S01.E08: A Jury In Jail

[txhorns79]

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

 

I'm confused.  Seinfeld and Friends were on the same network and aired at different times.  How was it that people would be fighting over which one to watch? 

[JakeyJokes]

I think they meant Friends vs. Martin.

Martin and Seinfeld weren't on at the same time. Seinfeld was 9 PM and Friends and Martin were at 8 PM.

I can remember this and nothing I learned in third grade.

[whiporee]

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. 

 

I wasn't trying to defend Simpson or suggest someone else committed the crimes. All i was trying to say is that if you get into a "why wasn't ...?" situation with questions about OJ, then there are other reasonable ones from the defense's side, too. 

[misstwpherecool]

Everyone has it pretty much covered. It was previously noted that there were a lot of 'small' but great moments in this epi and they were right. The music Another One Bites the Dust and Fight The Power were used and fitted perfectly. When the jury revolted in the epi, perhaps not how it really played but the look the jurors gave as they took their seats near the end of the scene was excellent. They had this look of "gotcha". The Marcia Clark/Sara Paulson looks to Johnny Cochran were brilliant.

 

Although I thought Judge Ito lost control of the trial and jury including treatment I thought he came off as a pretty strong character in this epi. When he caught the juror with the picture of himself with OJ asking 'Who is this guy that guy' need I say more was also perfect.

 

And the Clarke-Cochran balcony scenes got right down to business-smokers lounge vs day care-lol

 

The comments on Clarke as a prosecutor during the trial. I got the impression they were so used to steam rolling defendants without the resources of OJ they simply were not ready for anyone who would fight back. They couldn't even rehabilitate their own witnesses after they were skewered by the dream team. Throw in celebrity/awe and awkward/quirkyish personalities they were doomed.

 

One last thing. Here is a fact check of the episode.

 

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-8-recap

[ridethemaverick]

I love DS and I really wanted to feel something during his scene at Kris' house but it's like...you all KNEW OJ was beating Nicole and you still went on vacation with him and played golf with him and all manner of other fun things. And NOW you're acting shocked that he's not a good guy? I have a really hard time with that, I really do. It's almost like they're making sure to paint Robert Kardashian in a good light in memory of him. I don't know. I just didn't buy it.

[VanillaBeanne]

I love DS and I really wanted to feel something during his scene at Kris' house but it's like...you all KNEW OJ was beating Nicole and you still went on vacation with him and played golf with him and all manner of other fun things. And NOW you're acting shocked that he's not a good guy? I have a really hard time with that, I really do. It's almost like they're making sure to paint Robert Kardashian in a good light in memory of him. I don't know. I just didn't buy it.

I agree. The line that rang the most false to me was when he told Kris that "when the trial is over, I and our family will have nothing to do with OJ." They should have added a caveat: "except for OJs victory party that night, where I will be high-fiving and partying with OJ, and the book I will work on about OJ". I don't think Kardashian was a bad man, but I do think kardashian thought OJ was guilty pretty early on but for whatever reason (loyalty or giving good friend benefit of doubt) supported OJ during the trial. I don't believe he was as Team Nicole as the show is portraying and only stuck around because his leaving "would convict OJ". I know Robert had pushed OJ away at the time of his death, but I'm not sure if it was because he thought OJ murdered Nicole. That might have been why. But it could also have been Kardashian distancing himself from OJ because of all the trial backlash, or because of the lawsuit between the two of them over the book, or because kardashian may have noticed a striking resemblance between one of his kids and Sydney.

Edited March 26, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[charmed1]

I think they meant Friends vs. Martin.

Martin and Seinfeld weren't on at the same time. Seinfeld was 9 PM and Friends and Martin were at 8 PM.

I can remember this and nothing I learned in third grade.

Thank you. That's exactly what I meant.

[ridethemaverick]

I agree. The line that rang the most false to me was when he told Kris that "when the trial is over, I and our family will have nothing to do with OJ." They should have added a caveat: "except for OJs victory party that night, where I will be high-fiving and partying with OJ, and the book I will work on about OJ". I don't think Kardashian was a bad man, but I do think kardashian thought OJ was guilty pretty early on but for whatever reason (loyalty or giving good friend benefit of doubt) supported OJ during the trial. I don't believe he was as Team Nicole as the show is portraying and only stuck around because his leaving "would convict OJ". I know Robert had pushed OJ away at the time of his death, but I'm not sure if it was because he thought OJ murdered Nicole. That might have been why. But it could also have been Kardashian distancing himself from OJ because of all the trial backlash, or because of the lawsuit between the two of them over the book, or because kardashian may have noticed a striking resemblance between one of his kids and Sydney.

I didn't even know about the victory party. Smh. Yeah, that scene came off like spin to me.

Things I liked;

Martin vs. Seinfeld

Target vs. Ross (I didn't even know ross was around back then)

Older white guy with his superior attitude and "dont start that race stuff with me, I'm part native American" If I had a dollar for every time...

