S01.E09: Manna From Heaven

[OSM Mom]

What was up with Ito and all the hourglasses? Was that really a thing he had?

As I recall, he collected them. And he did have an assortment on the bench. Maybe someone else knows why he liked them so much.

God this show is so good. The actors are perfect. Everyone is hitting it out of the park. Sad that next week is the last episode.

[Pepperminty]

So I looked up Fuhrman's net worth and it says 3 million dollars.

I feel a bit conflicted at the show because the actor playing him is pretty hot.

[ganesh]

I had no idea about this whole issue with the tapes. I wasn't aware that Darden suggested a mistrial, or if that was dramatic license. I tend to agree that after the DNA disaster that pushing for a mistrial was risky but probably the best bet. I mean, they had to be totally ignorant to think they had a shred of a chance of conviction. OJ essentially is going to walk anyway. 

 

I liked Darden totally unraveling though. Poor guy. The second courtroom outburst was brilliant. I don't remember that happening. It looked like CBV was playing Cochran actually being impressed with Darden there. 

 

Cochran's public move was smart though. 

 

Judge's don't like when witnesses commit perjury in their courtroom though.

 

I had to laugh at all of the symbols of confederacy littered in the scenes in North Carolina. It is so timely given the debate about these racist symbols today.

 

And the recent anti-lgbt law. 

 

Ito should have recused himself but he was a total famewhore, and there was no way he was going to. 

 

The only problem with the show was that tv-Fuhrman is way too telegenic. Real life Fuhrman looked like a weasel, so the pleading the 5th looked even worse. 

[Kromm]

I had no idea about this whole issue with the tapes. I wasn't aware that Darden suggested a mistrial, or if that was dramatic license. I tend to agree that after the DNA disaster that pushing for a mistrial was risky but probably the best bet. I mean, they had to be totally ignorant to think they had a shred of a chance of conviction. OJ essentially is going to walk anyway. 

 

I liked Darden totally unraveling though. Poor guy. The second courtroom outburst was brilliant. I don't remember that happening. It looked like CBV was playing Cochran actually being impressed with Darden there.

It's odd that something SO documented back then still has some level of unsurity,  But...

 

Fact-checking Episode 9 of The People v. O.J. Simpson

 

Clark and Darden’s Courtroom Volatility

“I suspect what we’re seeing here is the need to act out things people might have been feeling,” Newton posits, echoing his ongoing reaction to scenes of the legal teams losing composure in court. “It’s hard to just show someone sitting impassively and feeling torn up inside. My abiding recollection in terms of the behaviors of the lawyers in court is that it was highly professional. There were moments where people got mad or there was a fierce objection, but I don’t recall this series of shouting matches or crestfallen looks. I think they probably do capture correctly the anguish and intensity these lawyers are feeling. I just think it’s not quite right to suggest they acted those feelings out in court.”

Darden Walking Out As Fuhrman Took the Stand

“I don’t remember that,” says Newton. “This was a fairly agonizing period for him, but I don’t remember anyone bolting the proceedings quite like that. I’m pretty sure if that happened it would have made it into our story.”

[Editor’s Note: While it’s difficult to ascertain Darden’s whereabouts in the AP video from that day, there’s no confirmation from the L.A. Times archives or elsewhere that he in fact elected to leave the proceedings while Fuhrman invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege.]

[SFoster21]

The tapes were relevant to show that he lied about using racist epithets in the last ten years. He had testified that his racist tendencies had abated thanks to counselling. (He had told the PD that he was having a nervous breakdown or some such; the details are out there.) The question Flee asked him was, "are you as sure about not using the n-word as you are about not having planted evidence in this case?" The judge redacted the tapes to a few words, because they were not relevant, except to show his use of the word.

The show does not portray several other live witnesses who testified to recent encounters with Fuhrman, during which he made racist statements.

He was a major witness for the prosectors at the preliminary hearing and at the trial. His credibility was destroyed by the defense.

Edited March 30, 2016 by SFoster21

[Simon Boccanegra]

The only problem with the show was that tv-Fuhrman is way too telegenic. Real life Fuhrman looked like a weasel, so the pleading the 5th looked even worse.

 

Well...beauty and the beholder and all, but a lot of people did and do find Real Fuhrman telegenic and in the above-average range for attractiveness, whatever they think of his history. Below, something from the journalistic wayback machine ("Fuhrman, however, did an unusual thing. He looked each and every juror in the eye, in exactly the same manner O. J. Simpson did during jury selection. Fuhrman did, in other words, a very Simpson-like thing: He exuded charm. A handsome, square-jawed, cleft-chinned, imposing man [...]"):  

 

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1995-03-10/news/1995069006_1_mark-fuhrman-simpson-witness

 

There was also that whole subplot involving the Marine recruiting station and Kathleen Bell and Andrea Terry, which Bailey managed to get in (to no great effect at the time), and Fuhrman apparently was considered quite the eye candy among that set. So, in my opinion, casting a handsome actor was truthful, even though I don't think this particular handsome actor looks that much like him. 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[iMonrey]

I for one will be glad when this is over because I find it just as exhausting as I found the real trial 20 years ago. Even more so knowing how it will end.

 

I'm inclined to think the Fuhrman tapes were a real turning point but then again every episode brings something new that seems like a turning point. Collectively I just think the prosecution bungled the case - my original impression in 1995, being confirmed here.

[deerstalker]

A criminal defendant on the stand must assert a blanket 5th Amendment right, or have it deemed waived.  But Fuhrman was not the defendant here, OJ was.  He could have, if he so chose, answered questions selectively, only refusing to answer questions which may have implicated him.  The fact that he asserted his 5th Amendments rights on the question of whether or not he planted evidence is pretty damning, but in light of the subsequent Rampart Scandal, not very surprising.

 

At a criminal trial, it is not only the defendant who enjoys the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity (not limited to the case being tried). Witnesses (as well as defendants) in organized crime trials often plead the Fifth, for instance. But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions. Also, unlike defendants, witnesses may be forced by law to testify (typically by subpoena).  http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html

[Kbilly]

Sterling K. Brown owned this episode.

 

When he snapped at a smug, laughing Cohran "It's not funny" or "Nothing is funny".......BOOM. He's been great and I too wished for a kiss in the office with Marsha even if it wouldn't be factually accurate! 

 

I feel a bit conflicted at the show because the actor playing him is pretty hot.

 

Steven Pasquale is a babe. I first loved him on "Rescue Me". The content of the tapes made me physically nauseous. When Fuhrman walked into the courtroom, everyone looked at him with the disgust that wasn't given to the murderer in their midst. Even OJ was looking at him with contempt--the actual man on trial, not Fuhrman. Everything went so sideways.

