S01.E08: A Jury In Jail

[Simon Boccanegra]

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.

 

All over your driveway and foyer? We're not talking about, "Oh, we found a trace of blood in the bathtub or sink" (although they did find a lot of blood evidence in the bathtub and sink).    

 

The significance of Simpson's own blood all over his own place was that (1) a blood trail led away from the victims at Bundy, abruptly stopped (presumably where a vehicle was parked), and then picked up again at the Rockingham estate, and (2) Simpson had cut himself so severely that he was bleeding all over his own place within the hour of the murder of his ex-wife (who was always talking about how she was afraid he was going to murder her). And his attempts to explain it away were implausible to nonexistent.  

[Dejana]

What's the timeline for this episode? When the verdict was announced (October 1995), Kris was very pregnant and given the superfluous Kar-dash-i-an Kid references in earlier episodes, I thought for sure that when we got closer to the end, there'd be all but a glowing arrow pointing to Kendall Nicole Jenner in utero.

[wanderingstar]

I agree Ito is getting too flattering a portrayal.

He is? IMO, Ito is being portrayed in this as mostly a starstruck, incompetent buffoon.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Gillian Rosh

[Justin]

And with the Martin vs. Seinfeld debate, they then cut to O.J.'s poker game, where he's discussing....Seinfeld. I freaking love this show's small moments.

I wanted to point that one out as well. I can see Sarah's point that the jury debate was kind of silly, but that visit from the old Ironic Seque Fairy made it worthwhile. Not only is O.J. talking about Seinfeld and thus having his blackness undercut, but he also seems to be having a much better time in prison than the jury is having in their fancy hotel. Great stuff.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Drogo
QUOTE FORMATTING ISSUES.

[Daisy head]

I was deeply disappointed that what I believe was the key to the defense's case - Barry Scheck's destruction of Dennis Fung and the DNA evidence - was run through so quickly.  If I remember this correctly, Fung was on the stand for eight days, not a few hours.  Scheck, along with Peter Neufeld, who apparently was written out of this drama, showed up every one of the numerous errors in evidence collection and control that Fung and the LAPD committed.  I can still remember his stinging, "Mr. Fung!" over and over again.  The jury said afterwards that it was Scheck and Neufeld's work that allowed them to dismiss the DNA evidence, which should have cinched the case for the prosecution.

I kept waiting for "How about THAT Mr. Fung!"  I, too, was disappointed.  I was watching a documentary on the case over the weekend on YouTube - I think it was called Witness for the Prosecution, or something similar.  That was the first I remember hearing about the handshakes.  I don't remember it from watching the actual trial, but maybe I was mesmerized by Scheck's technique & didn't notice.

[7isBlue]

All over your driveway and foyer? We're not talking about, "Oh, we found a trace of blood in the bathtub or sink" (although they did find a lot of blood evidence in the bathtub and sink).    

 

The significance of Simpson's own blood all over his own place was that (1) a blood trail led away from the victims at Bundy, abruptly stopped (presumably where a vehicle was parked), and then picked up again at the Rockingham estate, and (2) Simpson had cut himself so severely that he was bleeding all over his own place within the hour of the murder of his ex-wife (who was always talking about how she was afraid he was going to murder her). And his attempts to explain it away were implausible to nonexistent.

AND...

They *did* find Ron Goldman's, Nicole's, and Simpson's blood on a sock at Rockingham. It was willful ignorance on the part of the jurors, IMO.

Barry Scheck has been one of the only Dream Team members to keep his reputation mostly in tact, primarily because of the great work of his group, the Innocence Project: using DNA evidence to overturn the sentences of those wrongfully convicted of rape and murder. He is especially loathesome to me because he understood better than anyone in the courtroom how damning that evidence was.

[Pepperminty]

 It was willful ignorance on the part of the jurors, IMO.

 

It isn't hard to conclude this when the episode shows that one juror smirking when she heard some facts about the DNA.

 

This isn't about resources available to the jurors' high school. They sat there for months being spoon fed information. They just choose to ignore it.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Pepperminty

[Tdoc72]

Did they really all have to agree on one television show?

There was a big room (sounds like a banquet room) and the TV area was on one side. After complaints, they set up another one on the other side. They were supposed to share any tapes, but someone on the first side made a rule that the 2nd side couldn't watch a tape unless side 1 watched it first. After more complaints, Ito told the officers to make an official calendar of what would be shown and stick to it. (I got this from reading the transcripts of the juror's removals.)

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.

He never came out and said it. I wish he would have. He more alluded to it IMO. But I definitely thought he had a change of heart.

What's the timeline for this episode? When the verdict was announced (October 1995), Kris was very pregnant and given the superfluous Kar-dash-i-an Kid references in earlier episodes, I thought for sure that when we got closer to the end, there'd be all but a glowing arrow pointing to Kendall Nicole Jenner in utero.

Kris gave an interview about what was factual or not about the show and said thet got it wrong, that she was very pregnant during the trial. Edited March 24, 2016 by Tdoc72

[Umbelina]

I'm taking the timetable about Jenner's pregnancy  to the full case thread, but she was only 2 months pregnant around the time Fung testified, and she was definitely not pregnant for Nicole's funeral.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Umbelina

[Margherita Erdman]

Studies have shown that sequestered jurors can actually experience PTSD. The jury still came off as unsympathetic to me.