The pros/def strategizing about the jury

The mock cross and everyone's horrified reactions

Re: the handshaking...I don't know that Fung shaking hands with both sides would have had any impact on me as a juror other than hmm, that guy is kinda weird. Actually, him hugging Cochran or whoever it was may have made me wonder if he was in the defense's pocket.

[Umbelina]

I love DS and I really wanted to feel something during his scene at Kris' house but it's like...you all KNEW OJ was beating Nicole and you still went on vacation with him and played golf with him and all manner of other fun things. And NOW you're acting shocked that he's not a good guy? I have a really hard time with that, I really do. It's almost like they're making sure to paint Robert Kardashian in a good light in memory of him. I don't know. I just didn't buy it.

They really didn't know about the beatings.  Nicole kept it from most people.  Kris and Robert were "couple friends" to Nicole.  Robert was a personal friend of OJ's before he married Kris, but I think they only socialized with Nicole as couples.  Vacations, dinners, kids parties, that kind of thing.  After the trial I think Kris became a bigger part of the group (Kathy Hilton, Kyle Richards, Faye Resnick, and others) and I think that's where she learned about the beatings (from Faye.)  I'm not positive about this, but I think that's the way it happened, from my various reading.  Kris was married, so didn't usually go out on the girl's nights, and she wasn't a running friend either.  She may have suspected, but I think most of what she knew she found out after Nicole's death.  Robert I completely believe didn't know until the trial began.

 

I agree. The line that rang the most false to me was when he told Kris that "when the trial is over, I and our family will have nothing to do with OJ." They should have added a caveat: "except for OJs victory party that night, where I will be high-fiving and partying with OJ, and the book I will work on about OJ". I don't think Kardashian was a bad man, but I do think kardashian thought OJ was guilty pretty early on but for whatever reason (loyalty or giving good friend benefit of doubt) supported OJ during the trial. I don't believe he was as Team Nicole as the show is portraying and only stuck around because his leaving "would convict OJ". I know Robert had pushed OJ away at the time of his death, but I'm not sure if it was because he thought OJ murdered Nicole. That might have been why. But it could also have been Kardashian distancing himself from OJ because of all the trial backlash, or because of the lawsuit between the two of them over the book, or because kardashian may have noticed a striking resemblance between one of his kids and Sydney.

He really was over OJ, and you may be right, it could have been social pressure, but personally I think the show is correct in this, or at least, it leans more to that side of things.  In the media thread there is one of the columns from Dominick Dunne where they happen to run into one another shortly after the verdict.  It's very obvious that RK is no longer involved in any way with OJ.  He didn't just refuse his calls while he was dying, he did cut ties.  As for the victory celebration, I haven't seen the "high five" photo, but I believe you.  In a way I can understand that, one final expected appearance and then done.

 

As far as the book, it was obviously not a pro OJ book.  So many reports on that, and I can't tell what's true.  It seems that when it began RK expected OJ to be convicted, and wanted to get a real story out, and possibly recoup on the losses standing by OJ caused RK in his business, and perhaps to clear his conscious a bit, or to explain why in hell he ever got involved.  The book changed after the verdict seemed to be going the other way, and certainly after the acquittal.  Then of course, there was the lawsuit forbidding any privileged communications and the other lawyers and OJ both covering their asses, and shutting RK up, which is completely understandable because he was OJ's lawyer.

 

I think the truth of RK lies somewhere in the middle.  I remember watching him during the trial, he was on camera a lot, because of where he sat.  Now, this is only my impression, but I watched a man who seemed, too many times, to be thinking "how in hell did I get here?" and "OMG the jury looks like it's buying this shit." and certainly bemused and uncomfortable, deer caught in the headlights.  I dunno, almost like when I saw RK, I thought he felt as I did about the evidence presented, and the way things were handled.  It was a "which of these things is not like the others?" feeling, and not just his shock at the verdict.

[kathe5133]

Regarding Robert Kardashian, let's look at his daughters. "The Apple doesn't fall far from the tree". Even before they got their own show simply because "Kim had a big ass and a sex tape", the Kardashians sought out the famous just like dear old dad. Kim hung with Paris Hilton. "Styled" for big names. Kris Jenner dated Bruce, and even married him rather quickly despite his confession that he was born a woman. Kourtney was on the reality show about children of the famous. Celebrity Cattle Drive. Since they don't possess any traditional talent, they surrounded themselves with the famous and became famous. A man with true integrity would have walked away from OJ if he truly suspected he was the murderer. RK stayed. I don't believe cause he feared walking away would mean to others that OJ must have done it, but because there was fame attached to staying. When did he "walk away" it was after OJ was acquitted but had become a pariah. And he didn't walk that far. He wrote a book and made some cash. Those who cultivate fame have a different set of values. Reality to them is simply how they spin things. But on some level they must know that their behavior can be viewed as "wrong" since they work so hard to spin things to create the perception that they have traditional morals like the rest of us. "Devotion to his friend"? I call bullshit. Devotion to money and fame is the more likely scenario. Once he realized that OJ was forever tarnished he got out of Dodge pretty quickly.

