it should be more than willing to sacrifice for it, right along with the jurors.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Brilliant observations, but "ordinary, sometimes not terribly bright or sensitive people of that era" - of that era? Hey, it wasn't the Stone Age: we even had electricity back then.

 

Ha ha. Believe me, I remember the 1990s well and often miss them. I just mean, in the topical and cultural references, the clothes, not everyone yet spending a lot of time on computers or smartphones getting information, et cetera. And, yes, DNA being a familiar term but not a well-understood one.  

[Bryce Lynch]

I will say I found myself confounded at the number of jurors dismissed--not why they were, but that they thought their lies wouldn't be found out. First guy? Who kidnapped his wife; the second guy? Fucking MET OJ, but lied about that. And then neck shakin' woman, who didn't think/believe she was abused/raped, because, you know, "difficulties."

I'm trying to figure out which one it was that showed up on Oprah, post verdict and whose mantra was "where was all da blood?" when Oprah asked why they acquitted.

Also, it's weird, but I found last night's episode to be the weakest. For the reasons I stated in my original post up thread.

I remember when Target used to be known as Dart Drug. Back in the 70s. But by the 80s, it was gone. I thought Target came about around the late 90s. Like 1998/1999. I really don't recall it being around the time of the murder/criminal trial.

Keep in mind, we didn't really have the internet back then, so it would have been a lot more difficult to dig up all the jurors lies and omissions. I would also think that, in a normal trial, little to nothing is done to verify the jurors' answers on their questionnaires.

[LennieBriscoe]

Assessing the real trial and its results from the TV show is a fool's errand.

Not every witness is being shown, and not all the testimony is offered of those witnesses who ARE included.

But yes, MR. FUNG! did shake the hands of the Dream Team.

Edited March 23, 2016 by LennieBriscoe

[meep.meep]

 

Someone else will correct me if I'm wrong, but the I thought the odds were that the DNA could have belonged to anyone else. 

 

1-170 million that it is not OJ's blood.  But that just means that they found OJ's blood in OJ's house.  You would expect to find some of OJ's blood in OJ's own house.  You could probably find my blood in my house and reach a similar conclusion.   It's not a staggering revelation.

 

I was watching this very late at night, but they didn't say the same thing about Ron Goldman's blood at Rockingham, did they?  If Ron was killed at Bundy, and had never been to Rockingham, then concluding that 1-170 million odds against a blood sample found at Rockingham being anything other than his would have been a staggering revelation.  Ron Goldman never went to Rockingham when he was alive.

[Bryce Lynch]

I liked Another One Bites the Dust." Then Bailey has to explain that a retrial destroys Cochran's chances for an acquittal.

That phone call was hilarious. Cochran is about to answer, completely exasperated, then he's "My man!" All the holds were funny, too. I almost thought Johnnie would mess up and OJ would hear part of their conversation.

Did they teach about DNA in the 60's?

Also, no Kardashian Kids. Apparently, they were used lightly.

I am surprised the prosecution didn't try to keep getting jurors dismissed and cause a mistrial.

They could have learned from their mistakes in the first trial and been more prepared to refute the nonsense the defense brought up. Plus, I am not sure the Dream Team would have all returned for the sequel, knowing they might not ever get paid.

Assessing the real trial and its results from the TV show is a fool's errand.

Not every witness is being shown, and not all the testimony is offered of those witnesses who ARE included.

But yes, MR. FUNG! did shake the hands of the Dream Team.

Very true. However, I do think this episode gave a lot of insight into why the jury voted to acquit. Fung's disastrous cross really undermined the DNA evidence (more than it should have) in the eyes of jurors who didn't really know how much trust to put in DNA evidence in the first place. It was very new and seemed mysterious at the time.

The blanket, Fuhrman, the unaccounted portion of OJ's blood sample, the horrible condition of the crime lab, the gloves not fitting, etc., all contributed to what the jury thought was "reasonable doubt".

I think if the prosecution had focused more on the circumstantial evidence they might still have gotten a conviction.

They tried to lead the jury through a very complex equation, when 2+2=4 might have done.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Bryce Lynch

[toodywoody]

http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

This is interesting and lists the evidence