S01.E09: Manna From Heaven

[ridethemaverick]

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.

You keep saying all of this as if it's fact. It's not a fact that the jury acquitted OJ (white jurors included) to get back at "the man." Perhaps I'm wrong and they've all written books or op-eds where they've all confessed this, but to my knowledge, that's never happened.

Amazingly enough, I believe at least some of the jurors actually believed he was innocent, and I believe others weren't sure or thought he did it but believed they couldn't acquit based on the evidence.

[ByTor]

You keep saying all of this as if it's fact. It's not a fact that the jury acquitted OJ (white jurors included) to get back at "the man." Perhaps I'm wrong and they've all written books or op-eds where they've all confessed this, but to my knowledge, that's never happened.

Amazingly enough, I believe at least some of the jurors actually believed he was innocent, and I believe others weren't sure or thought he did it but believed they couldn't acquit based on the evidence.

My personal opinion (as someone who obviously wasn't there/never met any of the jurors) is that there were definitely other factors at play. I do think that the defense really did convince the jurors that the evidence was tainted and untrustworthy (likely having much to do with the 10-2 initial vote to acquit). Combining that with the fact that they just wanted to go the hell home, IMO, made it fairly easy to convince the other 2 to change their votes. Edited March 31, 2016 by ByTor

[ridethemaverick]

My personal opinion (as someone who obviously wasn't there/never met any of the jurors) is that there were definitely other factors at play. I do think that the defense really did convince the jurors that the evidence was tainted and untrustworthy (likely having much to do with the 10-2 initial vote to acquit). Combining that with the fact that they just wanted to go the hell home, IMO, made it fairly easy to convince the other 2 to change their votes.

I agree. Now the celebration of the verdict by many in the black community? I do believe THAT was 200+ years of frustration collectively pouring out of people. But the jury, I believe they considered the evidence. They were likely swayed by OJ's celebrity and Cochran and the defense team's theories and doubt and yes, the idea that the case may have been a racially motivated frame-up. But voting not guilty solely to get back at white people? I don't buy it.

[Hanahope]

I agree that this episode really highlights the errors Ito made.  I get that he only admitted the 2 sentences of Fuhrman using the "N" word to attack his credibility.  But what Ito really should have done was listen to the tapes in camera, in his office in private, and not publicize them to the world, until he had made a decision as to what portions were really relevant to the trial and which were not.  In this case, its a crime that the jurors would hear about all that other tape excerpts, especially about the alleged planting of evidence in other crime scenes (which apparently turned out to be completely false), when such were not relevant as to what happened in the OJ case. 

 

I'm not sure how the show could really depict explicitly all the bad decisions Ito made.  its made subtle references to it, like having the cameras in the court room and how that impacted how the attorneys acted, and even how Ito made some of his decisions.  With the attorneys, you can show their bad decisions because there's another side reacting and/or commenting on it.  But one can't do that with Ito, the attorneys can't tell the judge he's being stupid, as we saw, both Darden and Clark nearly went to jail over it.  About the only way to obviously to it is showing something like a Larry King interview of another judge (or attorney) willing to attack or embarrass Ito.

[Kromm]

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.  

That's a false equivalency--you're comparing a wife murderer with a run-of-the-mill mouthy racist, who as far as anyone knows was mostly talk--albeit talk he lied about. Of course it complicates things that OJ isn't even in jail for that murder, but the point remains that however ugly they are, you can't imprison people for their thoughts. 

 

Really the OJ situation was The Cosby Problem in it's infancy. When Cosby was first accused in 2014 (well, RE-accused since there were versions of it a decade before), the outrage was all racial.  Probably the thing that stopped that in it's tracks, even still, was that a few of his accusers turned out to be black women. 

[jaync]

After twenty years, the NC connection to the trial had pretty much slipped my mind. At the time, it was big news when Bailey and Cochran came to these parts during the Trial of the Century.

 

Between O.J. and Fuhrman, that was a lot of disgusting douchiness in one courtroom.

 

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.

I'm not understanding the point. In between getting away with double-murder and committing armed robbery and kidnapping, O.J. led a very comfortable life, playing golf every day in sunny Florida, spending time with his family, and fucking his young girlfriends.

 

It can't be said enough how incredible the performances are every single episode.