[Isabella15]

I think the truth of RK lies somewhere in the middle.  I remember watching him during the trial, he was on camera a lot, because of where he sat.  Now, this is only my impression, but I watched a man who seemed, too many times, to be thinking "how in hell did I get here?" and "OMG the jury looks like it's buying this shit." and certainly bemused and uncomfortable, deer caught in the headlights.  I dunno, almost like when I saw RK, I thought he felt as I did about the evidence presented, and the way things were handled.  It was a "which of these things is not like the others?" feeling, and not just his shock at the verdict.

 

Only two more episodes and I realize how much I'm going to miss the great posts and commentary from all of you expert analysts!  I saw that there's an ESPN series on OJ coming up (this summer I think)  that uses actual footage to tell his life story.   I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of the people posting here, about that one too.  This trial was important for a lot of reasons-- and it at least brought to light good discussions. 

 

Wish Dominick was here to chat with you, Umbelina!  That would be pretty great. 

[Umbelina]

He wrote his columns that way, like a chat. 

 

I am no "expert" though, I haven't even read all the books.  I found the testimony site to be the most interesting though.

 

Meanwhile, about this episode, I was glad to see it focus mainly on the jury, since that was part of the trial I wasn't exposed to.  As far as what they said after, frankly, after the first comments I wasn't interested.  I felt the early comments were pretty honest, then they realized how the majority of people viewed their non-deliberation and obvious prejudices, and started the whole cover-your-ass interviews.  So, to me, I didn't feel they were being honest at all, not with reporters, and possibly not even with themselves, so I didn't bother.

 

This episode did show the hardships they endured as sequestered jurors.  Personally, I think it was pointless to sequester them, since they got weekly family 5 hour visits, in private, and could quickly be updated about the trial.  I'm sure at least some of them WERE informed about things, and shared that with others.  So, I alternately feel for them, and don't.  Many OBVIOUSLY lied to get on that jury, be close to fame, for whatever reasons.  By the end, even if they were caught lying I don't think Ito or the prosecution wanted them dismissed because of the mistrial, and stupidly, I don't think the prosecution did either.

 

A mistrial would have probably been the best in this case.

 

I feel that they are probably still carrying around the many burdens of the trial, and their conduct, and I get trying to justify it, and the reasons they use.  Still, I honestly think they must know he did it, beyond REASONABLE doubt.  Do I think their decision had nothing to do with the murders, and everything to do with either/both a "vote for Cochran" and "a vote against the prejudiced police?"  Yes.  I do.  I think the rest is all hyperbole.  I remember reporters talking about how the jury would perk up, sit forward in their seats when the defense got up to talk, especially Cochran, and have the opposite reaction to Darden and Marcia. 

 

I hope they were at least allowed books published before the crime, and I think it's stupid they didn't have TVs in their rooms, just cut the cable and have a VHS library, let them sign up to "check out" various DVDs in order.  If they could take them on excursions, they could buy a selection of tapes.  

 

Anyway, it was good to see what it was like for them, and even to see "them!"  As I said, they never appeared on television during the trial, so getting that inside peek at their lives was very interesting.

 

As for not allowing unchecked magazines or regular TV?  Well duh.  You couldn't shake a carrot without seeing something about the OJ trial.  It was everywhere, mentioned in the oddest places, magazines, TV, and newspapers of course, even a column about fashion might have an OJ mention. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Umbelina

[ganesh]

Like tv-Fuhrman, tv-Fung seemed way more polished and composed than real-life-Fung. From what I remember, Fung was awkward on the stand at best, even with the prosecution. I always thought Scheck's total destruction of Fung was what really did it, more than the glove. 

 

tv-Scheck seemed like I remembered: kind of bouncing around and way way amped up. 

 

I remember how the news ran so hard with the 1 in 170 million, but I never got the impression that it got across that well when watching the trial. I knew/know what DNA was, but they really needed to dumb it down way way more. 

 

I liked the DNA scenes because of the crushing realization washing over RK. 

 

Given the sensationalism of the case, and the likelihood of it dragging on, there should have been much more considerations of the psychological effects of the sequestration. Obviously, this was the first case of its kind, so it was impossible to predict. 

 

I did like the back and forth between Clark and Cochran. I think it's too simple to say that she screwed everything up. Though they did make mistakes. It's hard to say that it was a mistake (at the time) to rely on the overwhelming amount of evidence and DNA. No one faced a "dream team" before. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by ganesh

[smiley13]

They really didn't know about the beatings.  Nicole kept it from most people.  