I was a juror in a murder trial in 1993, not sequestered, and lasting "only" about a month, but it was a particularly vicious rape-murder case with a young white woman victim and an African-American defendant, so major racial overtones (I lived in Washington DC at the time, a racially divided city for sure), the prosecutors were throwing everything they had at it, and there was a good amount of local media coverage (which we were instructed to ignore, though I was taking the subway home from the courthouse one night and had to listen to a couple of idiots go on and on about the n-- rapist on trial and how DC ought to have the death penalty). Our jury demographics were 6-6 black-white, and we jurors were absolutely traumatized afterward, from both the trial presentation and the deliberations. That experience definitely gave me a different perspective on the OJ trial than I would have had otherwise.

Not that I wasn't still horrified at the OJ verdict, but I found this episode fascinating and deep, and I was grateful that this part of the story was included.

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."

Bailey may have been accurate legally about marital rape law in California, but (IMO, keeping in mind rules of the road here at PTV) that didn't mean there was "nothing wrong" with the law or Bailey's comment. It is (again IMO) shameful that rape within marriage didn't exist for legal purposes in the U.S. until feminist activists began making marital rape laws a priority in the 1970s. Saying "I do" at the altar, until those laws were passed, state by state, allowed for implied consent even in cases of documented domestic violence and injury. So I thought the exchange between F. Lee Bailey and Marcia Clark was totally plausible and appropriate (especially given OJ's reported sexual violence toward Nicole) — I would love to know if that conversation in chambers or something like it actually happened.

I also think that it would be splitting an awfully fine hair to say that the juror was truthful on her questionnaire about never having been a victim of domestic violence because she dropped the charges (on the choking) and because forced sex by one spouse upon another wasn't technically a crime at the time.

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.

LA County Sheriff's deputies put in their first few years of duty and training at the LA County Jail, and it looked to me like most of them couldn't distinguish this duty from jail duty.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Margherita Erdman

[Ina123]

Someone asked how they were finding out all this stuff about the jurors after the fact. Both sides had Private Investigators out interviewing every friend of each juror and they were checking records.

 

All this DNA talk reminds me of a cartoon that may have even been out at the time of OJ's trial. I really don't remember when or where I saw it. Two guys are talking about DNA. The caption reads, "I don't believe in that DNA stuff. I mean, a 1 in 25 billion chance? That's stupid. There aren't 25 billion people in the world."

[Shannon L.]

For me, it wasn't so much the fact that Bailey made the comment about marital rape not being illegal when the juror filed the complaint, it was the look on his face when they looked at him.  It was almost as if he was thinking "Well, it was....".  It made it seem like he didn't think any of it, the comment or the fact that it wasn't illegal, was no big deal. 

 

Someone earlier (my apologies--I can't find the quote now), said that they would never forget the look on Kardashian's face when the verdict was read.  I just watched a video of it and he really did look bothered and confused and even a little upset--like he knew that they just let a murderer walk free.  Like everyone else, I'm impressed with David Schwimmer (who I also thought was the best one on Friends--yet another quote that I can't find right now).

[dstranger99]

For me, it wasn't so much the fact that Bailey made the comment about marital rape not being illegal when the juror filed the complaint, it was the look on his face when they looked at him.  It was almost as if he was thinking "Well, it was....".  It made it seem like he didn't think any of it, the comment or the fact that it wasn't illegal, was no big deal.

 

 

 

 

It's just the way Bailey handled things, he played the smartest man in the room because he really was...He's an expert on California law.

Edited March 24, 2016 by dstranger99

[vibeology]

I can't blame a lawyer for going for a technicality. That's kind of the point, so I won't hate on Bailey because the law in California was messed up for way too many years.

 

I'm so happy we're coming back to Kardashian now. We sort of lost him in the middle of the trial, which makes sense because he did take a backseat, so I'm grateful he's getting more focus now. The way Schwimmer has been playing the growing realization that the man he considers his best friend is a monster and a murderer has been incredible. I've been waiting for this moment since the very beginning. Bobby let his kids hang out at OJ's house before all this happened, they all went on big family vacations together and his kids called OJ "uncle." I can see why he wanted to believe OJ was innocent. No one thinks the people in their lives are capable of such awful actions. But who else?

 

I always got the sense that Barry Scheck wanted to "keep them honest" more than worry about the OJ case itself. The truth was the evidence collection/storage/testing was sloppy. The LAPD didn't have good techniques and safeguards in place and while in this case, it didn't make a difference in the testing results, it could have. Imagine if that blanket put on Nicole had transferred hair or any other DNA of a third party (one of her friends for example) and that third party was arrested and convicted as a result. How awful would that be? Imagine that blood handed to Fung at the crime scene was mislabeled and the wrong conclusions were drawn. There need to be strict rules and Scheck's actions in this trial had a huge impact on DNA evidence collection country-wide. I'm not going to say that makes it worth having OJ walk (because he could have just as easily stayed off the team and used the media coverage around this event to highlight the same issues), but if police departments don't do their job right it really does put us all at risk.

[Aethera]

Hi Folks!

 

This is a fascinating episode, that's naturally led to some energized discussion. Many people here have strong opinions on the verdict in this case, and it's allowable to be mad at the jury, or to defend them, or to second-guess them. Let's try, though, to keep these things in mind:

 

1. Don't attack your fellow posters for their opinions. Disagreeing and attacking are two different things. Are you thinking as you write "man this person is stupid!"? Does their opinion make you angry? If so, think twice about posting until you've had a little time to think it over.  Respectful interaction is required. 