 

*shaking and crying in anticipation for next week*

 

[psychoticstate]

I think all of the performances range from good to great. 

 

Co-sign.  It's very easy for me to forget that I am watching an actor play Johnnie Cochran or Bob Shapiro or an actress play Marcia Clark.  These actors are stellar, from their mannerisms to vocal inflections to the exhaustion, despair and delight they show on their faces.

[helenamonster]

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.

 

As has been mentioned, an actor's sexuality (especially a great actor like Paulson) has no bearing on who they are able to generate chemistry with onscreen. (And, for what it's worth, Paulson has said she's dated men and identifies her sexuality as fluid.)

 

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.

 

While I think it's idiotic that his record was expunged, one small mercy could be that the name Mark Fuhrman is most likely still pretty notorious in this country. Even if he doesn't have an official record, many people know who he is and that he's a felon and documented racist. And if they didn't, they wouldn't even have to conduct an official background check to find out. One quick Google search and it's all there.

 

Question: how much did the jury actually end up seeing/hearing of Fuhrman's testimony that we saw in this episode? They weren't in the courtroom when he was pleading the Fifth, correct?

[Reishe]

Just a quick comment: I've read Toobin's book a couple of times, but sadly donated it on my last big move, so I don't have it now to refresh my memory. But if I recall correctly, the police who interacted with OJ leading up to this incident, as well as their initial demeanor until taking him into custody, had pretty much acted like gushing fanboys; to them, he was a sports idol, a tv/movie celebrity, and I think that was the dominant filter through which they viewed him. I don't see much motive to frame him (OJ specifically) on their part.

[dubbel zout]

a childish obsession with winning

 

I think this is unfair. Every attorney wants to win—they'd be useless if they didn't. Cochran might have behaved childishly, but that's not the same thing.

[whiporee]

 

the police who interacted with OJ leading up to this incident, as well as their initial demeanor until taking him into custody, had pretty much acted like gushing fanboys; to them, he was a sports idol, a tv/movie celebrity, and I think that was the dominant filter through which they viewed him.

 

Except for -- wait for it -- Mark Furhman. Who had responded to a 911 call from Nicole and had arrested Simpson for abuse. That's why he knew Simpson's address. 

 

As convinced as others are about their beleifs in this case, that's how strongly I believe that Furhman decided Simpson was the killer the moment he saw the bodies. It's why he and the detectives went to Rockingham, it's why he jumped the fence. Whether he did anything else I don't know, but he went there to pursue as suspect, and, given his statements, it's not unreasonable to think he'd do things to make sure the person he believed committed the crime would be easily convicted of it. 

[Kromm]

As has been mentioned, an actor's sexuality (especially a great actor like Paulson) has no bearing on who they are able to generate chemistry with onscreen. (And, for what it's worth, Paulson has said she's dated men and identifies her sexuality as fluid.)

I don't think we can simply state there's "no bearing" as if its some absolute. We're not talking about some morality or rights situation here, after all, but when the rubber meets the road of people's real behaviors.

 

I think the more accurate statement would be that an actors sexuality DOESN'T HAVE TO affect chemistry. In other words, it's a case by case basis, where the mere fact than an actor is gay doesn't necessarily have erase chemistry, but it would just be P.C. madness to act like it's impossible. I've met plenty of gay people who I doubt would be able to simulate heterosexual attraction, and of course countless more heterosexual people who wouldn't stand a chance of simulating homosexual attraction.  IMO to deny this is taking political correctness a bit too far. It's more about what a good actor is capable of, and about how many people are more on a spectrum than reigned in by absolutes than it is some sweeping statement that applies.

 

Although as you've said, Paulson being bisexual kind of answers this in her specific case. And yes, her being a far better than average actor.

Co-sign.  It's very easy for me to forget that I am watching an actor play Johnnie Cochran or Bob Shapiro or an actress play Marcia Clark.  These actors are stellar, from their mannerisms to vocal inflections to the exhaustion, despair and delight they show on their faces.

I can say that about many of this cast, but I never for a moment forget it's John Travolta playing Shapiro, or for that matter Schwimmer playing Kardashian. I'm about halfway there with Nathan Lane and Bailey though--he does occasionally make me forget. 

