S01.E09: Manna From Heaven

[SFoster21]

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.

The allegation is that he carried the glove from the murder scene and planted it at Rockingham.

[Archery]

When you are asked a yes or no question that any honest police officer would be able to answer with a resounding No, never!, and you answer instead with, I'm not going to answer that question because the answer I give may tend to incriminate me and open me up to criminal prosecution, it's not an unreasonable leap to conclude that the true answer is, in fact, yes.

 

In fact, in civil cases, the jury is expressly allowed to draw that inference.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Archery

[alynch]

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. 

 

Agreed. It's not an admission that you committed a crime. It's a very strong implication (possibly accompanied by a suggestive wink) that you committed a crime.

Edited March 31, 2016 by alynch

[Kidlaw]

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. 

 

 

Been lurking here for a few weeks, and this is my first post.  As a lawyer (not a criminal lawyer), I just want to thank you for this.  All of your post was on target, but particularly this section.  People generally have a misunderstanding about the purpose of our legal system and you can see that with claims that the jury had a duty to victims.  If the jury's duty was to victims of a crime, we would never find defendants not guilty considering the state is claiming in court the defendant is responsible for the crimes against the victims.  

 

In any case, I'll just finish up by saying this episode, well the whole show actually, really highlights why District Attorney offices nationwide use the OJ trial to train their ADAs how to NOT prosecute a murder trial.  Every bad decision that could be made, was made.  I find Furman was actually just the personification of the prosecution's many bad decisions.  

 

Anyways, back to lurking.  Just wanted to high five this very excellent summation of the true nature of the American justice system (or at least, its idealized vision of itself). 

[Umbelina]

The allegation is that he carried the glove from the murder scene and planted it at Rockingham.

Yes, before they knew if OJ had an iron clad alibi, or was even in the state.

[Happytobehere]

They had, on tape, white police officers beating the hell out of Rodney King. THAT was their Mark Fuhrman tape. Simi Valley jury had their evidence to look at; the OJ jury had theirs.

The prosecution bungled this case from the very beginning but we still blame the jury for being a bunch of idiots. When your star witness pleads the fifth on whether or not they planted evidence, there's a serious problem going on, and it's not with the jury.

Interesting how there never was and still is no outrage towards the King jurors, it was all about the jurors voting their conscience and people putting their faith in a justice system that has always served a single segment of this society, but people revel in degrading the Simpson jurors and Johnnie because the outcome didnt reflect the American system of juice prudence when it comes to people of a certain hue. Mark Furhman represents the purest truth of the police and everything this country has and continues to stand for -- Officer from Overseer. Try to deny it as we continue to watch the ascension of Trump and Cruz and their ilk.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Happytobehere

[deerstalker]

This article  gives a very detailed overview of the defense's takedown of the DNA evidence, and the outline of the allegations of a police conspiracy and/or incompetence in the case.  I think those allegations, combined with Fuhrman's taking the 5th, and the glove not fitting all give rise to more than reasonable doubt.  It is clear that that if there was not an outright conspiracy to plant evidence, at the very least there was a large amount of bad protocols and cross-contamination going on, enough to cast a bad light on all the evidence. 

 

...The Bundy Blood Drops and Rockingham Glove Were Contaminated with Simpson's DNA at the LAPD Laboratory. LAPD criminalist Collin Yamauchi admitted that he spilled some of Simpson's blood from a reference vial while working in the evidence processing room and that shortly thereafter he handled the Rockingham glove and the cotton swatches containing the blood from the Bundy drops. The defense proposed that some of Simpson's blood was inadvertently transferred to these evidentiary samples, perhaps on Yamauchi's gloves or instruments...

 

....The defense argued that the pattern of the DNA test results fits neatly with the cross-contamination theory. The quantity of DNA found on the evidentiary items was small enough to be consistent with such an inadvertent transfer. On the glove, the allele matching Simpson was found in samples from the wrist notch, in an area where Yamauchi wrote his initials, and nowhere else. In the blood swatches, the quantity of DNA consistent with Simpson declined in the order in which Yamauchi handled them - that is, the first sample he handled had the most DNA, and the later samples contained much less DNA.

To bolster further the cross-contamination theory, the defense presented evidence of sloppiness in the LAPD's handling of samples prior to DNA testing. The criminalists were poorly trained with respect to sample handling, were not following a written protocol, did not understand the purpose and importance of precautionary measures, such as changing gloves, and made  serious errors even when attempting to demonstrate proper sample collection and handling techniques. Defense expert Dr. John Gerdes, who reviewed DNA test results at the LAPD laboratory during the year prior to the Simpson case, found a history of serious contamination problems that he attributed largely to cross-contamination of DNA due to poor sample handling procedures.

Dr. Gerdes also found startling evidence of cross-contamination in the DNA test results of the Simpson case itself: it appeared that the reference vials containing the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were contaminated with the DNA of O.J. Simpson! Extra alleles consistent with O.J. Simpson's appeared when the victims' blood was typed both at the LAPD laboratory and at two other laboratories to which the same vials were later sent...

 

 

...After they were used to collect blood at the crime scene, the Bundy swatches were sealed in plastic bags and stored in a truck. At the end of the day, they were returned to the LAPD crime laboratory and left in test tubes overnight to dry. The next morning, criminalist Andrea Mazzola packaged the dried swatches in paper bindles. In a pretrial hearing about two months thereafter, Mazzola testified that she had placed her initials on each of the bindles.

When defense experts examined the bindles containing the Bundy swatches, they made two startling discoveries: none of the bindles bore Mazzola's initials, n14 but some bore what renowned criminalist and defense expert Dr. Henry Lee later characterized as wet transfer stains - the sort of stains that would be produced by contact with swatches that were wet with blood. These observations led Dr. Lee to a memorable conclusion: "something is wrong."

The Bundy swatches should not have been wet when they were placed in the bindles, the defense argued. According to laboratory notes, the swatches had been allowed to air-dry in open test tubes for fourteen hours before they were placed in the bindles. Dr. Lee testified that the swatches should have been completely dry within three hours. A study produced by the prosecution stated that swatches dry within fifty-five minutes.

The defense suggested that one of the detectives took blood from Simpson's reference tube, created swatches, and then stored the swatches in plastic bags until an opportunity arose to substitute them for the Bundy swatches (perhaps substituting the bindles as well). The tell-tale wet transfers occurred because the detective failed to allow the swatches to dry adequately after removing them from the plastic bags. The defense was able to establish, through cross-examination of the prosecution's experts, that LAPD detectives are trained in the collection of blood samples; detectives have swatches and plastic bags for that purpose and often submit blood swatches to the laboratory. Moreover, the lead detectives in the Simpson case had access to the laboratory.