I don't understand how it is claimed that no one knew.  I found the following in a LA Times article:

 

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-06-17/news/mn-5290_1_jail-time

 

Four months later, when Simpson pleaded no contest to spousal battery charges, Municipal Judge Ronald Schoenberg overruled prosecutors' requests that he serve a month in jail because of the severity of the beating and undergo an intensive yearlong treatment program for men who batter their wives.

Instead, according to the court documents and interviews with prosecutors Thursday, Simpson received no jail time and was allowed to pick his own psychiatrist and receive counseling over the phone, which prosecutors said was unprecedented.

The reports are in marked contrast to a public statement by Simpson when he was named an NBC football analyst in July, 1989. At a news conference to announce his hiring, Simpson downplayed the incident: "It was really a bum rap. We had a fight, that's all."

Edited March 26, 2016 by smiley13

[ridethemaverick]

They really didn't know about the beatings. Nicole kept it from most people. Kris and Robert were "couple friends" to Nicole. Robert was a personal friend of OJ's before he married Kris, but I think they only socialized with Nicole as couples. Vacations, dinners, kids parties, that kind of thing. After the trial I think Kris became a bigger part of the group (Kathy Hilton, Kyle Richards, Faye Resnick, and others) and I think that's where she learned about the beatings (from Faye.) I'm not positive about this, but I think that's the way it happened, from my various reading. Kris was married, so didn't usually go out on the girl's nights, and she wasn't a running friend either. She may have suspected, but I think most of what she knew she found out after Nicole's death. Robert I completely believe didn't know until the trial began.

He really was over OJ, and you may be right, it could have been social pressure, but personally I think the show is correct in this, or at least, it leans more to that side of things. In the media thread there is one of the columns from Dominick Dunne where they happen to run into one another shortly after the verdict. It's very obvious that RK is no longer involved in any way with OJ. He didn't just refuse his calls while he was dying, he did cut ties. As for the victory celebration, I haven't seen the "high five" photo, but I believe you. In a way I can understand that, one final expected appearance and then done.

As far as the book, it was obviously not a pro OJ book. So many reports on that, and I can't tell what's true. It seems that when it began RK expected OJ to be convicted, and wanted to get a real story out, and possibly recoup on the losses standing by OJ caused RK in his business, and perhaps to clear his conscious a bit, or to explain why in hell he ever got involved. The book changed after the verdict seemed to be going the other way, and certainly after the acquittal. Then of course, there was the lawsuit forbidding any privileged communications and the other lawyers and OJ both covering their asses, and shutting RK up, which is completely understandable because he was OJ's lawyer.

I think the truth of RK lies somewhere in the middle. I remember watching him during the trial, he was on camera a lot, because of where he sat. Now, this is only my impression, but I watched a man who seemed, too many times, to be thinking "how in hell did I get here?" and "OMG the jury looks like it's buying this shit." and certainly bemused and uncomfortable, deer caught in the headlights. I dunno, almost like when I saw RK, I thought he felt as I did about the evidence presented, and the way things were handled. It was a "which of these things is not like the others?" feeling, and not just his shock at the verdict.

I was always under the impression that everyone knew, including Nicole's family. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone in those circles turned a blind eye because of OJ's fame and money, much like the jury is accused of doing.

[Umbelina]

True, I don't know if they thought it was a one-time drunken brawl that got out of control, or what, but you are right, there would be gossip about it.  OJ downplays, and people decided to either believe that, or not "interfere between a man and wife" or whatever it their reasons were.  I just remember from reading those transcripts that Nicole hid quite a bit of it. 

 

Domestic abuse is much more of a topic today than it was then.  I also think it's much more common, even now, than most people want to admit.  OJ wasn't the only man who got off easy from the police during incidents like that.  Also, it's sadly true, that many women, especially those with young children, are so financially dependent on their abuser that they usually refuse to press charges, as Nicole did most of the time.

 

I've had cop friends and family over the years, and one told me how very frustrating it was to go to the same people's houses over and over again, see a wife who was obviously beaten, but then decided not to prosecute.  He felt awful about it, but it was the norm.  He said the one that really killed him was when he responded to the daughter of an abused woman, and she was in the same kind of marriage, he remembered her as a little girl when he'd repeatedly gone to respond at her mother's house. 

 

Excellent point though.

 

I think OJ's charm, and yes, fame and money helped, well that, and Nicole kept going back to him, so she had reasons to hide just how bad and often it happened. 

Edited March 26, 2016 by Umbelina

[smiley13]

I was always under the impression that everyone knew, including Nicole's family. I wouldn't be surprised if everyone in those circles turned a blind eye because of OJ's fame and money, much like the jury is accused of doing.

I completely think they turned a blind eye, especially the Brown family.  Money and fame are powerful and they did not want to lose OJ's money.  