[Umbelina]

Co-sign.  It's very easy for me to forget that I am watching an actor play Johnnie Cochran or Bob Shapiro or an actress play Marcia Clark.  These actors are stellar, from their mannerisms to vocal inflections to the exhaustion, despair and delight they show on their faces.

They are all so very, very good.  Even Cuba hits it every once in a while, although I completely agree that OJ maintained a calm demeanor throughout, he didn't have the stressed expression or worried looks in court.  In court he was performing, as he should, as the debonair, wrongly accused, completely innocent, charming guy from the Hertz commercials and football commentary shows. 

 

I've read a few things that do imply he was quite different when he privately spoke to his attorneys and visitors, so those performances ring true enough, but the courtroom persona?  Don't chew scenery when you are just supposed to sit there looking calm bud.  He seems to be trying too hard to 'ACT' in capital letters.  I like Cuba, and I do hope he gets more work from this, but in this series?  He is just so miscast, he's the only clunker.

[Isabella15]

Just a quick comment: I've read Toobin's book a couple of times, but sadly donated it on my last big move, so I don't have it now to refresh my memory. But if I recall correctly, the police who interacted with OJ leading up to this incident, as well as their initial demeanor until taking him into custody, had pretty much acted like gushing fanboys; to them, he was a sports idol, a tv/movie celebrity, and I think that was the dominant filter through which they viewed him. I don't see much motive to frame him (OJ specifically) on their part.

 

I think this is accurate. In fact, it's corroborated by Simpson himself.   http://simpson.walraven.org/oj_depo1.html

 

BY MR. PETROCELLI: Q: As of June 17, Mr. Simpson, did you have any information that caused you to believe that you were being framed or set up by the LAPD?

A (Simpson) : No.

 

About the domestic violence calls, LAPD was called 9 times to Simpson's house for beating Nicole.  OJ said he was told that Fuhrman was one of the cops who had responded to a call and OJ confirmed that he was not arrested by Fuhrman at that time.  The only arrest was in 1989 by Detective John Edwards.  In this 1995 article in the LA Times, OJ's friendly relationship with LAPD is described in some detail.  http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-02/news/mn-27324_1_nicole-simpson

 

Even when Edwards arrested OJ in '89, the cop allowed Simpson to go back into the house to get dressed.  At which point, OJ jumped into his car and fled the scene.  He was later arrested.

 

That said, it's understandable that the public would have trouble believing that a likable celebrity had committed such a violent, bloody crime.  But a lot of Simpson's close friends and associates didn't have a problem believing OJ was guilty.  Here's just one example of many:  Fred Levinson is the director who did the Hertz airport commercials that made OJ a standout celebrity pitchman: 

 

At 0:29 Levinson says, "I knew he did it, there's no question."   (He also says that he told OJ to leave his girlfriends alone, but OJ hit on all of them.  And Levinson said OJ used him as a beard when they went to basketball games-- he told Nicole the girls were there with Levinson.) 

 

In my opinion, It's just not credible that OJ was suitable for framing.  He knew big Hollywood players, he had ties to the NFL, he had corporate sponsors, he had friends at LAPD.  He had lawyers, connections, and money.   It's not surprising that Nicole said he would get away with killing her. 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Isabella15

[Simon Boccanegra]

although I completely agree that OJ maintained a calm demeanor throughout, he didn't have the stressed expression or worried looks in court.

 

I remember that a little differently. It's possible he got some coaching and dialed it down later, but early on, at least, he was leaving no doubt about his state of mind at every point: grimacing and shaking his head when things were going badly, smirking when things were going well. There was an SNL sketch with Tim Meadows that season, skewering him.  

 

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/the-simpson-trial-oj/n10583

Edited April 1, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Umbelina]

Well, that was exaggerated for comedy. ;)   I'm moving the rest to the real case thread.  You are right though, he did react more than I remembered. 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Umbelina

[hatchetgirl]

They not only should have gone for a mistrial, they should have separated or bifurcated the cases. Tried OJ for Nicole and also a different trial for Ron.

Having typed up a minimum of 25 trial instructions, I can say that each set can differ. I've done sets where reasonable doubt is any doubt and others where it's a doubt of at least 50% or more. I read through the trial instructions that Ito read and boy, they were a mess. Ito definitely needed to recuse himself. I remember talking about it at the time.