Lead detective Philip Vannatter also had access to Simpson's blood. Blood was drawn from Simpson by Thano Peratis, a nurse employed by the LAPD, the day after the crime. Peratis placed the tube of Simpson's blood in an unsealed envelope and gave it to detective Vannatter. The defense established that LAPD policy  calls for evidence of this sort to be booked immediately, and that Vannatter could have booked it within minutes at either of two locations. But he did not do so. Instead, he kept Simpson's blood with him for at least several hours and, by his account, drove across the city with it to Simpson's residence, where he gave it to LAPD criminalist Dennis Fung. Whether Vannatter's account is accepted or not, the defense argued, it is clear that he had sole possession of Simpson's blood tube long enough to have removed blood and made some swatches had he chosen to do so.

Furthermore, blood was missing from Simpson's reference tube. Nurse Thano Peratis testified at a preliminary hearing that he had drawn eight milliliters (ml.) of blood from Simpson. Under close questioning, he expressed confidence that the amount was between 7.9 and 8.1 ml. n21 However, records in the LAPD Crime Laboratory indicated that the tube had contained only 6.5 ml. when it was received by the laboratory. The prosecution responded that Peratis must have been mistaken about how much blood was drawn.

[Umbelina]

Interesting how there never was and still is no outrage towards the King jurors, it was all about the jurors voting their conscience and people putting their faith in a justice system that has always served a single segment of this society, but people revel in degrading the Simpson jurors and Johnnie because the outcome didnt reflect the American system of juice prudence when it comes to people of a certain hue. Mark Furhman represents the purest truth of the police and everything this country has and continues to stand for -- Officer from Overseer. Try to deny it as we continue to watch the ascension of Trump and Cruz and their ilk.

This is so very false.

 

3 pages of outrage here.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-30/news/mn-1942_1_ventura-county-jury

 

It was all over the news, and everyone was horrified. 

[teebax]

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.

It never ceases to amaze me what passes for "attractive" in our society! I notice it with women moreso than men. If a woman has blonde hair and blue eyes, she is inevitably described as attractive. I have no idea why that is. Are there attractive blondes? Sure. Are all blondes attractive? Hell no. And the media rarely describes an African-American woman as attractive, I've noticed. That's the intrinsic racism we have in our society.

 

That being said, I've NEVER thought MF (ha!) was attractive and wouldn't even if he weren't a racist POS who contributed to the prosecution losing its case. Someone upthread mentioned what a good writer he is. I'll never know because that guy would never get a dime of my money.

 

I won't argue the merits of this case because I'd rather just talk about how brilliant the actors are and how fascinating the show is to watch. I went into this one with much trepidation but am so glad I took Entertainment Weekly's advice and watched this. Sometimes it pisses me off; sometimes it makes me laugh; sometimes it makes me cry. I couldn't ask for more in a show, and I'll truly miss this when it ends.

[OSM Mom]

Just as a side note, one of my friends at the time thought Furman was absolutely handsome and gorgeous. Different strokes.

[BBDi]

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.

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.

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.

This is giving me a little flashback. Back when I was tiny, cute almost 5 year old with a lisp getting ready for my first day of kindergarten, my father told me that if the teacher asked me if I had done something - i.e., committed a particular act - I should say "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me." He had me practice it several times. I'm sure he thought it was hilarious. Fortunately I never actually used it.

[psychoticstate]

Another problem for me with the "framing a guilty man" scenario is that using that assumption, the LAPD were framing Simpson before they even knew who Ron Goldman was.  That makes no sense.  What if Ron had been the target?  What if he had been Nicole's dealer or something like that?  The investigation would have gone off in other directions, away from Simpson. 

 

There was also the possibility that Simpson himself was lying dead somewhere - - the first officers and detectives on the scene said they initially thought death was by gunshot.  And again, since they did not know who the second victim was, it was plausible that Simpson could have been a target or the target and he was a victim as well. 

[Kromm]

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.   

You aren't correct here. That "rule" only applies if he was the one being tried. He wasn't. He had leeway apparently to plead the fifth or not to each individual question.  And according to someone else here he even had his lawyer on hand, so it's not like that wasn't simply something he was aware of.

[deerstalker]

Another problem for me with the "framing a guilty man" scenario is that using that assumption, the LAPD were framing Simpson before they even knew who Ron Goldman was.  That makes no sense.  What if Ron had been the target?  What if he had been Nicole's dealer or something like that?  The investigation would have gone off in other directions, away from Simpson. 

 

There was also the possibility that Simpson himself was lying dead somewhere - - the first officers and detectives on the scene said they initially thought death was by gunshot.  And again, since they did not know who the second victim was, it was plausible that Simpson could have been a target or the target and he was a victim as well. 

 

 

The defense timeline theorizes that a large portion of the DNA evidence matching Simpson happened after they has already zeroed in on him as a suspect. The blood from the sock and back gates were not "discovered" until weeks after the murders. Blood matching the victims from the Bronco was also not discovered until weeks later as well.  The vial with the sample of Simpson's blood was mysteriously missing a portion of the blood.  And the defense argued that what was no intentional was incompetence.  The cross-contamination of having the same detectives go from one crime scene, to a potential suspect's house, has to be pretty huge, and is reason enough to cause doubt about the veracity of any evidence found all by itself. If we are to take them at face value as to why they made that decision, I understand.  But the prosecution's case was screwed from there.

[psychoticstate]

The defense timeline theorizes that a large portion of the DNA evidence matching Simpson happened after they has already zeroed in on him as a suspect. The blood from the sock and back gates were not "discovered" until weeks after the murders. Blood matching the victims from the Bronco was also not discovered until weeks later as well.  The vial with the sample of Simpson's blood was mysteriously missing a portion of the blood.  And the defense argued that what was no intentional was incompetence.  The cross-contamination of having the same detectives go from one crime scene, to a potential suspect's house, has to be pretty huge, and is reason enough to cause doubt about the veracity of any evidence found all by itself. If we are to take them at face value as to why they made that decision, I understand.  But the prosecution's case was screwed from there.

 

The blood on the back gate was noted at the time the bodies were discovered.  The blood in the Bronco was discovered by Lange, Vannatter and Fuhrman on their visit to Rockingham on June 12-13.  When they began zeroing in on Simpson as a suspect it was because one, as the ex-husband he was the natural first suspect, even without his domestic violence history.  Secondly, his behavior upon receiving notification in Chicago was decidedly odd.  Third, his interview was full of red flags and he showed up with a large cut to a finger on his left hand (one that he could not explain how he had gotten, other than something to do with playing golf.)  Fourth, the investigators had begun talking not only to Kato but also to Allan Park, who informed them about the Bronco not being parked on Ashford when he arrived and noting it was there when he departed with Simpson.  So working the angle of Simpson being suspect number one was without any DNA test results, fiber results, etc.  It was based on who had the prime motive and means and how that person responded. 

 

And sure, there may have been lax behavior and flat out Incompetence by the authorities but incompetence does not equal conspiracy. 