[Kromm]

A criminal defendant on the stand must assert a blanket 5th Amendment right, or have it deemed waived.  But Fuhrman was not the defendant here, OJ was.  He could have, if he so chose, answered questions selectively, only refusing to answer questions which may have implicated him.  The fact that he asserted his 5th Amendments rights on the question of whether or not he planted evidence is pretty damning, but in light of the subsequent Rampart Scandal, not very surprising.

 

At a criminal trial, it is not only the defendant who enjoys the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity (not limited to the case being tried). Witnesses (as well as defendants) in organized crime trials often plead the Fifth, for instance. But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions. Also, unlike defendants, witnesses may be forced by law to testify (typically by subpoena).  http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html

Ah, but even if that's the case would Fuhrman have known that? He was better trained in legalities than an average citizen, true, but that fine a level of distinction still might have been beyond his knowledge.

[psychoticstate]

The tapes were relevant to show that he lied about using racist epithets in the last ten years.

 

 

True, but I feel the question never should have been asked.  At that point the defense was on a fishing expedition, to try and turn a homicide case into a case about race.  

[helenamonster]

I remember that big argument about the witness saying he heard a male voice that sounded black, and it made me so angry at the time. Ninety-five percent of the time, when someone cold-calls you, you can accurately guess the race of the person based on the voice. If I heard OJ Simpson's voice yelling, I'd have a good idea it was an African-American man. If I heard Johnnie Cochran's voice, same thing.

 

To claim that that was racism we should have been so beyond in 1995 was just beyond the pale and desperate. He would have elicited the same kind of testimony if it'd been in a client's favor. 

 

I wonder if this would have been an accurate criticism during the time period. Weren't the '90s rather notorious for their "political correctness"?

 

I think of it this way. My parents (both white, for the record) are in their 50s, they grew up during the Civil Rights Movement. When talking about race, they are most likely to think that it's best to treat everyone equally and not even acknowledge that there are any differences. I agree that, for the most part, many of us would be able to tell the ethnicity/race of a person based on their voice alone, but I think people of a certain generation would be less likely to admit that because they were raised to think of everyone as being equal and the same. A similar thing happened with two teachers at my high school. I grew up in a predominantly white area with very few black people (there were more people of southeast Asian descent than there were black people). When talking about race in my biology class (how there is no genetic basis for it but we can still, with a lot of certainty, identify someone's race by looking at them), my teacher relayed a story about how she asked another teacher about a student in a class they taught together. The other teacher was horrible with names and didn't know who she was talking about, so my teacher said, "The African American girl" as there was only one in the class. The other teacher responded with, "Oh, I don't see color in my students" and my teacher thought that was the most ridiculous response ever. Admitting that the student is black isn't offensive, it's simply how it is. And the fact that you don't notice the one black student in a sea of white and Asian American students is fucking ridiculous. But it ties in with the sort of "colorblindness" that we've seen go horribly wrong on this show, especially in regards to Clark.

 

Nowadays, I think people of younger generations, mine especially, acknowledge that everyone should be treated equally but that there are obvious differences between people of different races. The important thing is to embrace and accept those differences instead of pretending that we're all the same, because we're just not.

 

I am curious why they didn't push for the mistrial. Darden said it best. They could NOT have Furmann, they could push not to have cameras (which was such a joke). they would move it somewhere else. I don't get why he pled the 5th on the last question though

This show is such a thinker, and it was well done. I really hope there's a season two and three. 

 

If the prosecution made it too obvious that they were pushing for a mistrial, Ito might attach double jeopardy and they wouldn't be able to retry the case. I actually thought, based on this interpretation anyway, that Clark and Darden showed remarkable restraint in court for their desire for a mistrial, and if Ito had decided to grant one I think they would have earned the right to a do-over.

 

Season two has already gotten the green light, it's going to be about Hurricane Katrina.

 

Question: why couldn't Kardashian just walk away? Are you bound to stay with the defense so as not to give the impression that you don't believe him anymore?

 

It was more about optics than legalities. If any of OJ's attorneys had decided to leave, there would have been an uproar and more suspicion with the general public that he was guilty. But Kardashian, who didn't do much in terms of lawyering beyond acting as the "OJ Whisperer" would have been especially conspicuous, as he had a well-known close friendship with OJ before the murders and him not standing by his friend's side to the end would have sent up major red flags regarding guilt.

 

You know the same way that last episode made me appreciate the subtleties and less likely to be noticed and nominated acting of Nathan Lane, this one did the same for me with Kenneth Choi.  Kenneth Who? you may be asking. Exactly. He's so submerged into the role of Ito, and not a name many of us know, it's not surprising if you're thinking that.

 

It's tough because Ito did not come out of this case looking very good. But the past few episodes the show has engaged a lot of sympathy for Ito, and that's due a lot to the actor.

 

Kenneth Choi is a name we're even less likely to see nominated for anything than Nathan Lane. The people doing the flashy stuff on this show are going to be the ones rewarded.

 

Co-sign. The only thing I knew Choi from before this was as Henry Lin on Sons of Anarchy, and almost immediately after recognizing him here, I've pretty much forgotten that both characters are played by the same guy. Granted, they are two very different characters, but I was sure I'd be distracted from knowing him from a different show. He's been doing a great job and I agree it's a shame that he isn't getting the same credit that the flashier (though still wonderful) actors are getting.

 

I was thinking about this episode today and it struck me...if this miniseries was totally fictional, no basis on real events, we would not be praising it as much as we are in these threads, especially this episode. If this was fictional, we'd be calling the Fuhrman tapes an 11th hour ass-pull that was clearly the writers trying to give the defense a plausible win after painting themselves into a corner. I mean, seriously. 13 hours of tape, Fuhrman saying the n-word every other sentence, and also just happening to say some pretty disparaging things about the judge's wife, who also happened to have disciplined him regarding a racist incident in the past...it pretty much has to be real to work. Dunne lampshaded it this episode, comparing the twists to an airplane paperback, and it's so spot on. This miniseries is ridiculous and almost implausible at times, but it's the most ridiculous and implausible moments that are based in truth. Incredible.

[Rustybones]

Fuhrman may not have known about the Fifth Amendment and that he could have chosen specific questions to answer, but I recall in the real trial Fuhrman had his attorney next to him, and he looked to him for answers each time before he answered.  He had an attorney for advice, and he should have told him he could be selective.  They didn't show that he had his attorney present in the TV show.