[Kromm]

They not only should have gone for a mistrial, they should have separated or bifurcated the cases. Tried OJ for Nicole and also a different trial for Ron.

That's hindsight though. At the time they had to decide that they thought they had a strong case, and L.A. could barely afford the one trial they did, muchless two separate ones.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Kromm

[hatchetgirl]

That's hindsight though. At the time they had to decide that they thought they had a strong case, and L.A. could barely afford the one trial they did, muchless two separate ones.

Definitely. As I said earlier, Marcia and Chris were out of their league. Especially Marcia. She'd never been up against such a team of lawyers and the media. I think she was honestly deer in headlights when she realized the trial got so off track.

[SFoster21]

Well, that was exaggerated for comedy. ;) I'm moving the rest to the real case thread. You are right though, he did react more than I remembered.

But ITA Cuba is still a weak link. Too small, not leading-man handsome, lacking the charisma.

Edited April 1, 2016 by SFoster21

[smiley13]

But ITA Cuba is still a weak link. Too small, not leading-man handsome, lacking the charisma.

In this case, the part of OJ is not the lead part IMO.  OJ has been almost a side character with the lead character being Johnnie.

[FuriousStyles]

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.

Lol...where in my post did I say anything about what Marcia Clark should have said to the jury? My point in bringing up 'A Time to Kill' was to highlight that what swayed the jury in the movie was asking them to relate to the victim. Imagine the child being white...which would cause them to imagine that child being one of their own. That perhaps Ron and Nicole being white gave them a relatability factor is not far fetched IMO. The nation was damn near 80% white in 1994 and something like 10% black so yes if we're gonna talk about what capitavated the "entire" nation the more accurate motivation would come from what white people were thinking just based the numbers. I dont KNOW for a fact what the majority of whites watching this trial in 1994 were thinking. Frankly, I dont know what the majority of blacks were thinking either. Were there any polls taken at that time? I dont know. But to say race has absolutely nothing to do with this case is...I dont even know what word to use.

Furthermore, how would Marcia Clark appealing to the jury's emotions around race any different than her plan to appeal to their emotions around gender? We know Marcia wanted women on the jury because she thought women would identify with Nicole (there goes that relatability thing again). So why is it perfectly fine to suggest a female jury can/should relate to a female victim, but its offensive to suggest that a white jury or a white audience can/did relate to a white victim? I just think, that the race of the victims DOES play a role (however large or small) as to why its such a huge deal 20 years later. Luckily we dont have many other cases to compare this to in terms of celebrity, wealth, race, etc.

Edited April 1, 2016 by FuriousStyles

[Kromm]

In this case, the part of OJ is not the lead part IMO.  OJ has been almost a side character with the lead character being Johnnie.

With this show it clearly changes episode by episode, I suppose (we've had at least one where Kardashian was seemingly the lead, one with a lot more Shapiro, even one where Ito had tons of screentime). They've written it that way on purpose. So there's maybe one episode where Johnny is the main POV, at least relative to the rest. I'm supposing that's the episode that might be submitted for the Emmys.

 

OJ/Cuba gets the least time approximating a lead because the show doesn't want to definitively show anything from his POV that might make them have to say outright he's a murderer, even if every scene with him implies that.  That said, again, I could see them submitting him as a lead, just because it might sell better that way in terms of getting a nomination.

 

I'd say the character who gets the lead position most often though is probably Marcia more than anyone else though. Certainly more than Cochrane.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Kromm

[FozzyBear]

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well so bear with me, but the thing about police misconduct is that there are often large portions of evidence where the jury has to rely on PD and PD personnel because they have no way of authenticating anything themselves. The jury wasn't with PD when they investigated the crime scene so they have to have a basic level of trust in what they say happened. If the public gets to the point where they just do not believe the sworn testimony of police officers on principle then the DA is in trouble. How, especially in 1994, would you even go about proving that the pictures the jury is looking at are indeed pictures of this crime scene as it was found by PD and this evidence is the evidence collected by PD and given to crime labs and this data is in fact the results of correctly testing that evidence if there is a fundamental break down of trust between the public and PD? I don't think MF framed OJ, but if you believe (as many people did at the time) that a police force in a major city is nightmare combination of Keystone cops and SS guards you don't even have to believe the framed anybody or entered into a conspiracy. You can believe they fucked up, they mishandled evidence, that once OJ emerged as a suspect they skewed the investigation to support that, that they simply can not be trusted. And if you believe that and then there's the glove and MF literally talking about how he has in fact beaten and framed minorities before, well then you can get to the point where you don't know what to believe and you feel like that's not good enough for a guilty verdict.