 

2. Race is inextricably a factor/issue in this case. It's a hot-button issue, so be extra-careful please. But that doesn't mean that criticizing the jury as stupid or lazy or confused is an indictment of an entire race. Let's not jump to conclusions about what other people are saying. Forgetting something you may or may not have learned in high school is something that happens to us all.

 

3. That said, I think we can leave behind the discussion of their high school educations and what they should remember from it, or what we all remember from our own. Agree to disagree.

 

4. Did I mention respectful interaction is required?  Snark the Show, Not the Posters, please.

 

 

[psychoticstate]

On the one hand, not a lot happened in this episode but on the other, it really demonstrated what was going on behind the scenes.

 

Everyone brought their A game.  I think David Schwimmer was the star of this particular episode.  His portrayal of Robert Kardashian was everything.  He seems to be turning into the moral compass of all of this - - he wasn't trying to win a case or a particular segment of the population, he was friends with Simpson and with Nicole.  I think DS conveyed RK's conflict so perfectly and with spot on understatement.  Major kudos to him.

 

Cuba was Simpson not only in the scene with DS, where he got angry that he couldn't explain the blood in his Bronco but also the mock cross examination scene.  I think Simpson thought he could "play O.J." as he'd always done and everything he said would be believed.  Personally I think if he had taken the stand he still would have gotten an acquittal but it would have further destroyed him in the public's eye because it would have been televised and sound bytes of that would be everywhere.

 

Watching Tracy the juror's exclusion from the other jury cliques was painful to see.  Yes, she was accountable for having the deputies the jurors trusted transferred but how awful it must have been to be the unpopular kid in the lunchroom - - especially given that the jurors were not allowed to leave their own hotel rooms and socialize with each other other than at meal time.  I'm glad they showed how much possible juror misconduct was going on - - it was clear from Toobin's book that more than one or two jurors were removed because they didn't agree with the majority of the others.

 

I too remember learning about DNA - - basic DNA - - in high school.  I remember the ladder and the basic explanation.  That's what should have been presented at trial.  I know Vince Bugliosi mentioned this in his book and I agree - - present the evidence and talk to the jurors like they are 5 years old.  Too much scientific detail and you lose the jurors.  That said, I dd note that only one, maybe two, jurors were actually taking notes.

 

I was thrilled to hear "Natural One" being played during Marcia's trash-the-office scene.  I used to love that song.  I may need to download it to my iPad.  The music selection for the series has been excellent. 

[psychoticstate]

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.

 

 

This is an excellent point and one that can't be stated enough if you lean toward believing the conspiracy/planting theories.  How on earth did the LAPD (and crime lab) manage to not only plant Simpson's DNA at Bundy, and the DNA of Ron and Nicole at Rockingham, under everyone's nose but also eradicate any blood/DNA/fiber evidence of "the real killer(s)"?   It makes no sense and it's impossible.

 

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.

 

 

Yes, the defense did allege this, along with a multitude of other theories.  I don't believe any of Simpson's blood was missing.  The nurse that drew the blood estimated what he would normally draw.  Would he pull the exact same amount from every single person?  Probably not.  

 

Simpson's blood was drawn the day he did the brief interview with Lange and Vannatter, if my memory is correct.  So AFTER the blood was discovered and noted on the gate at Bundy, on and in the Bronco, on the driveway at Rockingham and into the house.  So suspending disbelief for a moment, even if the LAPD somehow planted his blood at and about Rockingham, then whose blood was it and why was it there?  Are we supposed to believe that Simpson really bled all the time from being a golfer (because everyone knows golf is such a blood sport) and was bleeding all over the place on the night of June 12, running around to leave for Chicago, and this was a normal occurrence and he didn't bother to even slap a Band-Aid on his finger? 

 

 

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.

 

 

The 1 in 170 million odds that the blood could have belonged to anyone other than Simpson applied to the blood drops at Bundy as well as Rockingham and that should have been what sunk Simpson.   It still galls me to this moment that at least one juror remarked that the odds were ridiculous because there weren't that many people in the world or something like that.  Note to juror - - EXACTLY.  So that should tell you that nobody other than Simpson left that blood and its presence there was not innocent.

 

 

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.

 

Ron's blood was found in the Bronco.  There was no innocent explanation for it being there.  He did not know Simpson, had never met him before.  Ron's blood was also found in a mixture with Nicole's blood, indicating that the blood was shed at the same time - - i.e., at the time they were both killed.  So again, no innocent explanation for it being there.

[Bryce Lynch]

He is? IMO, Ito is being portrayed in this as mostly a starstruck, incompetent buffoon.

In real life Ito was all that times 1,000.

[Bryce Lynch]

AND...

They *did* find Ron Goldman's, Nicole's, and Simpson's blood on a sock at Rockingham. It was willful ignorance on the part of the jurors, IMO.

Barry Scheck has been one of the only Dream Team members to keep his reputation mostly in tact, primarily because of the great work of his group, the Innocence Project: using DNA evidence to overturn the sentences of those wrongfully convicted of rape and murder. He is especially loathesome to me because he understood better than anyone in the courtroom how damning that evidence was.

From what I recall the bloody socks were one of the most dubious pieces of evidence. Future episodes might explain the details of why. Edited March 24, 2016 by Bryce Lynch

[DangerousMinds]

Some of the work involving the blood evidence may have been sloppy, but the lab didn't fuck up too much or contaminate the samples, because it DID match OJ. If it had been contaminated or degraded, OJ would not have been a match.