[Umbelina]

Did the form ask if they knew anyone on the list, or if they had issues with anyone on the list? As a high ranking police officer, I would think she knew all of the officers involved.

Good question, what exactly did she sign, and why wasn't THAT perjury, and why wasn't she up on charges?  Anyone remember?

 

I think Fuhrman plea bargained for a couple of years probation and $200. His record was expunged a year after he came off probation. He had moved to Idaho and did his probation there.

As someone up thread said, he has become a really good writer. I've read a couple of his books.

No.  He pleaded no contest, is a convicted felon (can't own, carry, or be in possession of a gun, can't vote, etc.)  https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0333.htm He did serve probation only.

 

I am curious why they didn't push for the mistrial. Darden said it best. They could NOT have Furmann, they could push not to have cameras (which was such a joke). they would move it somewhere else. I don't get why he pled the 5th on the last question though

This show is such a thinker, and it was well done. I really hope there's a season two and three. 

Answered below, the whole "double jeopardy" could have applied, although I still think that would have been the best option.

 

I disagree with that statement that the prosecution bungled the case from the beginning.  Don't get me wrong, they made mistakes but I wouldn't say they bungled it up from go.  

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say the jury were idiots but I think they had their minds made up well before deliberations or even closing arguments.  They didn't want to convict, in my opinion, no matter what the evidence said.  And Ito enabled the defense to use racism in a way it should never have been used in this case because Ron and Nicole were not murdered because of racism, their skin color or anyone else's. 

 

 

 

 

No, you cannot cherry pick what questions you want to plead the Fifth to.  It's an all or nothing.  If you plead the Fifth on one question, you must plead on all, no matter how innocent they are.  That's why Shapiro's suggestion to Cochran was, I hate to say, brilliant.  Get in the question about planting evidence because they knew he would have to plead the Fifth and not be able to deny it. .  

I agree the jury had made up their minds, probably some of them before they heard a word of testimony.  The show has done a very good job of showing the very real reasons behind some of that though.  Many were dismissed after all, and frankly, they couldn't afford to dismiss any more of them.  It was almost completely an African American jury, they had 5 hour conjugal or family visits each week, they knew everything we knew, whether presented in court or not. 

 

Between the sequestering (which indeed, for them, was like being in a sort of jail, and I'm sure incredibly stressful and uncomfortable, in some ways of course better than a real jail, but in other ways, worse.  Regular prisoners at least get TV, and can talk freely) and the weight of the chance to right hundreds of years worth of wrongs to African Americans by sustaining the idea that the police were corrupt?  Add to that the pressure they probably felt to not be "Uncle Tom'd" like Chris Darden, and to side with their own, on a world stage? 

 

I get it.  Ron and Nicole (the gold digger who stole a successful black man from the marriage pool, and his black wife and children) were not as important to them as the overall message they wanted to send.  How many black people never got justice?  What does it matter that two white people didn't? 

 

They were able to hang their hat on the swirling hyperbole and catch-phases that Johnny provided, (RUSH TO JUDGEMENT!  IF IT DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT!) the high points of the trial, the interesting stuff was all Johnny, and of course Sheck destroying the shy Fung, making him look far more incompetent that he was?  That's why their bags were packed the night before, that's why they didn't even bother to deliberate.  They interpreted the phrase "reasonable doubt" the way many people here have, not the legal way.

 

When Clark and Darden were discussing it, she mentioned something about it could mean double jeopardy and OJ would walk. She also didn't think it would look good if the prosecution pushed for a mistrial.

True, and with Ito, God knows that could have happened.  I think she made the wrong call though, and had they been as sneaky as the defense, I doubt it would have applied.

 

A criminal defendant on the stand must assert a blanket 5th Amendment right, or have it deemed waived.  But Fuhrman was not the defendant here, OJ was.  He could have, if he so chose, answered questions selectively, only refusing to answer questions which may have implicated him.  The fact that he asserted his 5th Amendments rights on the question of whether or not he planted evidence is pretty damning, but in light of the subsequent Rampart Scandal, not very surprising.

 

At a criminal trial, it is not only the defendant who enjoys the Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Witnesses who are called to the witness stand can refuse to answer certain questions if answering would implicate them in any type of criminal activity (not limited to the case being tried). Witnesses (as well as defendants) in organized crime trials often plead the Fifth, for instance. But unlike defendants, witnesses who assert this right may do so selectively and do not waive their rights the moment they begin answering questions. Also, unlike defendants, witnesses may be forced by law to testify (typically by subpoena).  http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/fifth-amendment-right-against-self-incrimination.html

 

THANKS!

I've seen people plead the 5th on some, but not all questions.  Also, Fuhrman had a lawyer right next to him, representing him in court.  The TV show omitted that.  He answered nothing until that lawyer told him what to say each time.

Ah, but even if that's the case would Fuhrman have known that? He was better trained in legalities than an average citizen, true, but that fine a level of distinction still might have been beyond his knowledge.

As above, he didn't rely on his own knowlege, his lawyer was right there telling him what to say after each question, which again, leads me to believe he COULD have answered some.

 

 

But Marcia couldn't see the forest, while Chris Darden could. Alas, "You only wanted a Black face; you didn't want a Black voice."

 

It was a great scene, I wonder how it really happened, and I can't remember Darden's book or Clark's about this. 

 

The thing is, Marcia Clark was a very experienced trial attorney who never lost a murder case.  I don't know if Darden had EVER been on a murder trial, or for that matter, any major trial.  Hell, I don't know if he ever argued a real case in front of a jury.  He was in no way really "co-council" she was senior, period.  I do wonder how much of her "not listening" was partly because, as a woman, it's very easy for men to start thinking they are in charge, even more so back then.  I don't think Darden was the type of sexist that would have pulled that crap, but I'm positive Marcia Clark DID have that happen during her rise to the top, so she may have had a built in system to stop that in it's tracks.  If so (and I really think it's likely) she treated Darden in a habitual way, the way she'd had to with male colleagues, drew a boundary around her position as LEAD and SENIOR.  If she'd been a man, she would have never had to begin doing that.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Umbelina

[Apprentice79]

True, but I feel the question never should have been asked.  At that point the defense was on a fishing expedition, to try and turn a homicide case into a case about race.  

When it comes to how some  police officers treat Black people, in particular young Black men, it is a legitimate question..I don't understand why it is so hard to understand that we have a system that treats people of color differently..We are not all treated equal, that is a fact...

[psychoticstate]

When it comes to how some  police officers treat Black people, in particular young Black men, it is a legitimate question..I don't understand why it is so hard to understand that we have a system that treats people of color differently..We are not all treated equal, that is a fact...