[VanillaBeanne]

He really was over OJ, and you may be right, it could have been social pressure, but personally I think the show is correct in this, or at least, it leans more to that side of things. In the media thread there is one of the columns from Dominick Dunne where they happen to run into one another shortly after the verdict. It's very obvious that RK is no longer involved in any way with OJ. He didn't just refuse his calls while he was dying, he did cut ties. As for the victory celebration, I haven't seen the "high five" photo, but I believe you. In a way I can understand that, one final expected appearance and then done.

Actually, you misunderstood my post. I am not arguing that Robert kardashian abandoned OJ because of the verdict backlash. I noted that as one possible reason, and provided three other reasons why he may have done so. The show clearly has decided to go with the "Robert rejects OJ because he murdered Nicole" angle and my point is that it's not clear in real life that is the case. I never said he just refused calls when he was dying. I clearly stated he had pushed OJ out of his life by his death. In fact, the person who actually said that he refused OJs calls on his deathbed was Kris Jenner when asked if Robert had changed his mind about OJ. Kris didn't answer yes or no but said that he refused the calls, kind of implying that kardashian did believe in his guilt. But I thought she was being disingenuous because dIdnt OJ sue Kardashian after the trial? that could end a friendship, too. I'm just saying that we don't know why they fell out but the narrative the show is pushing is not completely supported by the facts. Robert is in several pics standing next to OJ and smiling at OJs house after the verdicT. There was absolutely no reason for that. The show is portraying Kardashian as this tortured soul who only stuck around to ensure that he wasn't the reason for OJ's conviction but who vowed that Oj was out of the Kardashians' life after the trial. That's why the line about OJ being out of their life post trial read false to me.

Another point, but when kardashian was interviewed by Barbara Walters, he said OJ never thanked him after the trial. I got the distinct impression from that that OJ had the opportunity to thank him since they interacted post-trial but never did.

Edited March 27, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[Aethera]

I finally had time to watch this, after reading all the commentary here, and I laughed out loud at Courtney B Vance's Ross reaction. It was terrific. Also the singing, also everything the man does, really. 

 

I'm enjoying the heck out of every moment of this show.

[starri]

I guess it would have been too on-the-nose for the TV argument being over Martin vs Friends.  I think I'm glad they resisted that impulse, but I may also be a little sad about the missed opportunity.

 

I totally felt for Tracy.  I get intensely claustrophobic when I'm stuck in one place for a long time, and I'm pretty sure I would have lost my mind after eight months of barely seeing anything outside of the hotel and the courthouse.  I was trying to have some sympathy for the others, but there was a lot of overly-smug things going on.  Armanda Cooley totally put me off, and I was really expecting to be impressed by her.

 

It was so hard having to relive Barry Scheck's cross of Fung.  I respect Scheck a lot, and it's just so jarring to see him ripping apart DNA evidence, when he's made it his life's work to free people wrongly convicted by using the same technology.

 

If you'd told me I'd have been incredibly moved by a scene involving Kris Jenner, I wouldn't have believed you.

[Dev F]

I guess it would have been too on-the-nose for the TV argument being over Martin vs Friends.  I think I'm glad they resisted that impulse, but I may also be a little sad about the missed opportunity.

 

Well, the other problem with it being a Friends vs. Martin argument is that Friends didn't premiere until late September 1994 and the jury had been sequestered since the following January. There might've been jurors who thought it was a fun new show, but it hadn't yet had time to become everyone's favorite.

[Kromm]

VERY enjoyable episode. I loved this one. It was comic and silly, but also dark and painful, all at the same time.

Yeah, there was some clear BS in this (I mean even still there's a ton that's not public about the jury), but a good amount of this jibes with stuff I remember hearing about the jury after the trial.

 

It was a lot more sympathetic to Ito than I'd expected too.

 

I'm still not in love with Gooding's portrayal of OJ (and rolled my eyes the other day when I heard some pundit talk about his Emmy possibilities), but DO think the Angry OJ we got this episode was a lot better than the sullen one we've gotten at some other points.

 

Nathan Lane is the real unsung MVP of this for me. I mean Sarah Paulson is the justly "sung" one, who'd better get a nomination. And Courtney B. Vance is killing it. But the more I watch this, the more I see these amazing moments from Lane that stun me. He really communicates how this unassuming guy, Bailey, was the real leader of the Dream Team. While Cochrane and Shapiro played games with each other, Bailey just made pronouncements and they usually got followed (at least in this version we're seeing, which admittedly isn't proven fact). But we also get other signs of how utterly ruthless Bailey is, with even small moments like his "it wasn't technically rape" one. Lane is the one I think may get ignored in the awards nominations, and MAN does he deserve one (I suspect with Gooding, Travolta, Schwimmer, Vance and maybe even Sterling K. Brown all hacking away at the same awards categories, Lane will be the last name anyone thinks about).