[psychoticstate]

Lol...where in my post did I say anything about what Marcia Clark should have said to the jury? My point in bringing up 'A Time to Kill' was to highlight that what swayed the jury in the movie was asking them to relate to the victim. Imagine the child being white...which would cause them to imagine that child being one of their own. That perhaps Ron and Nicole being white gave them a relatability factor is not far fetched IMO. The nation was damn near 80% white in 1994 and something like 10% black so yes if we're gonna talk about what capitavated the "entire" nation the more accurate motivation would come from what white people were thinking just based the numbers. I dont KNOW for a fact what the majority of whites watching this trial in 1994 were thinking. Frankly, I dont know what the majority of blacks were thinking either. Were there any polls taken at that time? I dont know. But to say race has absolutely nothing to do with this case is...I dont even know what word to use.

Furthermore, how would Marcia Clark appealing to the jury's emotions around race any different than her plan to appeal to their emotions around gender? We know Marcia wanted women on the jury because she thought women would identify with Nicole (there goes that relatability thing again). So why is it perfectly fine to suggest a female jury can/should relate to a female victim, but its offensive to suggest that a white jury or a white audience can/did relate to a white victim? I just think, that the race of the victims DOES play a role (however large or small) as to why its such a huge deal 20 years later. Luckily we dont have many other cases to compare this to in terms of celebrity, wealth, race, etc.

 

Marcia Clark wanted women on the jury because she thought they would relate to HER, not Nicole.  In fact, the jury consultant told her about and allowed her to see the black females' responses to Nicole - - they didn't relate with her at all, had almost no sympathy for her - - a murder victim -- and felt she was a gold digger who had stolen a successful black man.  So yes, a suppose race did play a part in that, although that's truly sad. 

 

As far as A Time to Kill goes, it was a movie based off a fiction book.  I personally thought it was insulting to assume that an all white jury would have no sympathy with a little girl that was raped, beaten and nearly killed unless that little girl was white.  Regardless, my point about Marcia Clark was to say that if she had tried to same tactic, it would have seemed offensive (and would have been.) 

 

Maybe a better way to say what I bolded in your post is that race had nothing to do with the murders.  Nothing.  What the trial turned into was a whole other animal.

[psychoticstate]

Except for -- wait for it -- Mark Furhman. Who had responded to a 911 call from Nicole and had arrested Simpson for abuse. That's why he knew Simpson's address. 

 

As convinced as others are about their beleifs in this case, that's how strongly I believe that Furhman decided Simpson was the killer the moment he saw the bodies. It's why he and the detectives went to Rockingham, it's why he jumped the fence. Whether he did anything else I don't know, but he went there to pursue as suspect, and, given his statements, it's not unreasonable to think he'd do things to make sure the person he believed committed the crime would be easily convicted of it. 

 

Is it a fact that Fuhman arrested Simpson for spousal abuse?  I honestly don't know.  I do recall that the 1989 incident where the police were called and the pictures of Nicole were taken was the same incident where Simpson jumped in his car and left the scene . . . and the cops let him go.

 

So that certainly does suggest a certain level of coddling and enabling.  Your average Joe, like one of us, would never have been allowed to jump in our cars and just leave.  We also would never have been allowed to turn just ourselves in at Parker Center for two counts of murder when it was convenient for us.

 

So again, if this is same diabolical police department that set out to frame Simpson for murder, why would they have been so gentle and compliant with him previously?  It doesn't make sense.

In my opinion, It's just not credible that OJ was suitable for framing.  He knew big Hollywood players, he had ties to the NFL, he had corporate sponsors, he had friends at LAPD.  He had lawyers, connections, and money.   It's not surprising that Nicole said he would get away with killing her.

 

 

 

I agree.  I'm not saying that the LAPD has never framed anyone but I don't think they did in this case.  Simpson not only had the contacts and money but the LAPD had mollycoddled him before.  He had basically been enabled by just about everyone his entire adult life.  He had never had repercussions for anything he had done, why would this be any different? 