 

So is it only legitimate to ask a white cop if he or she has used a racial epithet if the defendant is black?  And should every white cop be asked if they have used a racial epithet if the defendant is anything other than white?  

 

I'm not denying that there are racists out there and plenty of them and some cops are racist but I don't think race belonged anywhere in this case.  It muddied the waters.  OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole, plain and simple.  It had nothing to do with Simpson's race; it had nothing to do with Ron's race; it had nothing to do with Nicole's race.  Yes, Mark Fuhrman was/is a racist and what he said was disgusting but I don't think he planted evidence or went after Simpson for the reasons that have been posted in these threads multiple times.  Johnnie Cochran knew exactly what would happen if he played the so-called race card and he was right.  Everyone forgot about the murders of Ron and Nicole and the mountain of evidence against Simpson and it became the Fuhrman trial.

[Kromm]

I wonder if this would have been an accurate criticism during the time period. Weren't the '90s rather notorious for their "political correctness"?

It's worse now, IMO. Except now we have the dichotomy that we have an equally annoying/societally ruining kick-back where people use someone like Donald Trump as some kind of standard bearer for bluntless.

[Kromm]

True, but I feel the question never should have been asked.  At that point the defense was on a fishing expedition, to try and turn a homicide case into a case about race.

Well this is where the real world came to the conclusion that Lance Ito was a bumbling incompetent judge, whereas this series is kind of implying that while he briefly enjoyed the fame early on, that he was really up shit's creek later in the trial and probably had reason to fear L.A. burning down around him if he said or did the wrong thing.

[deerstalker]

I think the jury made the correct decision, and I don't think the prosecution bungled the case.  The investigation was pretty much a nonstarter by the time it got handed over to the prosecution.  If the case was going to be proved by DNA evidence, Scheck absolutely destroyed and obscured the prosecution's case.  He raised questions about their handling of the evidence, missing blood, lab preservatives in the blood that they found, and cross-contamination (all without really denying that the blood found was OJ's).  Cochran raised the specter of police misconduct for the physical evidence, where his part of the case revolved around the police planting evidence, mostly due to racial animosity against OJ.  So it was beyond fortuitous to have a tape of the lead detective, who found a lot of the physical evidence, on tape...admitting to planting evidence, hating black people in general, and interracial couples specifically.  When this same detective takes the 5th (under the advice of his lawyer)  chooses to take the 5th when asked if has planted evidence in *this* case, well, I think you have more than enough for reasonable doubt.  It's as simple as "garbage in, garbage out."  You probably don't need to deliberate for very long at that point.  The defense raised valid points regarding the evidence at every step of the way.

 

I do think race does belong in this case, if the defense's argument is that a virulently racist cop planted evidence against the defendant.  The defense was considered a bit crazy and outlandish at the time, but in light of the Rampart Scandal, perhaps they were not too far off.

 

The LAPD Rampart scandal refers to widespread corruption in the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) anti-gang unit of the Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart Division in the late 1990s. More than 70 police officers either assigned to or associated with the Rampart CRASH unit were implicated in some form of misconduct, making it one of the most widespread cases of documented police misconduct in United States history, responsible for a long list of offenses including unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of false evidence, frameups, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and the covering up of evidence of these activities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal

[beaker73]

Give Sterling Brown all the Emmy.  All of them.  Even the ones for choreography, set design and music.  Except Outstanding Actress, that can go to Sarah Paulson but the rest go to Brown.  He took all of my emotions and wiped the floor with them last night.

 

Off to read this thread and re-live it all over again.  I don't want it to be over next week, even though I know the outcome and the entire thing sickens me to the core. 

I literally said the same thing out loud last night.  I've never seen Sterling K. Brown in anything before, but I will certainly keep an eye out for him.  He's been absolutely amazing.   

 

I hated David Schwimmer's performance in the first few episodes, but he has really grown on me.  I, too, cannot wait to see his face during the verdict reading. 

 

I had no idea what to expect of this show before it began.  My first thought was that it may be a little on the campy side (which is probably because of the inclusion of John Travolta), but I have been crazy impressed with it.   Even though we all know the outcome, I still feel anxious each week.  This has been so well done and I'm so sad that it's over next week.  

[psychoticstate]

Well this is where the real world came to the conclusion that Lance Ito was a bumbling incompetent judge, whereas this series is kind of implying that while he briefly enjoyed the fame early on, that he was really up shit's creek later in the trial and probably had reason to fear L.A. burning down around him if he said or did the wrong thing.

 

This is so true and the show did a perfect showcase of this in a brief scene last night when Ito looked up at the cameras before making his decision.  His ruling should have been simply the merits of the arguments but he was taking into consideration how the city of LA - - and the nation - - was going to respond.  Which should never have been part of his consideration.

 

I think the jury made the correct decision, and I don't think the prosecution bungled the case.  The investigation was pretty much a nonstarter by the time it got handed over to the prosecution.  If the case was going to be proved by DNA evidence, Scheck absolutely destroyed and obscured the prosecution's case.  He raised questions about their handling of the evidence, missing blood, lab preservatives in the blood that they found, and cross-contamination (all without really denying that the blood found was OJ's).  Cochran raised the specter of police misconduct for the physical evidence, where his part of the case revolved around the police planting evidence, mostly due to racial animosity against OJ.  So it was beyond fortuitous to have a tape of the lead detective, who found a lot of the physical evidence, on tape...admitting to planting evidence, hating black people in general, and interracial couples specifically.  When this same detective takes the 5th (under the advice of his lawyer)  chooses to take the 5th when asked if has planted evidence in *this* case, well, I think you have more than enough for reasonable doubt.  It's as simple as "garbage in, garbage out."  You probably don't need to deliberate for very long at that point.  The defense raised valid points regarding the evidence at every step of the way.

 

I do think race does belong in this case, if the defense's argument is that a virulently racist cop planted evidence against the defendant.  The defense was considered a bit crazy and outlandish at the time, but in light of the Rampart Scandal, perhaps they were not too far off.

 

The LAPD Rampart scandal refers to widespread corruption in the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) anti-gang unit of the Los Angeles Police Department's Rampart Division in the late 1990s. More than 70 police officers either assigned to or associated with the Rampart CRASH unit were implicated in some form of misconduct, making it one of the most widespread cases of documented police misconduct in United States history, responsible for a long list of offenses including unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of false evidence, frameups, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and the covering up of evidence of these activities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal

 

I agree that Fuhrman was/is a racist but to suggest that he planted evidence in this case, after mollycoddling Simpson in the past, is ridiculous on its face.  Furhman wasn't the responding officer to the scene; he wasn't even one of the first TEN officers.  He was the SEVENTEENTH officer, if memory serves.  For him to have planted evidence - - including hairs and blood from Simpson that had not even been collected yet - - boggles the mind and is about as possible as Kim Kardashian disappearing from public view entirely. 