Edited March 27, 2016 by Kromm

[AntManBee]

While watching this episode it struck me that if the jury was really treated as crappy as they were by the county, and felt that they too were the subject of racism from the guards/county, it becomes easier to identify with the supposed racism argument presented by the defense.  Also, if I were that pissed off while being sequestered on the jury, I might start thinking of acquitting just to stick it to the prosecution. 

 

Also, why couldn't they watch both Seinfeld and Martin, or get two TVs and borrow a second conference room? 

[Tdoc72]

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 . . .

After a few complaints, they did set up a second TV area. But then group 1 made a rule that group 2 couldn't watch a video unless group 1 had already watched it. WTF? So after more complaints, Ito told the deputies to make a schedule of what would be shown and stick to it.

And yes, they did limit access to the pool and gym. They had to work around what the hotel would let them do, as the hotel had regular guests and also wasn't getting any extra benefit like publicity. Ito did get some gym equipment donated and they set up a jury only gym.

Older white guy with his superior attitude and "dont start that race stuff with me, I'm part native American" If I had a dollar for every time...

I got the TV info from reading the transcripts of Ito's jury interviews. That guy is all over them and sounds like he would be horrible to live with. Multiple juror complaints about him. He was copying names and info from the phone & conjugal visit logs. When they asked him, he gave a bullshit excuse and said he threw the paper out. They searched his room and found it hidden in his laptop case. Ito then dismissed him.

Also, why couldn't they watch both Seinfeld and Martin, or get two TVs and borrow a second conference room?

I answered in my first paragraph. My iPad won't let me move your quote up there. Edited March 27, 2016 by Tdoc72

[Aethera]

Nathan Lane is the real unsung MVP of this for me. I mean Sarah Paulson is the justly "sung" one, who'd better get a nomination. And Courtney B. Vance is killing it. But the more I watch this, the more I see these amazing moments from Lane that stun me. He really communicates how this unassuming guy, Bailey, was the real leader of the Dream Team. While Cochrane and Shapiro played games with each other, Bailey just made pronouncements and they usually got followed (at least in this version we're seeing, which admittedly isn't proven fact). But we also get other signs of how utterly ruthless Bailey is, with even small moments like his "it wasn't technically rape" one. Lane is the one I think may get ignored in the awards nominations, and MAN does he deserve one (I suspect with Gooding, Travolta, Schwimmer, Vance and maybe even Sterling K. Brown all hacking away at the same awards categories, Lane will be the last name anyone thinks about).

 

Strongly agree, Kromm. He was a revelation for me a couple of seasons ago on The Good Wife, and I think he's putting in a similarly amazing, subtle performance here, among a lot of showier ones. He's terrific. I'll be sad when he's inevitably passed over.

[CeeBeeGee]

I got the TV info from reading the transcripts of Ito's jury interviews. That guy is all over them and sounds like he would be horrible to live with. Multiple juror complaints about him. He was copying names and info from the phone & conjugal visit logs. When they asked him, he gave a bullshit excuse and said he threw the paper out. They searched his room and found it hidden in his laptop case. Ito then dismissed him.

 

Who the hell would do that?! What a nasty gossipy POS. Sequestration is difficult enough without imagining a fellow juror taking notes on your private time with your spouse. Glad they chucked him.

[biakbiak]

Who the hell would do that?! What a nasty gossipy POS. Sequestration is difficult enough without imagining a fellow juror taking notes on your private time with your spouse. Glad they chucked him.

Someone who was most likely going to write a book on what it was like to be sequestered.

[Tdoc72]

Who the hell would do that?! What a nasty gossipy POS. Sequestration is difficult enough without imagining a fellow juror taking notes on your private time with your spouse. Glad they chucked him.

I went back to make sure I had my facts straight about him. I decided to google his name. #602/Tracy Kennedy. He did co-write a book called "Mistrial of the Century: A Private Diary of the Jury System on Trial" with his wife. He also killed her and then himself in 2008, although I didn't see a lot of info about this. Link: [url=http://www.wdam.com/story/8558908/former-o-j-simpson-juror-dead-in-apparent-murder-suicide]

[hendersonrocks]

He also killed her and then himself in 2008, although I didn't see a lot of info about this.

 

Holy $@&!. I didn't know that. Horrible.

 

I'm really interested to see how they approach the final episode; if they do some "where are they now"-esque updates or if they just leave the story when the trial ends in 1995.

[LeapDayBaby]

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?

 

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for namechecking Jeffrey "Fatal Vision" MacDonald in this week's recap. If I thought the casting would be anywhere near as spot-on as most of the casting is for this series, I would love to see what ACS would make of that case.

[helenamonster]

Holy $@&!. I didn't know that. Horrible.

 

I'm really interested to see how they approach the final episode; if they do some "where are they now"-esque updates or if they just leave the story when the trial ends in 1995.