[Superpole2000]

I know it's not a documentary. I understand that this show has to incorporate some fictional components to fill in the gaps where the story occurred behind closed doors. Nevertheless, it should remain almost 100% factual when recreating the courtroom scenes. Fuhrman did not plead the fifth in response to Cochran's questions. It was Uelmen who was questioning Fuhrman at the time. I don't even think this show has an Uelmen. Of course they had Cochran question Fuhrman because this show never misses a chance to exaggerate Cochran's role in everything.

 

There was also no outburst/objection from Clark during this Fuhrman fifth amendment sequence. The final question from Uelmen came immediately after all of his prior questions. It's ironic that Marcia (on this show) was complaining about the theatrics of the defence, but it was the theatrics of this TV show that invented Marcia's outburst.

 

And yet I can't look away. It's riveting, especially in this relatively condensed format in comparison to the actual trial.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Superpole2000

[deerstalker]

The blood on the back gate was noted at the time the bodies were discovered.  The blood in the Bronco was discovered by Lange, Vannatter and Fuhrman on their visit to Rockingham on June 12-13.  When they began zeroing in on Simpson as a suspect it was because one, as the ex-husband he was the natural first suspect, even without his domestic violence history.  Secondly, his behavior upon receiving notification in Chicago was decidedly odd.  Third, his interview was full of red flags and he showed up with a large cut to a finger on his left hand (one that he could not explain how he had gotten, other than something to do with playing golf.)  Fourth, the investigators had begun talking not only to Kato but also to Allan Park, who informed them about the Bronco not being parked on Ashford when he arrived and noting it was there when he departed with Simpson.  So working the angle of Simpson being suspect number one was without any DNA test results, fiber results, etc.  It was based on who had the prime motive and means and how that person responded. 

 

And sure, there may have been lax behavior and flat out Incompetence by the authorities but incompetence does not equal conspiracy. 

 

From the link several posts above:

 

 

O.J. Simpson's Blood Was Planted on the Back Gate. Most of the blood samples from the crime scene were collected on June 13, 1994, the day after the murders; but the three blood stains on the rear gate were not collected until July 3, 1994. According to the prosecution account, these stains were simply missed during the initial collection and were only noticed later. According to the defense account, these stains were not collected the day after the crime because they were not there at that time. The defense offered a powerful piece of evidence to support the planting  theory. A photograph taken the day after the crime shows no blood in the area of the rear gate where the largest and most prominent stain was later found. Barry Scheck introduced this photo during his cross-examination of criminalist Dennis Fung. After displaying a photograph of the stains that Fung collected on July 3, Scheck then showed the photograph of the rear gate taken on June 13. In one of the more memorable moments of the trial, Scheck pointed to the area where the largest stain should have been and demanded, "Where is it, Mr. Fung?" Mr. Fung had no answer, nor was Scheck's question ever answered by the prosecution.

 

The defense argued that the planting theory was consistent with the quantity and condition of the DNA in the samples from the rear gate. The other samples collected at the crime scene, including those from the front gate, were highly degraded and contained little typeable DNA. By contrast, the samples from the back gate contained high concentrations of undegraded DNA. The defense argued that these samples should have been somewhat degraded had they been exposed to the environment for three weeks before being collected.

 

The planting theory was also supported by the FBI tests, which showed evidence of EDTA in the samples from the back gate.

[superfille]

I know it's not a documentary. I understand that this show has to incorporate some fictional components to fill in the gaps where the story occurred behind closed doors. Nevertheless, it should remain almost 100% factual when recreating the courtroom scenes. Fuhrman did not plead the fifth in response to Cochran's questions. It was Uelmen who was questioning Fuhrman at the time. I don't even think this show has an Uelmen. Of course they had Cochran question Fuhrman because this show never misses a chance to exaggerate Cochran's role in everything.

 

There was also no outburst/objection from Clark during this Fuhrman fifth amendment sequence. The final question from Uelmen came immediately after all of his prior questions. It's ironic that Marcia (on this show) was complaining about the theatrics of the defence, but it was the theatrics of this TV show that invented Marcia's outburst.

 

And yet I can't look away. It's riveting, especially in this relatively condensed format in comparison to the actual trial.

 

Actually, he did plead the fifth when he was called back to the stand to be questioned after the tapes were partially released: 

 

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/o-j-detective-mark-fuhrman-the-tapes-and-pleading-the-fifth/ 

[Umbelina]

From the link several posts above:

 

 

O.J. Simpson's Blood Was Planted on the Back Gate. Most of the blood samples from the crime scene were collected on June 13, 1994, the day after the murders; but the three blood stains on the rear gate were not collected until July 3, 1994. According to the prosecution account, these stains were simply missed during the initial collection and were only noticed later. According to the defense account, these stains were not collected the day after the crime because they were not there at that time. The defense offered a powerful piece of evidence to support the planting  theory. A photograph taken the day after the crime shows no blood in the area of the rear gate where the largest and most prominent stain was later found. Barry Scheck introduced this photo during his cross-examination of criminalist Dennis Fung. After displaying a photograph of the stains that Fung collected on July 3, Scheck then showed the photograph of the rear gate taken on June 13. In one of the more memorable moments of the trial, Scheck pointed to the area where the largest stain should have been and demanded, "Where is it, Mr. Fung?" Mr. Fung had no answer, nor was Scheck's question ever answered by the prosecution.

 

The defense argued that the planting theory was consistent with the quantity and condition of the DNA in the samples from the rear gate. The other samples collected at the crime scene, including those from the front gate, were highly degraded and contained little typeable DNA. By contrast, the samples from the back gate contained high concentrations of undegraded DNA. The defense argued that these samples should have been somewhat degraded had they been exposed to the environment for three weeks before being collected.

 

The planting theory was also supported by the FBI tests, which showed evidence of EDTA in the samples from the back gate.

How is any of that even possible?

 

The Brown family cleaned out her house, including washing the rest of the blood from the property on June 17th.  There family was out there with hoses cleaning the walk way, and fence, cleaning all the blood 2-3 days before that.   I believe the police released the crime scene within a day, just as they did Rockingham.

http://simpson.walraven.org/db_depo1.html

Q. You assisted in cleaning Nicole's Bundy condominium, did you not?

A. Yes.

Q. When did that take place?

A. I was up there on Friday the -- the 17th.

Q. Did you talk to any police officers on June 17th, 1994? -

A. I don't think so.

 

Q. Do you know if -- Did anyone wash down the walkway where Nicole and Ron were killed on June 17th, 1994?

A. Not on June 17th.

Q. When you were cleaning out the condominium, you don't know of anyone who was washing down the area where Ron and Nicole were killed?

A. That happened 3 days before or 2 days before.

Q. June 14th, 199- --

A. I think they were up there on a Tuesday before that.

Q. Who is "they"?

A. I think my brother and Ron washed down the -- down the blood.

Q. You weren't there --

A. No.

Q. -- when they washed -- washed the --

MR. KELLY: Let him finish.