[vibeology]

Some of the work involving the blood evidence may have been sloppy, but the lab didn't fuck up too much or contaminate the samples, because it DID match OJ. If it had been contaminated or degraded, OJ would not have been a match.

 

And while this is very true, it doesn't really matter when it comes to the critique of sloppy work. If you can't trust the team to follow procedures, can you trust anything else they do? Sloppy works speaks to a lack of credibility and without credibility you're nothing. And I say this as someone who thinks OJ did it and thinks that even without the DNA there was still the potential for a strong case. But I do think that the LAPD screwed up over and over again in how they collected evidence, in what evidence they collected, in how things were transported, in how things were tested, in letting people go back and forth from one scene to the other, to actively contaminating the scene because someone wanted to be respectful to Nicole's body by covering it. There were so many mistakes made before the DA even touched the case that had Marcia and Chris been perfect, there were still holes that could be poked into the case. I believe that the legacy of this trial includes a huge change in the way DNA evidence is handled and processed and that change is for the better. People have to have confidence in the police departments and evidence collection or else you can never be sure what is or isn't valid in terms of evidence. I don't think Barry Scheck is a bad guy because he pointed out the mistakes. Changes needed to happen.

[Isabella15]

One thing I really liked about this episode was the "two-jury" story structure:  the saga of the official, impaneled jury, and then the story of the card-playing buddies who visited OJ in jail--the defacto jury of his peers .  At least that's how I saw it.   By the end, Kardashian is voicing the doubts of the rest of the absent friends- how do you explain the blood?  But OJ doesn't really have an answer for that.

 

And the nuance of having Kardashian, a member of the defense team, ask that question is also very nice, i.e. RK and the defense team knows the evidence wasn't planted, the DNA is really OJ's, and there's no evidence that anybody else was at the crime scene.  Because you can add blood to a scene, but it's pretty tough to make it disappear.  Especially from a messy, bloody scene like that.   And nobody else's blood showed up there.  Nobody else's hair or shoeprints either.

 

When Barbara Walters asked Kardashian (in the second interview) if he thought the LAPD had framed OJ and planted evidence, he answered, (paraphrasing)  'I have doubts, the blood evidence has given me doubts about whether OJ did it.  Some of the LAPD may have planted stuff, but not all of them.' And Kardashian eventually broke off contact with OJ.  Never spoke to him again, even when RK was on his deathbed. 

 

The impaneled jury, of course, voted not guilty, but everybody in OJ's world, those he viewed as his peers, thought he did it.  They wanted nothing to do with him.  OJ may not have been locked up, but he was certainly locked out. 

Edited March 24, 2016 by Isabella15

[Sarahendipity]

I loved the line from the jury argument over what show to watch, "Seinfeld? That show is about nothing!"

[hoosiermom]

Someone asked how they were finding out all this stuff about the jurors after the fact. Both sides had Private Investigators out interviewing every friend of each juror and they were checking records.

 

All this DNA talk reminds me of a cartoon that may have even been out at the time of OJ's trial. I really don't remember when or where I saw it. Two guys are talking about DNA. The caption reads, "I don't believe in that DNA stuff. I mean, a 1 in 25 billion chance? That's stupid. There aren't 25 billion people in the world."

that wasn't just a cartoon. One of the jurors actually said that.

[psychoticstate]

Because you can add blood to a scene, but it's pretty tough to make it disappear.  Especially from a messy, bloody scene like that.   And nobody else's blood showed up there.  Nobody else's hair or shoeprints either.

 

 

Exactly.  It's not like the LAPD, or anyone else, could show up at the crime scene and immediately detect whose blood was whose.  So how on earth could they possibly eliminate a suspect's blood from the scene? 

 

OJ may not have been locked up, but he was certainly locked out

 

 

It's not justice in any sense but I always felt the worse punishment Simpson could ever have was not to be O.J. any longer - - in other words, to not life the life he had lived and to be shut out from it.  Which is exactly what happened in general following the acquittal - - he wasn't welcome in Brentwood, he wasn't welcome at the country club or many local restaurants and people he had previously rubbed shoulders with and lived it up with cut him off.  It had to be completely devastating to him.

[Umbelina]

Justice for OJ would be OJ being repeatedly stabbed, and then to have his throat cut.

[kassa]

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. 

 

 

 

Wasn't there also a tentative "umhowdoIputthis" "is that, um, true?" from Ito in there? 

 

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.

 

 

The tabloids would have had a field day – as would every tv station with 3 hours of evening OJ trial coverage/discussion, which was most of them.  People were already accusing Kardashian of hiding the murder weapon.  I don't know if it could have led to a mistrial with the jury sequestered, but I bet it might if they hadn't been, and were exposed to "his own lawyer/bestie knows he did it!" talk. 

 

Plus, even apart from that, as miniscule as his remaining belief in his friend's innocence was... part of him no doubt still hopd he was innocent, and didn't want to endanger his chances of going back to his kids.  

[whiporee]

As to the question of why no one else's blood was found, why is it required of an attacker that they bleed? I've never understood that reasoning.

As for the question of how the blood got in the Bronco, the miraculous investigator who saw the drop of blood on the door despite it being very dark, and that blood goes black in the dark, may have taken blood from the scene and wiped the seat. And then, after collecting blood from the defendant, added it to the sample.