 

If there was any issue with the evidence collection outside the norm, it would have been with Lange and Vannatter, neither of whom were accused of being racist, nor any actions of misconduct.  Human error, perhaps.  

 

But again - - basic human error or "normal" mistakes/slips that are routinely made during investigations.  Not conspiracy/evidence planting because the LAPD had it in for Simpson. (Who, at the time, they had no idea where he was or who he was with.) 

[lovinbob]

Yup. I've changed my opinion of Schwimmer's portrayal of RK. Once he stopped saying "Juice. Juice. Juice.", I noticed how good he was. Can't wait to see his jaw drop when the verdict is read.

 

The link to a review up thread didn't think much of  Travolta's scene in the elevator when he excoriated Johnnie. I thought it was great. The intensity was scary.

 

Yes! And I have to say, many viewers were critical of both performances, and I'd argue that they teed up their characterizations and we are getting the pay-off. For "Shapiro" to go from vain, clueless buffoon to intense, angry and disgusted is something to behold. Similarly, Kardashian as the naive "Juice" disciple to a fearful skeptic ... it tells an important aspect of the story. Schwimmer's Kardashian may be less about the man himself and more about the general public's regard for OJ as the trial progressed. 

The only problem with the show was that tv-Fuhrman is way too telegenic. Real life Fuhrman looked like a weasel, so the pleading the 5th looked even worse. 

Have to disagree with this. Loathe as I am to appear to be admiring Fuhrman, I did find him and still find him to be a handsome, believable man, as least based on his appearance and communication skills. 

Edited March 31, 2016 by lovinbob

[Umbelina]

I'm realizing that I think this show was important for me to watch.

 

My feelings at the time were very mixed in with a suspicious gun suicide of one of my best friends, and she too was in an abusive marriage, not physically, but emotionally and mentally.  Her husband left the gun out and told her to just do it, that he would get custody of the kids, she would have nothing, lots of stuff that was beyond sickening.  She had depression problems, but I feel it was mostly because she felt hopelessly trapped in a bad marriage with a good man, because he was "good" in other ways.  Enough of that.  Suffice to say this all happened at the same time, and I was in my own battle at work with a much worse abusive man, who just did it for fun, with all of his employees.  He was a dead ringer for OJ, only bigger, former marine, former football college star, and I, unfortunately looked like Nicole but acted more like Marcia.  His biggest joy was breaking people, grown men would cry in the bathroom, I was their only barrier between them and him, being middle management, so I took most of the abuse to spare my employees and supervisors.

 

Anyway, it all became jumbled in my emotions, all 3 mixed together in an emotional hell for me at the time.  I HATED that jury, was disgusted by them, horrified that 12 people didn't take this double murder seriously.  BTW I also HATED that Rodney King jury, it made me physically sick.

 

When the verdict was read I cried, my friend's sister called me and said "It's like Hanna dying all over again."  (not her real name)  It was just like that for me, emotionally at least, and I looked at my OJ-clone boss celebrating, and making a slashing motion across his throat when he saw me looking at him and just laughing so loud you could hear him in the parking lot.  My employees were telling me to "be careful" and quit calling me by my name, instead called me "Nicole."

 

ANYWAY...watching this series has helped, it was time for me, and I think I've put many of those demons to rest now.  I've been able to watch this again, putting things that were happening in my life at the time aside.  (By the way, shortly after the verdict I walked away from that excellent job, something I do not regret, left the town, moved a state away, and started over.)

 

I can live with the idea that the jury ignored their duty to the victims of these murders to right or at least balance the scales on the past, and horribly enough, CURRENT racial/police issues we face.  Why?  It's not because it was right, the jury did ignore their duty, but it's because this show has made it understandable to me that they felt bigger issues were more important than two white bodies.  Hundreds, thousands really, of black bodies never got justice or fair treatment.  They needed to believe Cochran's bullshit because of that.  So they did.  Maybe I'm saying that even though it was the wrong decision for this case, it was the right decision for all of the other unfairness.

 

This sounds all muddled, but I'm leaving it, because it's the best way for me to explain why I no longer hate this jury.  They were wrong, but they were wrong for, in their minds, following Cochran's carefully laid out and very obvious, right reasons.

[Apprentice79]

So is it only legitimate to ask a white cop if he or she has used a racial epithet if the defendant is black?  And should every white cop be asked if they have used a racial epithet if the defendant is anything other than white?  

 

I'm not denying that there are racists out there and plenty of them and some cops are racist but I don't think race belonged anywhere in this case.  It muddied the waters.  OJ Simpson killed Ron and Nicole, plain and simple.  It had nothing to do with Simpson's race; it had nothing to do with Ron's race; it had nothing to do with Nicole's race.  Yes, Mark Fuhrman was/is a racist and what he said was disgusting but I don't think he planted evidence or went after Simpson for the reasons that have been posted in these threads multiple times.  Johnnie Cochran knew exactly what would happen if he played the so-called race card and he was right.  Everyone forgot about the murders of Ron and Nicole and the mountain of evidence against Simpson and it became the Fuhrman trial.

You will never really understand it from a Black perspective when it comes to police officers..  It is very easy to say that race has nothing to do with a situation, when you are not on the receiving end of a police officer treating you like a criminal because you are Black and you fit a description of a certain suspect...I have had that experience and so have many....

[deerstalker]

 

I agree that Fuhrman was/is a racist but to suggest that he planted evidence in this case, after mollycoddling Simpson in the past, is ridiculous on its face.  Furhman wasn't the responding officer to the scene; he wasn't even one of the first TEN officers.  He was the SEVENTEENTH officer, if memory serves.  For him to have planted evidence - - including hairs and blood from Simpson that had not even been collected yet - - boggles the mind and is about as possible as Kim Kardashian disappearing from public view entirely. 

 

If there was any issue with the evidence collection outside the norm, it would have been with Lange and Vannatter, neither of whom were accused of being racist, nor any actions of misconduct.  Human error, perhaps.  

 

But again - - basic human error or "normal" mistakes/slips that are routinely made during investigations.  Not conspiracy/evidence planting because the LAPD had it in for Simpson. (Who, at the time, they had no idea where he was or who he was with.) 