MR. PHILLIP BAKER:

Q. -- the walkway down on June 14th, 1994?

A. No.

Q. Did they tell you they had found anything at the location when they washed down the walkway?

A. No.

Q. How did they describe the walkway that they washed down on June 14' h, 1994?

A. I didn't want to hear it. I didn't -- didn't ask.

Q. They never described it to you at all, what they washed down on June 14th, 1994?

A. I didn't want to hear it.

Q. Did they tell you that they had to clean the entire area on June 14th, 1994?

A. They said they cleaned the walkway and they cleaned the fence.

Q. They told you they cleaned the walkway and the fence on June 14th, 1994?

MR. KELLY: Which fence?

THE WITNESS: They just said "fence."

MR. PHILLIP BAKER:

Q. Rolf and Ron told you they cleaned the walkway and fence on June 14th, 1994; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. Where did they tell you that they cleaned the walkway and the fence on June 14th, 1994?

MR. KELLY: Well, presumably at the walkway and fence. But go ahead and answer.

MR. PHILLIP BAKER: Where did they tell her that.

THE WITNESS: At the front gate of Nicole's house.

MR. PHILLIP BAKER:

Q. When did they tell you this?

A. I don't remember. After they got done doing it or that next day, the next time I saw them.

Q. First time you were at Nicole's condominium following the crimes was June 17th, 1994; correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And as far as you know, they washed down the walkway and fence on June 14th, 1994; correct?

A. If that's the date, yes.

Q. You said earlier it was about 3 days before?

A. Yeah. It was a Tuesday.

Q. Where were you -- Who told you they had washed down the walkway; and fence? Was it Rolf or Ron or both?

A. I think they both mentioned it.

 

Edited March 31, 2016 by Umbelina

[FuriousStyles]

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.

To me, what ruins the crop more than the "few bad apples" is the FACT that the good guys remain silent when those bad apples fuck up. What do they call it? The Blue wall or the Blue shield or whatever? Case in point, the Walter Scott murder in South Carolina. That cop shot a black man in cold blood right in his back. Another police officer pretty much covered up for him and had it not been for a bystander recording the whole thing that cop would probably still be on the force despite IMO the physical evidence that would have indisputably refuted his account of events about "fearing for his life" (a phrase ALL cops use when justifying shooting someone), and how the guy reached for his gun, yadda yadda yadda. This is something blacks knew was going on for decades, but others couldnt believe it and probably still wouldnt had it not been for the video. There were plenty of former cops (and a former NYPD commissioner) on the news beating around the bush about that case. How there shouldnt be a rush to judgment. I guess the inference being everyone should ignore what they see with their eyes and not to use common sense. When bullshit like THAT happens, its really difficult NOT to have a negative feeling about cops. So unless and until the "good guys" start speaking up then they cant complain when they get treated with contempt like the bad guys.

Cops are the ones with the guns, who based on most cases are allowed to act with impunity. They CHOOSE their professions. Black men and women can not choose to be another race. We cant choose not to be racially profiled, or targeted. You want to talk about pressure? Try being a black man in America.

Someone uptread asked when will it end? It meaning the tit-for tat? The OJ jury acquitted him as revenge for Rodney King and other injustices suffered by blacks. One possible answer: when white people become just as outraged and destraught over a black person's murder. People want to say that OJ's celebrity is what caused this trial to be the sensational circus it was. But I just dont believe that if Nicole and Ron were black, people would be this emotional and invested 20 years later.

Im reminded of the closing arguments from Matthew Macconaughey's character in 'A Time To Kill' where he basically convinces the jury to acquit by asking them to imagine the victim was white. Ron and Nicole, yes were human beings first and foremost and deserved justice just on the most fundamental levels of humanity, but no doubt, IMO, the fact that they were white is the reason their murders capitivated the nation (which in 1994 the population was like 80% white). Its also why children who look like Jon Benet or Elizabeth Smart get all the media attention when they go missing.

Edited March 31, 2016 by FuriousStyles

[Apprentice79]

To me, what ruins the crop more than the "few bad apples" is the FACT that the good guys remain silent when those bad apples fuck up. What do they call it? The Blue wall or the Blue shield or whatever? Case in point, the Walter Scott murder in South Carolina. That cop shot a black man in cold blood right in his back. Another police officer pretty much covered up for him and had it not been for a bystander recording the whole thing that cop would probably still be on the force despite IMO the physical evidence that would have indisputably refuted his account of events about "fearing for his life" (a phrase ALL cops use when justifying shooting someone), and how the guy reached for his gun, yadda yadda yadda. This is something blacks knew was going on for decades, but others couldnt believe it and probably still wouldnt had it not been for the video. There were plenty of former cops (and a former NYPD commissioner) on the news beating around the bush about that case. How there shouldnt be a rush to judgment. I guess the inference being everyone should ignore what they see with their eyes and not to use common sense. When bullshit like THAT happens, its really difficult NOT to have a negative feeling about cops. So unless and until the "good guys" start speaking up then they cant complain when they get treated with contempt like the bad guys.

Cops are the ones with the guns, who based on most cases are allowed to act with impunity. They CHOOSE their professions. Black men and women can not choose to be another race. We cant choose not to be racially profiled, or targeted. You want to talk about pressure? Try being a black man in America.

Someone uptread asked when will it end? It meaning the tit-for tat? The OJ jury acquitted him as revenge for Rodney King and other injustices suffered by blacks. One possible answer: when white people become just as outraged and destraught over a black person's murder. People want to say that OJ's celebrity is what caused this trial to be the sensational circus it was. But I just dont believe that if Nicole and Ron were black, people would be this emotional and invested 20 years later.

Im reminded of the closing arguments from Matthew Macconaughey's character in 'A Time To Kill' where he basically convinces the jury to acquit by asking them to imagine the victim was white. Ron and Nicole, yes were human beings first and foremost and deserved justice just on the most fundamental levels of humanity, but no doubt, IMO, the fact that they were white is the reason their murders capitivated the nation (which in 1994 the population was like 80% white). Its also why children who look like Jon Benet or Elizabeth Smart get all the media attention when they go missing.

Your post is perfect......A standing ovation!

[Kromm]

Someone uptread asked when will it end? It meaning the tit-for tat? The OJ jury acquitted him as revenge for Rodney King and other injustices suffered by blacks. One possible answer: when white people become just as outraged and destraught over a black person's murder. People want to say that OJ's celebrity is what caused this trial to be the sensational circus it was. But I just dont believe that if Nicole and Ron were black, people would be this emotional and invested 20 years later.

Actually IMO things might have been even more inflammatory if Ron had been black...assuming Nicole was still white I mean. That would have lit the racial fires even more.

[CeeBeeGee]

Interesting how there never was and still is no outrage towards the King jurors, it was all about the jurors voting their conscience and people putting their faith in a justice system that has always served a single segment of this society, but people revel in degrading the Simpson jurors and Johnnie because the outcome didnt reflect the American system of juice prudence when it comes to people of a certain hue. Mark Furhman represents the purest truth of the police and everything this country has and continues to stand for -- Officer from Overseer. Try to deny it as we continue to watch the ascension of Trump and Cruz and their ilk.