My bigger question is why wasn't there more blood? Winston Wolf must have been Simpson's clean up guy. Given the bloodiness of the crime scene, there should have been blood everywhere, especially given the short time Simpson was dealing with.

[smiley13]

He is? IMO, Ito is being portrayed in this as mostly a starstruck, incompetent buffoon.

I only recall one instance of Ito being shown as starstruck on this show and that was with the Arsenio Hall picture.  I think he has been shown in a pretty positive light.

[Umbelina]

It was a white Bronco and the officer had a flashlight.  It would have been easy to see.

 

As far as why wasn't there more blood, it's been explained by the method of the killing.  Also, WHY did OJ take the Bentley to the hamburger place once Kato offered to come with, since OJ had been so completely uncharacteristically friendly that day (to establish and alibi?)  Perhaps the Bronco seat was covered in plastic?  We never found the clothing or the shoes, so they blood could have been all over all of those as well.  OJ rarely drove the Bentley, except to fancy affairs, he said many times he preferred his truck (the Bronco.)  THAT night though?  The Bentley, AFTER Karo said he was hungry too.

 

There is absolutely no question that OJ did this.  None.  The jury didn't understand the hair evidence on the cap he was wearing (in JUNE) either, thought it could belong to any African American.  That alone would have probably convicted him in any normal trial. 

 

It bothers me that the police didn't collect that fingerprint though, they just assumed they had enough evidence already, they didn't take the clothes in the washer either.  Even if they had found the many, many published photos of OJ wearing the Bruno Magli shoes though, I doubt this jury would have cared, or discussed those either.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Umbelina

[smiley13]

  We never found the clothing or the shoes, so they blood could have been all over all of those as well.  

We?  

[Umbelina]

We?  

Ha.

 

The viewing public is part of this television show as well.

 

We the people.  It is after all "The people vs OJ Simpson."

[Rosiejuliemom]

As to the question of why no one else's blood was found, why is it required of an attacker that they bleed? I've never understood that reasoning.

As for the question of how the blood got in the Bronco, the miraculous investigator who saw the drop of blood on the door despite it being very dark, and that blood goes black in the dark, may have taken blood from the scene and wiped the seat. And then, after collecting blood from the defendant, added it to the sample.

My bigger question is why wasn't there more blood? Winston Wolf must have been Simpson's clean up guy. Given the bloodiness of the crime scene, there should have been blood everywhere, especially given the short time Simpson was dealing with.

 

A fairly high percentage of people who use a knife on someone accidentally cut themselves in the process. I'm betting a combination of sweat, blood, and a struggling victim would make a knife difficult to keep a good grip on.

 

As for the blood, depending on how OJ approached the victims, it is possible that he didn't get that much blood on him. The most likely culprit for blood transfer would have been the arterial spray from Nicole's neck wound. If he had a good grip on her head with his left and used his right to cut L to R, his arm/hand would be out of the line of the spray.

[Isabella15]

As to the question of why no one else's blood was found, why is it required of an attacker that they bleed? I've never understood that reasoning.

As for the question of how the blood got in the Bronco, the miraculous investigator who saw the drop of blood on the door despite it being very dark, and that blood goes black in the dark, may have taken blood from the scene and wiped the seat. And then, after collecting blood from the defendant, added it to the sample.

My bigger question is why wasn't there more blood? Winston Wolf must have been Simpson's clean up guy. Given the bloodiness of the crime scene, there should have been blood everywhere, especially given the short time Simpson was dealing with.

 

These are interesting questions I think.  I know many people here can answer but since I'm not a lawyer, I wondered if I can respond, maybe like a juror might do if deliberating.  So, Q:  why is it significant that no one else's blood was found?  Is it required that an attacker bleed?

 

A:  It turns out that this particular attacker, the one who killed Ron and Nicole, did bleed.  Next to large bloody shoeprints there were blood drops on the left side.  And the drops continued along with the prints away from the scene.  It wasn't the victims who were walking away while bleeding, was it?  Had to be the killer.  One set of shoeprints only at the scene.  One killer unless the accomplice was levitating.

 

Q:  Blood on the outside and inside of the Bronco?  Could somebody take it from the scene and wipe the seat?  And later add OJ's blood after it was collected?

 

A:  The Bronco was found on the scene when the cops showed up.  At that time, nobody knew where OJ was.  If somebody had taken blood from the scene, with the bright idea, 'Hey let's go to OJ's house and wipe this blood everywhere!', it was pretty stupid.  OJ could have been at dinner with friends.  Or in Alaska.  Or on a movie set.  And they couldn't mix OJ's blood in with it because they didn't have OJ's blood.  They didn't get it till he returned the next day.

 

Q:  Why wasn't there more blood ?  (on the Bronco, at OJ's house)

 

A:  Why was there ANY blood on the Bronco?  Why was Ron's blood there, or anywhere connected with OJ?  (lots of other people have said this already, I'm just repeating it because it's a good point.  )

If you stand behind someone and stab them, the blood goes away from the victim, who is shielding your body from spatter.  The victims bled out, downwards onto the ground.  That blood cannot fly up on its own and jump on the killer. 

The clothes, gloves and shoes probably did have some blood on them.  When Jill Shively saw OJ driving away from the scene, she didn't say what he was wearing, if she noticed that.  He may have removed some of the clothes he was wearing, so as not to get blood on his car seats. 