 

Weirdly enough, I'd love it if the verdict was the first scene of the last episode and then we spent the rest of the hour kind of jumping through time to see what happened to everyone.

 

Also echo the wtf-ery of what ended up happening with that juror. Sometimes you really can't make this shit up.

[Hanahope]

I had never heard of Martin and while I have heard of Seinfeld, I never liked the show.  Trying to remember what I was watching back in 1995.  Star Trek, DS9, X-files, Bablyon 5, Lois & Clark, my nerd shows.  Not too much I guess.  I must have just been playing computer games. :)

 

It is amazing that some people on the jury lied about such easily provable things.  And almost surprising that the prosecution didn't try to do more, to cause a mistrial, given how some of the events went so badly for them (glove, Fung).  And really too bad for the prosecution that CSI hadn't been on TV yet to explain DNA to the masses. 

 

I'm a bit of a loss as to why the one juror was dismissed for the annoymous letter.  I mean, even if it was true (and really if that's all the 'proof' Ito had, anyone could bounce any juror with something similar), that she was shopping for a book deal after the trial, could anyone honestly think that people weren't going to do that after the trial?  I mean really?  Maybe it was different back then, but when even Faye Resnik got a boatload for her book and Judge Ito knew about tabloid TV and that an author was in the courtroom daily, how could he find fault with a juror considering writing a book after the trial?  Its not like the juror made up her mind as to guilt or innocence, the book could go either way.

[Moose135]

And almost surprising that the prosecution didn't try to do more, to cause a mistrial, given how some of the events went so badly for them (glove, Fung).

 

All I know about the law is what I've seen on Law & Order, but from what I've seen, if the prosecution deliberately does something to cause a mistrial if the case isn't going well, the judge may rule "jeopardy attached" preventing a new trial.

[txhorns79]

I mean, even if it was true (and really if that's all the 'proof' Ito had, anyone could bounce any juror with something similar), that she was shopping for a book deal after the trial, could anyone honestly think that people weren't going to do that after the trial?  I mean really?  Maybe it was different back then, but when even Faye Resnik got a boatload for her book and Judge Ito knew about tabloid TV and that an author was in the courtroom daily, how could he find fault with a juror considering writing a book after the trial?

 

Your jurors have to at least have the appearance of being dispassionate observers when they render their verdict.  If a juror is shopping around for a book deal, that immediately creates a conflict of interest.  You no longer know whether the juror is acting the way they do for the purpose of rendering justice, or for the purpose of their potential book deal.   

[Umbelina]

I went back to make sure I had my facts straight about him. I decided to google his name. #602/Tracy Kennedy. He did co-write a book called "Mistrial of the Century: A Private Diary of the Jury System on Trial" with his wife. He also killed her and then himself in 2008, although I didn't see a lot of info about this. Link: [url=http://www.wdam.com/story/8558908/former-o-j-simpson-juror-dead-in-apparent-murder-suicide]

Wow.

 

Apparently he also attempted suicide from the stress of being sequestered.  http://www.amazon.com/Mistrial-Century-Private-Diary-System-ebook/dp/B006NSWAVA The book has pretty good reviews, and reading the Amazon reviewer's comments is interesting.  His book wasn't about OJ, but about the way jurors were treated.  I wonder if this show's writers/runners also read it?  Probably, obviously they are getting stuff from many sources, not just Toobin's book. 

[psychoticstate]

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for namechecking Jeffrey "Fatal Vision" MacDonald in this week's recap. If I thought the casting would be anywhere near as spot-on as most of the casting is for this series, I would love to see what ACS would make of that case.

 

​

Me too.  It would make for an interesting season of ACS although at least in MacDonald's case, he's behind bars for murder where he deserves to be.

[vibeology]

Your jurors have to at least have the appearance of being dispassionate observers when they render their verdict.  If a juror is shopping around for a book deal, that immediately creates a conflict of interest.  You no longer know whether the juror is acting the way they do for the purpose of rendering justice, or for the purpose of their potential book deal.   

 

Part of it too if I'm remembering it right wasn't just that it was a book, but specifically a book about fighting for Ron and Nicole and trying to get a guilty verdict. A juror who is already shopping that narrative around while the trial is ongoing in a huge problem because they cannot be impartial if a book deal is tied to how they vote.

[psychoticstate]

Part of it too if I'm remembering it right wasn't just that it was a book, but specifically a book about fighting for Ron and Nicole and trying to get a guilty verdict. A juror who is already shopping that narrative around while the trial is ongoing in a huge problem because they cannot be impartial if a book deal is tied to how they vote.