 

I don't get this at all. There was a TON of outrage and criticism toward the King jurors--including from the Republican then-president. President George H. W. Bush said, "Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I and so was Barbara and so were my kids." I don't see what you're seeing at all.

[Umbelina]

Exactly, there WAS outrage.  It wasn't on TV 24-7, and RK wasn't dead, but that didn't stop the outrage at the verdict, and that crossed racial lines.  It wasn't only the riots in LA.

 

I still don't understand how that paper you are siting says they collected blood evidence more than a month later, when both the police, and then later the family cleaned it all up a a day after the murders, and did even more on JUNE 17th.

[tearbender]

The show has done a solid job pointing out how color blindness can allow people to exist in a state of ignorance.

 

One moment I enjoyed that almost escaped me was Johnnie yelling at Shawn to "Dry them, tears, girl!" before hustling out of the room. It was equal parts empathetic and at the same time he was acting like a director yelling at an actor. Quite appropriate, IMO.

 

 

[deerstalker]

Exactly, there WAS outrage. It wasn't on TV 24-7, and RK wasn't dead, but that didn't stop the outrage at the verdict, and that crossed racial lines. It wasn't only the riots in LA.

I still don't understand how that paper you are siting says they collected blood evidence more than a month later, when both the police, and then later the family cleaned it all up a a day after the murders, and did even more on JUNE 17th.

"Investigators took three weeks to collect samples from blood on the rear gate of the condominium where Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were murdered last June, a detective testified Wednesday.

The lapse was one of several that Detective Tom Lange acknowledged under cross-examination as O.J. Simpson's lead trial attorney, Johnnie Cochran, continued his attempt to depict the investigators as bunglers."

Edited March 31, 2016 by deerstalker

[Glade]

That OJ is in jail today while MF was able to comfortably retire as an author (I imagine titles such as "Confessions of A Violent Racist" where every chapter begins with the statement "I'm not racist, but...") really says everything about America.  The thing is, white cops and white people in general don't have to "play the race card," because that card is simply their skin. They play it without having to make grand, "theatrical" courtroom speeches.  They use it emotionally, irrationally, without giving deep thought to it.  It's not surprising because white police officers are almost never punished for beating or killing unarmed black people.

 

I think JC has some good "karma" (if such a thing existed and decided who gets sick and who doesn't, LOL) from the great work he did on behalf of victims of police brutality.  It's not all his fault that the prosecution messed up or that the judge might have made bad decisions.  I'm sure there are, sadly, millions of murderers, rapists, child molesters (actually I KNOW there are) who didn't get convicted of their crimes.  But this one case just drove people SO mad. 

[Umbelina]

Because he was famous, but mostly, two reasons.

 

1.  The Bronco chase aired live and lasted forever, catching everyone's interest.

2.  Ito decided to let it be televised, and his lack of control in the courtroom led to nearly a year of murder/trial.

 

It was a circus.  Had the Bronco chase not happened, which captured everyone's attention, and most certainly if Ito hadn't allowed TV cameras, this case would not have had so much attention, and regular people wouldn't feel connected to it.  It was EVERYWHERE.

[txhorns79]

You aren't correct here. That "rule" only applies if he was the one being tried. He wasn't. He had leeway apparently to plead the fifth or not to each individual question.  And according to someone else here he even had his lawyer on hand, so it's not like that wasn't simply something he was aware of.

 

In my later comment, I noted that it's a very risky strategy for a witness to plead the fifth to some things, but not others.  That is often how someone can get themselves into legal trouble. 

 

I had read that the writers invented the scene of Chris storming out during Fuhrman's testimony.  I was glad to read that, because I thought it would actually be very unprofessional for Darden to have actually done that. 

Edited March 31, 2016 by txhorns79

[Ina123]

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CENTRAL DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff,
v.
MARK FUHRMAN, Defendant.

Original Charge: Count I: Violation of Penal Code section 118 (a felony)

Convicted Of: One Count - Count I of Information - of Penal Code sec 118

Date of Offense: On or about March 15, 1995.

 

  Guilty by: Plea of nolo contendre.

Date: 10/2/96
Judge: Ouderkirk

Actual Time In Custody: 0 days 4019 P.C. Time: 0 days

No. BA 109275

PERSONAL HISTORY IN LIEU OF PROBATION REPORT

Hearing: 10/2/96 Time: 9:00 Dept.: 109

Bail: O.R.

Negotiated Plea: People v. West plea - Defendant plead no contest with an understanding:
(1) no jail time;
(2) three years probation;
(3) probation supervision in defendant's current state of residence;
(4) the minimum restitution fine;
(5) the single term of probation that defendant violate no laws;
(6) entry of a plea of nolo contendere.

 

Yes he plead "Nolo Contendere" or "No Contest" but still a plea agreement. Notice a "Negotiated Plea". And, yes, he's still a felon even though his record has been expunged. Just means he can legally answer "no" if asked on a form if he has ever been convicted of a felony. Still can't carry a gun, vote, etc., but a background check will not show a record.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Ina123

[starri]

The allegation is that he carried the glove from the murder scene and planted it at Rockingham.

Okay, but then what are the odds that out of 260 million people in the US, the "real" killer just happened to own the same pair of gloves as OJ, of which only 300 pairs were sold, and only at a single store?  There's doubt, and then there's reasonable doubt.  This falls way short of the latter.

 

Occam's razor is a thing.

[Simon Boccanegra]

That OJ is in jail today while MF was able to comfortably retire as an author (I imagine titles such as "Confessions of A Violent Racist" where every chapter begins with the statement "I'm not racist, but...") really says everything about America.

 

Simpson was found guilty of multiple felonies related to armed robbery, burglary, and kidnapping, and there was strong recorded evidence against him. Fuhrman was demonstrated to be guilty of perjury over the use of racial slurs, and investigations did not turn up support for the bragging to the screenwriter on the McKinny tapes. So, I wonder what outcome you would expect. Do you consider Fuhrman's crimes more significant than Simpson's? 

 

There has been a lot of talk about karma here. It was a gross miscarriage of justice that Simpson had the decade of freedom he had after the murder trial, but to me, the sweetest karmic outcome of this whole saga was that he was caught dead to rights in other serious crimes that did not add to his body count.  

Edited March 31, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Neurochick]

I remember there was a lot more involved with the tapes.  I remember one or two women on the witness stand because apparently, he'd said the "n" word in front of them, they were very distraught; one woman said she was shocked because she was raised not to use that word ever and she was upset that a police officer used it.

 

It was an eye opener to a lot of people who simply thought black people were just "being paranoid" about racist cops.  As has been said, this was before smart phones, when incidents of brutality are documented for the world to see. 

 

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.