 

Anyway, I hope some of the expert commenters will address these things.  It wouldn't be unusual for a jury to ask and wonder about this stuff.  Actually I think David Schwimmer/Bob Kardashian addressed a lot of similar questions during  the episode.  With a horrified look on his face as he realized the answer.

[FuriousStyles]

Maybe the jury was fed up with being sequestered, maybe they wanted to give the LAPD and white people in general a giant middle finger, maybe they actually believed the defense theory of police misconduct, maybe maybe maybe. You know what is fact? That the prosecution fucked up. They did not present a good case. That doesnt mean they didnt *have* a good case, because they did. They had plenty of evidence to work with, but the presentation was HORRIBLE. And part of that has to do with the LAPD/Furhman and forensics who also fucked up.

Any appearance of impropriety would have people giving the PD the side eye, much less the LAPD which has a notorious history of misconduct, including but not limited to racism and planting evidence. Then we have the detective taking home evidence in the trunk of his car. Really? Then there's Furhman. He spoke for himself, no need to rehash his mess. There's the 'glove dont fit' fiasco, and the dna stuff that lasted too long. The prosecution didnt introduce Simpson's behavior after the murders (suicide note; Bronco chase; money and disguises found in the Bronco, etc.). And did they ever address in court how ludicrous the defense theory actually was? Even if they didnt want to spend a lot of time on it while presenting their own evidence, everything Marcia said in the bar could have been said in court in like 3 minutes during closing arguments. Marcia went down to the bitter end thinking her evidence and her case would outshine whatever the defense was doing. I guess we can add ego/naivete to the list too.

When a prosecution has someone on trial for murder for which the death penalty or life imprisonment is on the table, they had BETTER put on a damn good case. That is the burden they bare, and there's a reason they have to prove someone's guilt rather than the defendant having to prove his innocence.

Edited March 25, 2016 by FuriousStyles

[psychoticstate]

As to the question of why no one else's blood was found, why is it required of an attacker that they bleed? I've never understood that reasoning.

As for the question of how the blood got in the Bronco, the miraculous investigator who saw the drop of blood on the door despite it being very dark, and that blood goes black in the dark, may have taken blood from the scene and wiped the seat. And then, after collecting blood from the defendant, added it to the sample.

My bigger question is why wasn't there more blood? Winston Wolf must have been Simpson's clean up guy. Given the bloodiness of the crime scene, there should have been blood everywhere, especially given the short time Simpson was dealing with.

 

 

 

One of the biggest "urban legends" of this case, if you will, is that the killer HAD to be covered head to toe in blood.  Not necessarily true.  From the evidence it seems fairly certain that Nicole's killer stood behind her as her throat was cut.  It was a horrific injury that resulted in massive blood loos and death very quickly.  The blood would have flown out and away from her neck and body - - and therefore AWAY from her killer.

 

In Ron's case, his shirt and jeans were soaked through with his blood.  His injuries would not result in the massive blood loss that Nicole's neck caused - - his injuries might have resulted in a bit of internal bleeding.  

 

Regardless, Simpson was wearing dark sweatshirt and sweatpant type clothing.  This type of clothing would not only absorb blood but hide it.  In the terrible "If I Did It" Simpson muses that "the killer" would have taken off his outer shirt and removed his pants after killing both victims.  After doing so, he would remember that his car keys and wallet were in the pocket of the clothing he removed; while pulling the keys out, he would fumble and pull out loose change (loose change was found at the crime scene, by the blood drops proven to be Simpson's.)  So it's entirely possible that he had a basic t-shirt on under the sweatshirt and maybe returned to the Bronco in that t-shirt and his boxer shorts.  He could have had a spare set of clothing in the Bronco, as well as plastic (as has been pointed out) or even a towel.  A towel would absorb blood but could also soak through or allow a "swipe," 

 

The crime scene was not "clean."  The Rockingham home and the Bronco had next to no clean-up, which is why the LAPD was able to discover blood drops in the driveway and into the home, leading to Simpson's bedroom and the blood drop on the Bronco door.  I would venture to guess that if the shower had been tested, including the drain, traces of blood would have been found there as well (and in the washing machine, where the dark clothing was noted but not collected.) 

 

Again, think of who had motive to harm Nicole (since she clearly appeared to be the target.)  And who was in the Brentwood area that night.  Who had no alibi for the time of the murders and who was seen speeding away from Bundy at the time of the crime.  Whose blood was found at the scene and whose vehicle and residence had the victims' blood and fibers from Ron's shirt.   As Isabella pointed out, NO blood should have been found at Rockingham at all. 

[txhorns79]

I laughed pretty hard at the juror complaining to Judge Ito that they only got 30 minutes to shop at Ross because it was a place black people loved, followed by Judge Ito asking if that was true, and Johnnie looking befuddled and nodding his head in agreement.   
 

 

As Isabella pointed out, NO blood should have been found at Rockingham at all.

 

And I think that's really everything right there.  Unless the "real killer" was part of an elaborate plot to frame OJ, the blood should not have been found at Rockingham.  

[CeeBeeGee]

Justice for OJ would be OJ being repeatedly stabbed, and then to have his throat cut.

 

And then for his murderer to stand over his body in the coffin, fussing with his body and moving it about--and then to write a book where the murderer claimed to love OJ but trashed him 8 ways to breakfast, blamed him for his own physical abuse, and then floated a "potential" scenario wherein someone "might" have killed him, all in public view where OJ's children could read it.