 

I don't think it was limited to Fuhrman. I do think the LAPD did (does?) routinely plant/fudge evidence in the interest of hurrying a case along and making it more solid.  This was just another day for them.  And usually, no one comments on it, so they can get away with being sloppy.  Simpson could just afford to hire the best there was, so they could show the points at which the tampering could have occurred. Basically, the police framed a guilty man. And because the police goosed the evidence, the prosecutors were unable to counter the inference that *all* the evidence should be considered tainted. And rightfully so, I think.  The police aren't supposed to get the benefit of the doubt, that is supposed to go to the defendant.

[psychoticstate]

Umbelina, wow.  What a year you went through back in 94 or 95.  It may be hard for people to imagine now but I remember when the workplace could be run by people like your former boss.  Sexual harassment was also a thing that was just kind of accepted at times. It's sad.

 

Strange enough, I had a co-worker who was young, blonde and pretty like Nicole (not that physical appearance matters) and had a boyfriend who beat the crap out of her.  I still vividly remember her coming into work one day, barely able to walk comfortably, because he had gotten angry at her the night before for something and had basically beat the shit out of her.  Her rib area was black and blue and her back actually had an imprint from the sweater she had worn.  He had punched her and thrown her so hard that the fabric from her sweater went into her skin and left a real imprint behind.  Worse, she had a small chunk of flesh missing from her wrist where he bit her.  I was stunned, I couldn't believe it.  She refused to go to the hospital because they would have to file a report and she defended him.  She had made him mad, it was her fault, she didn't deserve better and he was a "good man" otherwise.  The battered person mentality (whether physical, emotional or mental) is really an overwhelming thing.

 

I'm very sorry that you lost your friend.  How terrible of her husband to do such a thing; it's beyond cruel.  I do believe in karma though and he will surely pay for that.

 

I understand your thoughts on why the jury ignored their duty but my problem with that is where does it end?  It is so very wrong that for hundreds of years people of all races and sex have not gotten justice for racial/political reasons but when does the scale finally balance?  It seems that by ignoring a duty to the victims of this particular case, we're just perpetuating the imbalance.  By acquitting Simpson, does that mean that a future jury can convict an innocent black person in order to achieve some sort of delayed justice for Ron and Nicole?  

 

I think this is why the decision to release the tapes makes me so frustrated.  This case was about Ron and Nicole.  They were basically forgotten by the end of this trial, where the defendant was gleefully and playfully hamming it up while wearing bloody gloves, Cochran and Darden were acting like the courtroom was a playground, Ito was running around like a lovesick teen with the "visiting" celebrities and the defense attorneys, behind the scenes, were playing a game of "my dick is bigger than yours."    I would be surprised if the jury even thought about Ron and Nicole during deliberations or if they were believing that they had to punish Furhman and the LAPD, right hundreds of years of wrongs, and prevent possible riots from erupting in L.A. 

[beaker73]

Good question, what exactly did she sign, and why wasn't THAT perjury, and why wasn't she up on charges?  Anyone remember?.

I just rewatched the scene. Ito gives her the Spousal Conflict form. The last statement reads: " I have no recollection of any interactions, incidental or spontaneous, with any of the following individuals which may cause conflict in this case."

Below there is a list of people--a few of the officers involved, Denise Brown, Ron Shipp, Kato, Allen Park, etc. The last name is Mark Fuhrman. Her pen pauses on his name, the camera goes to her face and she has a concerned look. Ito (who was turned away from her) turns back around and she says, "Nope. Nothing rings a bell." And signs the form.

[psychoticstate]

You will never really understand it from a Black perspective when it comes to police officers..  It is very easy to say that race has nothing to do with a situation, when you are not on the receiving end of a police officer treating you like a criminal because you are Black and you fit a description of a certain suspect...I have had that experience and so have many....

 

No I won't.  I can't possibly understand from firsthand experience, the same way I don't understand what it's like to be a man or the way a man doesn't understand giving birth.   

 

I do have two family members in law enforcement - - one is a police officer and one is a warden.  I do know what it's like for someone to have their life threatened because of his or her job and to have people assume that said person is a racist because of that job.   The pressures faced by law enforcement is immense.  They work long hours and it's often thankless.  A few bad apples in the bunch ruin the crop, so to speak.  The majority of persons I have met in law enforcement are good, decent people who had a true calling to be a public servant and are disgusted and appalled by the filth on the Fuhrman tapes.

[Umbelina]

I'm very sorry that you lost your friend.  How terrible of her husband to do such a thing; it's beyond cruel.  I do believe in karma though and he will surely pay for that.

 

Actually, he was a good man.  That marriage was horrible, and he was horrible to her, but at his heart, he was a good man.  They should have never married.  It basically happened because her finance had been killed years before by a drunk driver, and they BOTH wanted kids very, very much.  They decided to have a child together, all documented legally with rights and responsibilities, and the marriage was a last minute decision.  He's done a good job ever since, and we both put aside our dislike of one another for the sake of his children, he was actually wonderful that way.  So....

 

I'm not black, but have seen what happens with police first hand, and it made me sick.  With television and the internet now, we see it all the time.  So I can imagine, personally, what it is like, because I've been there.  I couldn't imagine living that way forever.  In fear of the people who are supposed to protect and defend you.

 

As I said, I get it.  I too have officers in my family, none that would do anything like that, EVER, but they know others exist that do. 

 

I used to be much more like Marcia, not seeing color, but I've finally learned that we HAVE to see it, denial fixes nothing.  See it, celebrate our differences, end the racism on both sides, it's all such nonsense to me.  It isn't nonsense to others though, and it's naive to ignore that.

[VanillaBeanne]

The defense can't just ask white cops if they are racist without foundation. They are not allowed to conduct fishing expeditions. The reason that Furman was asked about the nWord and not Lange or Vannater was because there were written statements by Fuhrman of his hatred for minorities and desire to kill them. The defense also found witnesses who were willing to testify that he continued to use epithets. The defense was able to argue that Fuhrman was racist based on this. Ito did not allow the disability claim testimony because it was ten years old and not directly relevant but he did allow the defense to inquire as to whether Furhamn still had those feelings. Which is why they asked if he used the n word in the past ten years, as opposed to ever.

The LAPD thought it was a good idea to put Furman back on the job (albeit in a white neighborhood) rather than grant the disability claim or fire him. Would have been cheaper to give him the disability claim given the trial cost 6m.

[ridethemaverick]

I thought then and still think now that Furman was ugly. So did everyone I knew. But eye of the beholder, etc. The guy playing him is cute. He creeps me out though, which is a testament to his acting.