 

 

This is a very true comment.  I think about the "Central Park Five" case.  That was a perfect example of what could happen when you let the state completely take over.  In that case the City of NY just HAD to get SOMEBODY for this crime (possibly because the victim was an investment banker), so shit was done that wasn't on the up and up, like questioning minors without their parents present, taking advantage of parents who were ignorant of the law.  I mean that's what happens when you let the state dictate shit.  Also in that case the media was right up there with the state in their fuckery.  I remember on the front page of the NY Daily News they had a headline:  "Wilding."  Which wasn't even a word, the media invented it to mean groups of young people (mainly black and Hispanic) attacking people in Central Park.  The reporters claimed they heard young people singing it, well that was bullshit, what they heard were young people singing a Tone Loc song that was popular in 1989 called "Wild Thing."  See, that's how the state plus the media can create a situation that spirals out of control.

 

I thought it was interesting when Darden told Clark that all she wanted was a black face, not a black voice.  He was right, he picked up Fuhrman's vibe when he first interviewed him, but Clark didn't get it.  She herself was suffering from serious racial ignorance and couldn't consider that maybe a black man might be right when sensing that someone could hold racist views toward black people. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

I'm exhausted. This show has sapped so much of my energy. And last night's episode just infuriated me.

 

I can't believe that Ito has been portrayed as this judge, who is so full of integrity, trying so hard to do the right thing, be objective, and fair, when he is part of the reason that this trial was such a circus. And that aside from that picture of Arsenio, which hinted at his famewhoriness, we've seen nothing that would give the late night comedians opportunities to mock him. Why is he such a special snowflake? 

 

I did so love the scene in the elevator when Shapiro went off on Cochran about not needing any more "pressure!" So glad that for once, someone on the team was able to make that asshole just Shut the FUCK up.

 

I did wonder though, if the real life Douglas and Cochran laughed when Darden said he should be held in contempt.

 

Make up people needed to do a better job on Cuba. For as much as I managed to stay away from the real life trial, every time they would show us footage, every.single.damn.day on the news, the real life OJ never, never looked haggard, tired, unshaven.  But Cuba's OJ looked all of these things during Darden's motion to Ito to not permit the tapes to be heard.  

 

Here we are, right on the cusp of the end of this mini-series, and Cuba, to me, never improved or showed me that he was OJ.  And even in the previews for the finale, when he's making his statement I guess, before the verdict is read? He's still fucking UNSHAVEN! And I KNOW for a fact that in the real life verdict, he was clean shaven, and wasn't he wearing a blue or black suit, instead of that taupe colored one? Funny, I can't recall the color of his suit, but I can recall that he didn't look tired, hung over, and yes, haggard.

 

What? did someone piss off the make-up people?

[Simon Boccanegra]

GHScorpiosRule, I cannot recall the preview, but if they have Cuba/OJ in a taupe suit, that's accurate. Here is the famous photo of Simpson reacting with jubilation to the verdict, flanked by Bailey and Cochran.  

 

http://tiny.cc/234fay

[SFoster21]

Okay, but then what are the odds that out of 260 million people in the US, the "real" killer just happened to own the same pair of gloves as OJ, of which only 300 pairs were sold, and only at a single store? There's doubt, and then there's reasonable doubt. This falls way short of the latter.

Occam's razor is a thing.

I only answered the individual who asked how he could know which gloves to plant.

I did not argue any merits. However, I will say that the OJ jury was not alone in looking at factors beyond the evidence and the killing; other famous and/or wealthy defendants have had similar results in murder trials: Robert Blake, Phil Spector, Menendez Bros, Betty Broderick, the Preppie Killer, etc.

[Hanahope]

I'm just surprised that considering how Fuhrman used the "n" word so freely on those tapes, that there was no one who could have simply testified to statements he said using that word to show the perjury, and thus make the tapes irrelevant/overkill that didn't need to be released to the public.

[vibeology]

What a mess. It makes for incredible television but a horrible trial. I do agree with others who think the show has gone way too easy on Ito. So far what we've seen is someone who is doing his best with a huge spotlight on him and not the actual disaster that Ito actually was. There's just so much to cover with this case that I do think they needed a few more episodes to make time for Ito's story. The explosions from Darden and Clark seemed out of place considering what we've seen from Ito so far. He was an ass to Marcia about the hair and tough with both Clark and Cochran with the jury stuff but they've left out the number of times Ito had made decisions that just baffled every talking head because they were so far away from normal decisions.

 

The acting here was so good. Brown, Vance, Travolta, Lane, Paulson and Schwimmer were all soooooo good it kills me. It's damn near impossible to pick a favourite and at least two of the men are going to get shafted come Emmy-time. Travolta in the elevator was mind-blowing as was Vance there and all episode. The look he gave when Lee was acting in the SC court told an entire story without words. He understood then why Lee was a legend, realized that he didn't speak the "language" of that courtroom and I think understood how good it was to have a team because he could never have gotten those tapes on his own.

 

The elevator scene with Brown and Paulson was crazy good and the apology scene was even better. Neither Clark or Darden was ready for this case and both screwed up at different points. They can't undo it so I liked that they figured out how to move past those errors and at the very least have each other as friends. Like others have said, they're real people and it feels wrong, but I ship them hard. When this is done I hope they get to do something else together.

 

And Schwimmer didn't get his moment until the very end but when he did it was perfect. He looked so disgusted and horrified that OJ was celebrating getting away with murder. I don't know what Kardashian really felt, but the way the writers have used that character to tell the story of "what if someone you care about is a monster" has been so strong. That's a moment I don't think I will ever forget.

[GHScorpiosRule]

GHScorpiosRule, I cannot recall the preview, but if they have Cuba/OJ in a taupe suit, that's accurate. Here is the famous photo of Simpson reacting with jubilation to the verdict, flanked by Bailey and Cochran.  

 

http://tiny.cc/234fay

 

 

Thanks Simon.  And proof-that OJ doesn't look worried, tired, exhausted.  Why, there's no furrow on his brow. Smooth all the way. He doesn't look like he hasn't shaved in a couple days, the way Cuba's OJ looks.

 

Show's trying to convince me that this trial took a toll on him, when there's evidence to the contrary.  Physical toll that is. 

[TVHappy9463]

Vulture has been running an article that fact checks every episode with the lead columnist from thew LA Times who covered the trial, it has been a great way to keep the episodes in perspective and amazing to find out how much of this they got right.  But also very scary.  http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-9-fact-checked.html

I am as outraged today as I was then. I would really love to know if Robert Kardashian ever spoke to anyone about what he really thought, I guess attorney client privilege follows you to the grave. I also got the feeling watching him during the trial he was the only one who had a shred of decency, and since his ego wasn't on the lie like the rest might actually care of the victims, one of whom was his dear friend.  

 

I still think Nathan Lane was miscast, as was Travolta.  But Paulson, Brown and Vance are hitting it out of the park.  And now as the episodes have progressed and I see the direction they are taking Kardashian I understand why they case Schwimmer, And the actor playing Ito was spot on last night.

 

I hope this show is recognized, come Emmy and SAG time next year, lot's of good work that should be recognized.  Regardless of the subject matter.  

[Aethera]

Hi folks! A few notes.