 

It's not justice in any sense but I always felt the worse punishment Simpson could ever have was not to be O.J. any longer - - in other words, to not life the life he had lived and to be shut out from it.  Which is exactly what happened in general following the acquittal - - he wasn't welcome in Brentwood, he wasn't welcome at the country club or many local restaurants and people he had previously rubbed shoulders with and lived it up with cut him off.  It had to be completely devastating to him.

 

I've mentioned this before but I remember seeing a news piece on OJ after the verdict, maybe a few months later (and Dominick Dunne wrote a similar piece). And he was an absolute pariah. No courses would give him a tee time, restaurants would hang up as soon as he identified himself, restaurants would kick him out. And best of all, the piece showed a young woman walking up to OJ, asking to shake his hand, and then remarking brightly "I've never shook hands with a murderer before!" It was awesome. I am sure the Goldmans and the Browns would've preferred prison time for the murders, but that kind of humiliation had to be hell for OJ, who really did think he could schmooze and bullshit anyone with his stupid cheesy "I'm OJ the celebrity!" grin.

[Quilt Fairy]

Maybe the jury was fed up with being sequestered, maybe they wanted to give the LAPD and white people in general a giant middle finger, maybe they actually believed the defense theory of police misconduct, maybe maybe maybe. You know what is fact? That the prosecution fucked up. They did not present a good case. That doesnt mean they didnt *have* a good case, because they did. They had plenty of evidence to work with, but the presentation was HORRIBLE. And part of that has to do with the LAPD/Furhman and forensics who also fucked up.

Any appearance of impropriety would have people giving the PD the side eye, much less the LAPD which has a notorious history of misconduct, including but not limited to racism and planting evidence. Then we have the detective taking home evidence in the trunk of his car. Really? Then there's Furhman. He spoke for himself, no need to rehash his mess. There's the 'glove dont fit' fiasco, and the dna stuff that lasted too long. The prosecution didnt introduce Simpson's behavior after the murders (suicide note; Bronco chase; money and disguises found in the Bronco, etc.). And did they ever address in court how ludicrous the defense theory actually was? Even if they didnt want to spend a lot of time on it while presenting their own evidence, everything Marcia said in the bar could have been said in court in like 3 minutes during closing arguments. Marcia went down to the bitter end thinking her evidence and her case would outshine whatever the defense was doing. I guess we can add ego/naivete to the list too.

When a prosecution has someone on trial for murder for which the death penalty or life imprisonment is on the table, they had BETTER put on a damn good case. That is the burden they bare, and there's a reason they have to prove someone's guilt rather than the defendant having to prove his innocence.

Thank you for pointing this out. One of the things I remember very clearly from watching the original trial was that - IMO - Marcia Clark was a terrible trial lawyer.  The questioning of every witness was drawn out into excruciating detail. It seemed like she could Never. Get. To. The. Point. It was painful to watch at times. She would have been much better off if she'd explained things the way she did at the bar using the ketchup bottles and whiskey glasses. DNA evidence in criminal trials was fairly new at the time, and the prosecution felt that they could only present the evidence if they had someone explain DNA first and that witness did a terrible job. The prosecution lost that case.

[mbutterfly]

He is? IMO, Ito is being portrayed in this as mostly a starstruck, incompetent buffoon.

I thought he was a poor judge before, but I hold him responsible for the treatment of the jury. There was no reason room television sets couldn't have blocked certain channels. They could have had a library of movie tapes and VCRs in their rooms. The hotel pool and gym could have been set apart for them at certain times. So many ways to help them settle in comfortably. And none of the security people should have been allowed to be rude. That's all on Ito. 

[BooBear]

Weird. My first and only trip to LA I picked the intercontinental to stay in.  I can see why they picked it as it is very far away from things and isolated but very nice.  Watching this I both felt for the jury and also was annoyed with them. I felt for them because I thought they were treated unduly harsh.  I have always thought that court officers are not the correct entity to watch the jury. I work at a court and I watch my juries and I am not a court officer. I feel like I get a lot of cooperation because the jury grows to like me over the trial and I feel more like their kindergarten teacher than a cop.  If I need to take a readers digest away from them I ask and kindly explain why.  Which usually they are understanding about.  But court officers are used to dealing with defendants and can't downshift enough to deal with the jury. When i have to do jury duty by the end I hate the court officers who imho are too bossy and treat me like a criminal.

 

But on the other hand I thought the jury was a bit on the spoiled side. They literally had the most important job in the world at that time. And they seemed to look upon it as any old case.  Some of them lied (an increasing problem) and some of them used their leadership skills on getting back at Judge Ito (who I felt bad for here). 

 

I would love it if a lot of people who work in the courts are watching this and learn things.  But I still really wonder about the jury system. Trapping people together for any period of time leads to anger and frustration.  Today, jurors are made to give up their phones and tablets. Leading to phone withdrawal.  But at the same time it is kind of stupid because the moment they leave for the day they just look things up on the internet so why not let them have their phones.  I think no one sequesters the jury anymore as it has proved to be too painful for all involved.

[txhorns79]

They literally had the most important job in the world at that time. And they seemed to look upon it as any old case.

 

I think jury service is important, but it is also important to keep this particular case in perspective.  For example, the Oklahoma City bombing occurred during this trial, just to name one thing that was more important than whether OJ got off for killing two people. 