[maraleia]

The fact that Sarah Paulson can exude that much chemistry with a male co-star (she's dated Cherry Jones and is currently dating Holland Taylor) makes her one of the finest actors working right now. Sterling and Sarah are doing an outstanding job with these roles as are the rest of the cast.

Also, I remember reading/watching all of Dominick Dunne's columns/TV appearances and Robert Morse is capturing his essence perfectly.

I'm still mad that Ron and Nicole were a footnote to all the crazy surrounding the trial. This show reminds us of this fact each episode.

I think the entire cast needs to win for best ensemble at the SAG Awards since they all can't win Emmy's and Golden Globes.

[txhorns79]

I used to be much more like Marcia, not seeing color, but I've finally learned that we HAVE to see it, denial fixes nothing.  See it, celebrate our differences, end the racism on both sides, it's all such nonsense to me.  It isn't nonsense to others though, and it's naive to ignore that.

 

I think we all choose what we see.  In this case, I viewed Cochran who cynically used race to help a murderer get off.  While this is obviously a dramatization, just seeing someone go around and suggest a riot could occur unless they get their way over the tapes (shades of today) is just too much.  

 

Though on the positive side, I fully expected the scene when Marcia was standing up in defense of Chris to end with Marcia and Chris making out at counsel's table while the entire court burst into applause.  Then of course we'd fast forward to a scene of their wedding, presided over by Judge Ito, with Johnnie as best man.

 

 

The fact that Sarah Paulson can exude that much chemistry with a male co-star (she's dated Cherry Jones and is currently dating Holland Taylor) makes her one of the finest actors working right now.

 

She's also dated men.  I think she's an excellent actress, but I'm wary of treating it like a huge accomplishment that she can show great chemistry with a male actor, simply because in her personal life, she's involved with a woman.    

Edited March 31, 2016 by txhorns79

[alynch]

I agree that Fuhrman was/is a racist but to suggest that he planted evidence in this case, after mollycoddling Simpson in the past, is ridiculous on its face.  Furhman wasn't the responding officer to the scene; he wasn't even one of the first TEN officers.  He was the SEVENTEENTH officer, if memory serves.  For him to have planted evidence - - including hairs and blood from Simpson that had not even been collected yet - - boggles the mind and is about as possible as Kim Kardashian disappearing from public view entirely. 

 

I'd completely agree with this, if not for Fuhrman's own testimony. Whenever I put myself on that jury, I struggle to see myself concluding anything other than "Fuhrman planted evidence" once he pleaded the fifth to that question. The matter would no longer even be open for debate. At that point, the question would become "Okay, he probably didn't plant everything, but how much of it could he have?" And then once I reach the upper limits of my imagination, I might start thinking, "Okay, that's all I can come up with, but I'm no genius. It's quite possible that a cop could think up some ways to frame someone that I haven't considered." And by the time I reach the end of my thought process Fuhrman would probably have morphed into Gary Oldman in The Professional.

[Neurochick]

If karma were a factor here, Furman wouldn't be alive and well. Unless God favors racists. Zimmerman's still kicking too so maybe. But yeah, at least Johnnie died a horrible death. Hooray!

Thank you for that.

[ganesh]

Fuhrman irl looked like a greasy potato to me. When he was on the stand the first time I remember being like, "this guy looks like bad news."

[Kromm]

She's also dated men.  I think she's an excellent actress, but I'm wary of treating it like a huge accomplishment that she can show great chemistry with a male actor, simply because in her personal life, she's involved with a woman.    

This is also hardly the first time she's had scenes like that with men. She's been an actress for a long time.

[txhorns79]

I'd completely agree with this, if not for Fuhrman's own testimony. Whenever I put myself on that jury, I struggle to see myself concluding anything other than "Fuhrman planted evidence" once he pleaded the fifth to that question. The matter would no longer even be open for debate. At that point, the question would become "Okay, he probably didn't plant everything, but how much of it could he have?"

 

But you'd also have the benefit of all the other testimony showing Fuhrman's involvement was limited and there was nothing of consequence he could have actually plausibly planted. 

[charmed1]

And in this world of intersectionality, I am black, a woman, have family members in law enforcement, and have also been pulled over, harassed, talked to like I was an animal for walking, driving, being black. On more than one occasion.

I thought then and still think now that Furman was ugly. So did everyone I knew. But eye of the beholder, etc. The guy playing him is cute. He creeps me out though, which is a testament to his acting.

ITA. Even if I hadn't known he was a disgusting piece of shit who should be in prison, I found nothing physically attractive about that dude. With his beady little features and 10 year old outdated haircut, I thought he looked like a half-wit and someone who'd make me cross the street if I saw him in person. The actor portraying him is attractive though.

[starri]

This is also hardly the first time she's had scenes like that with men. She's been an actress for a long time.

I also think linoleum would have chemistry with Sterling K Brown, but they really do have something special together.

Edited March 31, 2016 by starri

[alynch]

But you'd also have the benefit of all the other testimony showing Fuhrman's involvement was limited and there was nothing of consequence he could have actually plausibly planted. 

 

Sure, but I think having Fuhrman (essentially) say "Yes, I planted evidence" would override my inability to construct a plausible narrative. Because I don't think I would've bought the frame-up narrative at all prior to that moment. If I were 100% convinced that the idea of Fuhrman planting evidence was bullshit, only to then confronted with this, I'd probably end up questioning a whole lot of other assumptions that I'd made to that point ("What else might I be wrong about!?") and thus become much more susceptible to magical thinking. My imagination would start running wild.

Edited March 31, 2016 by alynch

[lovinbob]

She's also dated men.  I think she's an excellent actress, but I'm wary of treating it like a huge accomplishment that she can show great chemistry with a male actor, simply because in her personal life, she's involved with a woman.    

Agreed. For a hundred years gay actors have put in brilliant (and good, and mediocre, and bad) performances been playing straight lovers. This is hardly worthy of comment. Sarah Paulson is a great actress, full stop. 

[txhorns79]

Sure, but I think having Fuhrman (essentially) say "Yes, I planted evidence" would override my inability to construct a plausible narrative.

 

But that's not actually what pleading the fifth means.  I understand that people take it to mean the worst, but the reality is that once you start pleading the fifth, you cannot just turn it on and off depending on the question.  Johnnie could have asked Mark Furhman if he killed Jimmy Hoffa, and if the question made it past the objection, Furhman would have to plead the fifth.   