 

This thread is getting heated, and we are sometimes stating opinions as fact.  We need to stop doing that. "I think" or "I believe" are great for avoiding that problem.

 

This case has piles of literature, transcripts, opinion pieces, etc associated with it. We can't all wade through all of it. It's great that people who do have the time to do so are posting relevant information here in response to opinions, but let's do it gently, please. We're also not criminal lawyers (I mean, maybe one or two of us are, but I haven't seen any in this thread) and laws vary by jurisdiction and situation, so let's avoid stating opinions on things like the Pleading the 5th conversation as fact.

 

Next, let's remember, as I mentioned in the last thread, that we're allowed to criticize the jury, the witnesses and the lawyers, or defend them, and doing either thing doesn't necessarily have to do with their demographics. We can find them stupid, or brave, or mean, or correct, or whatever else we want to, without it being about their skin color or gender or anything else.

 

If the discussion is moving beyond the events of this episode, don't forget we have a full case thread for discussing larger arcs.

 

Lastly - opinions of others need to be respected, even if you disagree.  If you're angry when you start a post, if you just can't BELIEVE someone said what they just said, and are furiously typing away to correct them - reconsider posting. Walk away, calm down, and then post respectfully about your disagreement.

[Princess Sparkle]

I think this might've been the best episode yet, and that's no small feat considering the episodes that came before it. Everyone was really firing on all cylinders, and I found myself actually tensing up during both elevator scenes, just because the intensity was so high.

Others have said it, but Sterling K Brown really is a revelation in this role. While I liked the "you wanted a black face, but not a black voice" line, I really loved his delivery of "It's funny...but I'm not laughing". I hope this gives him the exposure to do great work after this.

One thing that is amazing to me is that even though I know the outcome to all of this, I still wait with baited breath for all the major decisions while I watch the show - for example, I obviously knew the Furman tapes would be let in and that Furman would plead the 5th, but I was still nervous with anticipation while I waited for those decisions to play out on screen. This miniseries has been fabulous.

[Archery]

I'm just surprised that considering how Fuhrman used the "n" word so freely on those tapes, that there was no one who could have simply testified to statements he said using that word to show the perjury, and thus make the tapes irrelevant/overkill that didn't need to be released to the public.

The defense wanted two things from those tapes. One, for the jury to hear in Fuhrman's own voice, him using the term, which would and did kill his credibilty dead.  And by association, taint the prosecution's whole case in the "THIS is the guy you're building your case on" sense.  Two, they really wanted the additional information about Fuhrman planting evidence and suggesting that that was par for the course for the LAPD, which would all but prove their counter-theory. 

[kassa]

They also called in  live witnesses who had heard him use the word in person.  The tapes were critical evidence to corroborate their allegations that he was racist and used that word.  Otherwise some people to this day would be saying "well, we don't know if he REALLY ever said that -- maybe that woman just wanted her 15 minutes.  He said/she said!"

Edited March 31, 2016 by kassa

[tiredofwork]

 

I understand why they case Schwimmer,

 

See, I have been seeing a lot of praise of Schwimmer's role,  But to me, he just seems to be playing the same, facially dumb, lost, confused character he played in Friends.  Not seeing any range there.

 

On the other hand, contrary to a lot of opinions, I think Travolta is nailing it.  He's giving a very strange inflection or affectation of Shapiro and I don't know that Shapiro is flattered or the opposite of flattered, but  I am amused by Travolta's portrayal.

 

I do also agree that DANG, When Sarah Paulson as MC looks Brown as Darden in the eyes, there is some magical "ish" going on.  I give that to Paulson though.  I doubt it would be the same if I saw a news feed of real life MC and real life Darden.

 

However anyone feels about Johnnie Cochran.., Vance is the absolute star of this docudrama.  I cannot wait for Courtney's scenes doing his larger than life JC.  Emmy, Emmy, Emmy for CV.

Edited March 31, 2016 by tiredofwork

[LostWithSawyer]

To me, what ruins the crop more than the "few bad apples" is the FACT that the good guys remain silent when those bad apples fuck up. What do they call it? The Blue wall or the Blue shield or whatever? Case in point, the Walter Scott murder in South Carolina. That cop shot a black man in cold blood right in his back. Another police officer pretty much covered up for him and had it not been for a bystander recording the whole thing that cop would probably still be on the force despite IMO the physical evidence that would have indisputably refuted his account of events about "fearing for his life" (a phrase ALL cops use when justifying shooting someone), and how the guy reached for his gun, yadda yadda yadda. This is something blacks knew was going on for decades, but others couldnt believe it and probably still wouldnt had it not been for the video. There were plenty of former cops (and a former NYPD commissioner) on the news beating around the bush about that case. How there shouldnt be a rush to judgment. I guess the inference being everyone should ignore what they see with their eyes and not to use common sense. When bullshit like THAT happens, its really difficult NOT to have a negative feeling about cops. So unless and until the "good guys" start speaking up then they cant complain when they get treated with contempt like the bad guys.

Cops are the ones with the guns, who based on most cases are allowed to act with impunity. They CHOOSE their professions. Black men and women can not choose to be another race. We cant choose not to be racially profiled, or targeted. You want to talk about pressure? Try being a black man in America.

Someone uptread asked when will it end? It meaning the tit-for tat? The OJ jury acquitted him as revenge for Rodney King and other injustices suffered by blacks. One possible answer: when white people become just as outraged and destraught over a black person's murder. People want to say that OJ's celebrity is what caused this trial to be the sensational circus it was. But I just dont believe that if Nicole and Ron were black, people would be this emotional and invested 20 years later.

Im reminded of the closing arguments from Matthew Macconaughey's character in 'A Time To Kill' where he basically convinces the jury to acquit by asking them to imagine the victim was white. Ron and Nicole, yes were human beings first and foremost and deserved justice just on the most fundamental levels of humanity, but no doubt, IMO, the fact that they were white is the reason their murders capitivated the nation (which in 1994 the population was like 80% white). Its also why children who look like Jon Benet or Elizabeth Smart get all the media attention when they go missing.

This post is great, and it really gets at my struggle with the way this case has been discussed and analyzed over the last 20 years. So many people like to see this case as a clear cut, non-ambiguous situation...and maybe in a perfect world it should be, but I think that real life says that it will never be that simple. I think that's unfortunately the reality of living in America. No crime can ever be separated from the societal circumstances in which it was committed. You can't disentangle prejudice, celebrity, race, etc from this case because, just as the forensic evidence, they are facts of great influence and actually impact the deliberation process.  These types of non-forensic facts are considered in every single case that goes through the criminal justice system, and many people of color, individuals with low financial means, and individuals with less education suffer the consequences of these non-forensic facts in cases every single day. Conversely, people in positions of power (whether race, education or financial wealth) benefit from this inequity in cases every single day. Back when the trial occurred, I remember many people discussing the fact that this acquittal didn't even begin to tip the scales towards equality in the midst of daily racial injustice in this country. Many people said that race shouldn't be considered and purport Cochran as a horrible person for bringing it up, but how could race not be considered when it actually WAS a factor in the case (although I don't like how it was exploited throughout the case)? So was OJ's celebrity. So was the fact that Nicole was his wife. So was the fact that they were an interracial couple. So was the domestic violence. On and on...they were all factors of influence that we automatically process as human beings. All of this (and so much more) influenced everyone involved and all who consumed the facts, whether on a conscious or unconscious level.