 

 

This is true; however, it was never discovered that the juror was writing a book or planning to.  The publishing company the letter supposedly came from had no knowledge of any book on the case from any juror.  And the juror in question has never published a book about the case, making the letter suspect.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Nicole kept it from most people.  Kris and Robert were "couple friends" to Nicole.  Robert was a personal friend of OJ's before he married Kris, but I think they only socialized with Nicole as couples.  Vacations, dinners, kids parties, that kind of thing.  After the trial I think Kris became a bigger part of the group (Kathy Hilton, Kyle Richards, Faye Resnick, and others) and I think that's where she learned about the beatings (from Faye.)  I'm not positive about this, but I think that's the way it happened, from my various reading.

 

Umbelina, I am in the middle of reading the Petrocelli book, and I happen to have read the account of his conversation with Kris last night. She comes off very well, very helpful to the civil suit, but I'd say it's ambiguous what she knew and when (unless there's more later). Petrocelli asks her who might have seen firsthand examples of OJ's abuse of Nicole, and she's able to provide him with a list of names to follow up on. She talks about how she and Nicole went running together, and Nicole talked about her fears that OJ would kill her. And it was Kris who introduced Nicole to both Faye Resnick and Cici Shahian; they were Kris's friends first. 

 

Reading between the lines, I think Kris learned a lot more about the dark side of the OJ/Nicole marriage, and got closer to Nicole, after each divorced her husband. Maybe while the two couples were married, it was more of a social/couples relationship, with the two husbands knowing each other better than the wives did, or better than the wives knew the other husbands.  

Edited March 29, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Kel Varnsen]

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.

Why can't it be both? What I am thinking of is a situation where a some evidence is planted or doctored by police, not to frame an innocent man but to help a case along and make sure a guilty man goes to jail. And then on top of that there is a ton of really crappy evidence collection. Not that I think this happened, but at the same time this isn't an unreasonable theory. And the defense doesn't need to prove that someone else did the murders, just that the DA didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is like Barry Scheck said in this episode, if enough of the evidence is called into question it all gets thrown out in the minds of the jury. And without the DNA blood evidence, how much of a case did the people have?

[DangerousMinds]

IMO they still had an excellent case, with or without the blood evidence.

[LennieBriscoe]

Robert Kardashian did not write a book about OJ Simpson.

[Umbelina]

He was going to, but the lawsuit made him take his name off of it.  It's well known that he co-wrote it though.

[Jel]

This episode brought back some memories for me. I was an avid trial watcher who did not want OJ Simpson to be guilty (I now believe he was, but while watching the trial almost everyday I was attempting to "keep an open mind"). 

 

I remember the Barry Scheck day well. I knew what DNA was and also knew how small an amount is 1.8 milliliters, but that day the missing 1.8 mls of blood, the blood itself being at the crime scene, the blanket, all made a big impression on me.  

[LennieBriscoe]

Francine Florio-Bunten, the targeted (White) juror of the anonymous "shopping a book" note, never wrote a book.

Never was the allegation proven against her. There was nobody in any literary agency (the supposed workplace of the note-sender) who could be identified as the writer. No literary agency claimed any contact with F-B or her husband. The source was never discovered.

F-B was dismissed because Ito did not believe she had not seen a warning note scribbled, allegedly to her, by another juror on the margins of a newspaper. He said she was lying, and that was that.

Edited March 30, 2016 by LennieBriscoe

[Umbelina]

Yeah, the defense didn't want her on that jury.  Ito wouldn't let either side investigate the claim, said he would (I THINK) and didn't .  Had it been later, after the jury was dropping like flies, he might have.

[Milburn Stone]

I don't know how Judge Ito will be portrayed in the next episode, but I do know that as of this episode, he's still awesome. It's causing me to re-evaluate the conventional wisdom of the time that he was incompetent, in over his head, responsible for the trial becoming a circus, etc. He's not doing a whole lot wrong that I can see.

[Umbelina]

That's the one thing the show isn't doing well.  There are numerous articles and even whole sections of books about Ito's mistakes out there. 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/02/us/in-the-trial-of-his-lifetime-ito-finds-himself-in-the-dock.html?pagewanted=all

 

http://www.defrostingcoldcases.com/it-wasn%E2%80%99t-just-the-gloves-you-know%E2%80%A6/

Edited March 30, 2016 by Umbelina

[Kel Varnsen]

IMO they still had an excellent case, with or without the blood evidence.

Did they? I am asking because i dont know and from the show and what i have read, other than the gloves, their case was that OJ was a wife beater who did not have an alibi for the time of the murder. Not sure if that would bw enough for me to put someone away for murder. I imagine things people want to see on murder cases would be a murder weapon, an eye witness or a confession. They had none of those.

[Umbelina]

His blood at the scene.

 

That right there, was enough.

 

For motive?  The numerous photos of a beaten up Nicole, the number of police calls about him, and that audio of him raging at her, while she pleaded, "he's going to kill me."  There was a lot more in this category.

 

His hair on the cap.  His blood on the glove 17 offices saw at Bundy.  SO much more.

 

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

Edited March 31, 2016 by Umbelina