Edited March 31, 2016 by txhorns79

[Umbelina]

Well, I really had my doubts about watching this, afraid it would bury me with old emotions, simply because of the things I wrote above that all happened in conjunction with this trial in my life.  I think my anger at that jury was anger at everything happening, and I was one of the idiots that was completely shocked when the verdict was read, in spite of the Fuhrman crap. 

 

I'm no longer shocked, and I'm glad to release those feelings I had about the jury.  That wouldn't have happened for me without this series.  I know they let a murderer walk free.  In no way do I think, even after all of what we've seen still had legal  "reasonable doubt."  I think they were under tremendous pressure to strike back at "the man" for the decades of wrongs to Black people from the justice system.  It wasn't just Rodney King, it was all of it, worrying about they own children getting killed by a racist system every time they left the house.  Honestly, I really doubt many of them thought OJ was innocent, but Cochran, doing his job, and also fighting a battle well beyond OJ's, gave them enough reasons to do what their community wanted them to do.  Save one black guy, even though that particular guy couldn't give a shit about them.

 

I guess all I needed was for it to make emotional sense to me.  It finally clicked, and does. 

[alynch]

But that's not actually what pleading the fifth means.  I understand that people take it to mean the worst, but the reality is that once you start pleading the fifth, you cannot just turn it on and off depending on the question.  Johnnie could have asked Mark Furhman if he killed Jimmy Hoffa, and if the question made it past the objection, Furhman would have to plead the fifth.   

 

Two things:

 

• There appears to be some disagreement on whether Fuhrman truly had to take the fifth on all questions (see deerstalker's post further up the page).

 

• Come on. Every damn person in a courtroom is going to make the same assumption when someone pleads the fifth on a yes/no question. At a minimum, it's basically a giant neon sign saying "Don't a believe a damn word this guy says!"

Edited March 31, 2016 by alynch

[Dev F]

(re: a mistrial and double jeopardy)

 

True, and with Ito, God knows that could have happened.  I think she made the wrong call though, and had they been as sneaky as the defense, I doubt it would have applied.

 

It would've been an extremely delicate maneuver, though, because the double jeopardy rules are set up to avoid exactly this type of situation -- the prosecution deciding that they don't like the way a trial is going and deliberately tanking it to get a do-over. Unless the defense consents to a mistrial, or there's some issue outside everyone's control like a hung jury, the prosecution has to convince the court that the mistrial is a "manifest necessity" -- that the mistake or misconduct can't possibly be rectified through special jury instructions or some other remedy -- or double jeopardy attaches.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Dev F

[whiporee]

 

But you'd also have the benefit of all the other testimony showing Fuhrman's involvement was limited and there was nothing of consequence he could have actually plausibly planted.

 

Except the glove, which he could have planted when he jumped the fence at Rockingham because he was "concerned about Simpson's safety." 

 

You know, the glove that didn't actually fit when the defendant put it on in open court. That glove.

 

For all the blasting Ito got for cowtowing to the defense, that he didn't allow Fuhrman's comments about planting evidence in was as ludicrous a decision as could be made. The defense is charging the police planted evidence, a detective on the cast admits that he has planted evidence, and it is not allowed to be heard? The defense doesn't have to prove that he did it, but to disallow that was, if needed, reversible error.

 

Umbilna, I'm sorry about your friend. I truly am -- I've had a couple of suicides in my life, so I get at least a part of your feelings. But the jury doesn't have a duty to victims, not in America. Plenty of countries around the world see jurisprudence as that, as a search for the truth. And that might be a better way of running a system. But that's not what we're based on. We're based on limiting the government's ability to throw the wrong person in jail. Juries have a duty to the defendant, to make sure they get a fair trial and that the government acted within the laws we've established. I keep seeing people say that this case was about Ron and Nicole, and it wasn't. it never is in America. Trials are about defendants, they aren't about victims. Because if we let the jury system become about victims, then it becomes about revenge, and juries will convict for no other reason than the victims deserve justice. And as tempting as we may want that to be the case, it's not the way our legal system has been set up. It never has been, and hopefully never will be. 

 

The jury watched a detective in the case take the Fifth when asked whether he lied during his prior testimony. They watched him take the Fifth when he was asked whether he planted evidence. They watched the gloves not fit, they watched the methods for gathering the DNA shredded. If you truly think it impossible for them to rationally come to a not guilty verdict after those things were presented, then I think nothing would. It was over at the DNA -- hell, it was over at the first 911 call. People decided he was guilty -- common sense says he was guilty. Everything we know says he was guilty.  

 

But our system doesn't work that way. It has not only to be proven to the public -- it has to be proven to 12 people who swore an oath to do their best. And to do their best meant protecting the defendant's interest until the state proved he was guilty. They didn't think the state did that, and rewatching this case, I find it hard to blame them for that. 

[Umbelina]

They didn't need the glove Fuhrman found and NO, it wasn't his idea to jump the fence, he was ordered to by Vannater.  He was massively outranked and did as he was told.

 

He investigated the spot where Kato heard the thumps.  REMEMBER they only found out that OJ was out of town once they woke Kato, so why would they bring the "other" glove from the scene, where by the way over 17 officers had looked for it before Fuhrman even got there and could not find it, when they didn't even know if OJ had a solid alibi, was in Hawaii, was at a big dinner party?

 

It's really absurd, and that's were "reasonable doubt" comes it.  It's not reasonable.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Umbelina

[starri]

Also, it was quite prescient of him to plant one of a pair of rather rare gloves that Nicole had purchased a year and change before anyone knew she'd purchased them.

[txhorns79]

There appears to be some disagreement on whether Fuhrman truly had to take the fifth on all questions (see deerstalker's post further up the page).

 

It can be very risky for a witness to take the fifth on some questions and not others.  That's actually how witnesses can end up in legal trouble. 

 

 

Except the glove, which he could have planted when he jumped the fence at Rockingham because he was "concerned about Simpson's safety."

 

I actually think the show addressed why it was not plausible for any of the police to have planted evidence.  Wasn't it noted that for the "frame up" theory of the case to work, the police would have had to know OJ's schedule beforehand, known he would have no alibi, known that no one else would have had motive or opportunity to kill Nicole and Ron, engaged in an elaborate conspiracy in the face of intense scrutiny, etc. 

 

I did wish we had seen a scene between Ito and his wife after he found out what she had done. 

 

 

Come on. Every damn person in a courtroom is going to make the same assumption when someone pleads the fifth on a yes/no question. At a minimum, it's basically a giant neon sign saying "Don't a believe a damn word this guy says!"

 

I can't really speak as to what someone may assume, but I know that pleading the fifth does not mean you are admitting you committed a crime.