 

When you factor in these societal circumstances and factors, I don't know how anyone can truly know what they "would" or "wouldn't" have done on this sequestered jury 20 years ago. I certainly can't. We are all influenced by these non-forensic factors as a part of the human condition. If we were embedded in LA during this period of time, how would we have experienced race and power differently? Not watch it on TV and give remote feelings, but actually live in the midst of the police corruption and racism every single day? I don't think the jury was irresponsible--I think they were human beings who did the best they could to struggle through many complicated forensic and societal factors to try to decide if reasonable doubt existed in this case. Fuhrman's involvement played a major part with this struggle. His testimony didn't just highlight what a disgusting human being that he was. It also highlighted a larger issue with the LAPD that struck deeply at the distrust so many African Americans felt at that time (and still feel today). I am an educated person who clearly knows the role of a jury, and even with my strong belief that OJ committed this crime I remember feeling highly suspicious of the honesty of Fuhrman and his LAPD colleagues to the point of not being sure that I could have deliberated towards a "guilty" verdict. If we want to blame someone for this acquittal, blame Furhman. His racism and lies were a huge grievous disservice to Ron and Nicole and made it incredibly difficult to know what to truly believe from the LAPD.

 

If this TV show has done nothing else, it is facilitating an examination of power, race and wealth in the criminal justice system. It is a little baffling to me that many people I know have been more passionate and upset about this 20-year old crime than they are about the string of recent cases of police misconduct, but if a re-examination of this case can improve things for individuals that are currently suffering then I am glad for it. Also...I know people don't like members of the defense team, but I find it a bit unsettling to be glad that someone else suffered and died of cancer or anything else. I also think OJ was guilty, but that felt like a little lost humanity in this conversation. Just my two cents.

Edited March 31, 2016 by LostWithSawyer

[SFoster21]

I'm just surprised that considering how Fuhrman used the "n" word so freely on those tapes, that there was no one who could have simply testified to statements he said using that word to show the perjury, and thus make the tapes irrelevant/overkill that didn't need to be released to the public.

It's been posted before, but there were live witnesses, which is why so few tapes were admitted.

[psychoticstate]

Someone uptread asked when will it end? It meaning the tit-for tat? The OJ jury acquitted him as revenge for Rodney King and other injustices suffered by blacks. One possible answer: when white people become just as outraged and destraught over a black person's murder. People want to say that OJ's celebrity is what caused this trial to be the sensational circus it was. But I just dont believe that if Nicole and Ron were black, people would be this emotional and invested 20 years later.

 

 

That was me.  I find it sad that it's assumed that whites only care about other whites being murdered.  That's as true as blacks only caring about blacks, Mexicans only caring about Mexicans, etc.  I don't give a rat's ass what color Ron's skin was or Nicole's skin was or Simpson's skin was.  Murder is murder, Simpson was guilty and justice was not served.  

 

I can't speak for all white people, only myself but I can assure you that murder outrages me.  Period.

[psychoticstate]

m reminded of the closing arguments from Matthew Macconaughey's character in 'A Time To Kill' where he basically convinces the jury to acquit by asking them to imagine the victim was white. Ron and Nicole, yes were human beings first and foremost and deserved justice just on the most fundamental levels of humanity, but no doubt, IMO, the fact that they were white is the reason their murders capitivated the nation (which in 1994 the population was like 80% white). Its also why children who look like Jon Benet or Elizabeth Smart get all the media attention when they go missing.

 

 

 

So if Marcia Clark in her closing argument had told this jury "imagine that Ron and Nicole were black," that wouldn't have been offensive?  And would have possibly gotten an acquittal?  I don't think so.  

 

I disagree with the statement that the murders of Ron and Nicole captivated the nation because they were white.  The entire nation was captivated - - so are you saying that blacks were also captivated by white people being murdered?  I think what captivated the nation was the fall of what was then an American icon.  And Simpson's race had nothing to do with it.  I was in LA at the time and as I recall no one was mentioning race before the trial.

 

I do agree that the media tends to focus on the white race and/or victims that are considered more photogenic, sympathetic, etc.  It's wrong on every level.

[VanillaBeanne]

See, I have been seeing a lot of praise of Schwimmer's role, But to me, he just seems to be playing the same, facially dumb, lost, confused character he played in Friends. Not seeing any range there.

On the other hand, contrary to a lot of opinions, I think Travolta is nailing it. He's giving a very strange inflection or affectation of Shapiro and I don't know that Shapiro is flattered or the opposite of flattered, but I am amused by Travolta's portrayal.

I do also agree that DANG, When Sarah Paulson as MC looks Brown as Darden in the eyes, there is some magical "ish" going on. I give that to Paulson though. I doubt it would be the same if I saw a news feed of real life MC and real life Darden.

However anyone feels about Johnnie Cochran.., Vance is the absolute star of this docudrama. I cannot wait for Courtney's scenes doing his larger than life JC. Emmy, Emmy, Emmy for CV.

I agree with your opinions about Vance, but I think Paulson is doing just as good a job. I think they have the toughest roles. They're in the most scenes and have to portray two of the most visible characters involved in the trial (other than OJ) in that I think people remember Clark and Cochran, and how they spoke and acted. I think Vance doesn't get as much praise on this board because Cochran is a much more controversial figure than Clark, but it's a testament to Vance's performance that he is able to show Cochran's positive and negative motivations (a childish obsession with winning and a deep-seated belief in institutional racism).

I also see Ross in Schwimmers performance. In the scene where Shapiro told Schwimmer that he could get a plea for OJ and for Kardashian, Schwimmer did a double take ("wha-, what?") that was so classic Ross that I expected to hear a laugh track, but I still think he gives a solid performance.

Darden had grown on me but I really questioned his blank stares and plaintive cries for "Marcia" in the Dream Team episode. He came off as slow. Again, I think he's a fine actor but I'm not seeing the greatness of Paulson or Vance. I thought he was downright scary in the elevator scene this episode, but Paulson saved that scene for me by looking concerned for him, rather than herself.

Travolta and Bailey are excellent. They aren't as heavily featured. But they are able to bring layers to their characters (Shapiro is a narcissist man-child who might actually care as much about avoiding a riot as he does maintaining his reputation, and Bailey looking to prove he still has his trial lawyer chops). Not to mention they provide comic relief.

I think all of the performances range from good to great. (Except for the actress who played Denise Brown. Thought she really looked like Denise in the first episode but her acting in subsequent episodes was not particularly good).

Edited March 31, 2016 by VanillaBeanne