 

 

One of the things I remember very clearly from watching the original trial was that - IMO - Marcia Clark was a terrible trial lawyer.  The questioning of every witness was drawn out into excruciating detail. It seemed like she could Never. Get. To. The. Point. It was painful to watch at times. She would have been much better off if she'd explained things the way she did at the bar using the ketchup bottles and whiskey glasses.

 

I think Marcia made poor decisions in the case, but her overall record would suggest that she was a pretty good trial lawyer.  I don't really do criminal work, but sometimes you do have to draw things out in excruciating detail.  You have to build a record, both for the trial and for any potential appeal.  Her goal wasn't to entertain the television audience, but make sure the jury heard what they needed to hear and she got in what she considered to be all the relevant information.      

[Lion18]

I was on Jury duty in New York in the mid 80's. It was a murder trial. We were sequested for a week. So I related to the jurors in not being able to watch tv, call family and being stuck with the same people. However, the guards were very cool. Very nice and treated us fairly. It wasn't 8 months but I got a taste of it. Oh and on the last day I really did have a full blown anxiety attack. I don't like being away from my home

[psychoticstate]

I think Marcia made poor decisions in the case, but her overall record would suggest that she was a pretty good trial lawyer.  I don't really do criminal work, but sometimes you do have to draw things out in excruciating detail.  You have to build a record, both for the trial and for any potential appeal.  Her goal wasn't to entertain the television audience, but make sure the jury heard what they needed to hear and she got in what she considered to be all the relevant information.

 

I think Marcia is a good attorney and very passionate about her cases.  She really was in a no-win situation.  On the one hand, she needed to spoon feed this jury to make the points very clear but on the other, had to beware of making them weary.   There were poor decisions made - - I think Dennis Fung was on the stand much too long and running away from Fuhrman after the tapes were brought out instead of showing how impossible it really would have been to frame Simpson to name just two during the trial.  Before the trial began I think her single biggest mistake was to discount what the jury consultant said and recommended.

 

I thought he was a poor judge before, but I hold him responsible for the treatment of the jury. There was no reason room television sets couldn't have blocked certain channels. They could have had a library of movie tapes and VCRs in their rooms. The hotel pool and gym could have been set apart for them at certain times. So many ways to help them settle in comfortably. And none of the security people should have been allowed to be rude. That's all on Ito.

 

I hold Ito responsible for a lot of things that happened during this trial as well.   I understand why they wouldn't want jurors to bring in their own movies because they certainly could have had contraband news programs, etc. in movie boxes but as you pointed out, surely there was a way to have only premium movie channels available on their tvs?  Otherwise, they really couldn't have controlled what they watched. 

 

I don't understand why they couldn't have two separate group areas set up for the jurors to watch the videos - - that way if one group wants to watch Martin, go ahead; the other group can watch Seinfeld.  They had enough deputies to make that happen.

 

I don't know why they weren't allowed pool access at certain times, unless the hotel didn't want to block access for their other guests.  I get that they were limiting the jurors' contact with anyone and everyone else but . . .

 

On the other hand, when you see the jurors that lied on their questionnaires in order to be seated, it does show that at least some of the concerns were justified.

[Crs97]

I also wonder if someone could have tried to Jerry-rig a TV to get contraband channels, maybe arguing they just wanted to watch a sporting event and wouldn't hear the news. Probably safer to say no to all the TV's, but you have to give people stuff to do if you are going to deny them access to the outside world and to talking with each other.

[vmcd88]

Not defending the jury at all but I could not be away from family/friends/tv/news/my life for 8+ months in some hotel (dont care how nice it is) and not be pissed off about it.  It would make me irrational too (see Target vs. Ross crazyness).  This damn show....I'm going to miss it.

[Shannon L.]

I forgot to mention that if I were a juror and the judge, during a meeting in his private office, had kept referring to me as a number, I'd have snapped at him, too. I understand anonymity in a public setting, but in the judges chambers?  Ugh.  I can't imagine having been cooped up for 8 months with very little outside interaction, only to be called a number during one of the few times I could talk to someone other than the 20 or so other people that I'd been stuck with for that long.

[Bronzedog]

I think this episode showed why most people hate being summoned for jury duty. Not that your chances for being sequested for as long as this jury was are that great, it's the possibly of it happening at all. The juxaposition of the jury's restrictions with OJ playing cards was great. The jury was being held prisoner more than the murderer.

[charmed1]

That Martin vs. Seinfeld fight happened every Thursday night in my freshman dorm. Except it wasn't Seinfeld, it was Friends.

[psychoticstate]

Again, think of who had motive to harm Nicole (since she clearly appeared to be the target.)  And who was in the Brentwood area that night.  Who had no alibi for the time of the murders and who was seen speeding away from Bundy at the time of the crime.  Whose blood was found at the scene and whose vehicle and residence had the victims' blood and fibers from Ron's shirt.   As Isabella pointed out, NO blood should have been found at Rockingham at all.

 

I'm quoting myself here but something popped into my head earlier.  I don't know if this was ever brought up but Simpson had a housekeeper.  Even if she were off work on Sunday, June 12, I think it's safe to assume that she would have cleaned off any blood from the home (including the driveway) on Saturday the 11th.  That would narrow down the time the blood would have been left (i.e., at the time of the murders.)

 

Simpson also claimed that she would drive his Bronco. If true, again, it would narrow down the time that the blood would have been deposited in the vehicle because surely if Nicole had innocently left it there (a massive stretch) prior to June 12, the housekeeper would have cleaned it.