[Aethera]

I'm not sure if I'm explaining this well so bear with me, but the thing about police misconduct is that there are often large portions of evidence where the jury has to rely on PD and PD personnel because they have no way of authenticating anything themselves. The jury wasn't with PD when they investigated the crime scene so they have to have a basic level of trust in what they say happened. If the public gets to the point where they just do not believe the sworn testimony of police officers on principle then the DA is in trouble. How, especially in 1994, would you even go about proving that the pictures the jury is looking at are indeed pictures of this crime scene as it was found by PD and this evidence is the evidence collected by PD and given to crime labs and this data is in fact the results of correctly testing that evidence if there is a fundamental break down of trust between the public and PD? I don't think MF framed OJ, but if you believe (as many people did at the time) that a police force in a major city is nightmare combination of Keystone cops and SS guards you don't even have to believe the framed anybody or entered into a conspiracy. You can believe they fucked up, they mishandled evidence, that once OJ emerged as a suspect they skewed the investigation to support that, that they simply can not be trusted. And if you believe that and then there's the glove and MF literally talking about how he has in fact beaten and framed minorities before, well then you can get to the point where you don't know what to believe and you feel like that's not good enough for a guilty verdict.

 

This is all very well stated!  While I don't believe that the cops planted evidence, I do see how people could question everything is they don't have a basic level of trust for the cops and prosecutors. Many arguments against the framing accusation talk about how Fuhrman couldn't have moved the glove because other cops couldn't find it, or because of how things were found, or what they knew when - but that does pre-suppose that a lot of people are telling the truth. Remove that assumption, and it's hard to prove a lot of things. I can see how, with the context of police-community relations at the time, reasonable doubt could have been formed.

[GHScorpiosRule]

As far as A Time to Kill goes, it was a movie based off a fiction book.  I personally thought it was insulting to assume that an all white jury would have no sympathy with a little girl that was raped, beaten and nearly killed unless that little girl was white.  Regardless, my point about Marcia Clark was to say that if she had tried to same tactic, it would have seemed offensive (and would have been.) 

 

 

 

 

And in the book, it was the White Jury Foreperson, who told her fellow jurors to picture the victim as a white girl, NOT the fucking defense attorney. But I suppose it was more dramaaatic to have him plead with the jury and say it.

 

But either, way, this was a real life case, and that was a work of fiction. So I can't even think about what was said in the movie.

[kassa]

But what Ito really should have done was listen to the tapes in camera, in his office in private, and not publicize them to the world, until he had made a decision as to what portions were really relevant to the trial and which were not.

 

 

Was this even an option?  Were they gagged or embargoed in some way?  I thought there was a reference to the screenwriter herself and the fact that they were hers to do with what she wanted.  I thought the SC court proceedings were to force her to give them over to the defense (which she didn't want to do because she thought OJ was guilty and had no intention of helping him in  that way).

 

But once they were copied from her and passed on, she released/sold them herself.  Am I misremembering?  (I don't blame her, by the way -- she only did so once copies were already out there)

[psychoticstate]

This is all very well stated!  While I don't believe that the cops planted evidence, I do see how people could question everything is they don't have a basic level of trust for the cops and prosecutors. Many arguments against the framing accusation talk about how Fuhrman couldn't have moved the glove because other cops couldn't find it, or because of how things were found, or what they knew when - but that does pre-suppose that a lot of people are telling the truth. Remove that assumption, and it's hard to prove a lot of things. I can see how, with the context of police-community relations at the time, reasonable doubt could have been formed.

 

This is an interesting way to look at this because I grew up on the belief and assumption that the police walked that fine and correct line and you were only arrested and convicted if guilty.  Of course we now know differently but I can see where an initial distrust of law enforcement would lead you to question anything they said or did.

 

However, I don't think in this particular case and instance the doubt was reasonable if Marcia Clark had very clearly outlined in her closing argument exactly what would have needed to happen in order for Fuhrman to plant the glove, for him or Vannatter or Lange to plant the blood on and in the Bronco, the driveway, etc.  It's possible but just not in this case and not in the manner and time frame it would have had to have happened.

[iggysaurus]

There was an SNL sketch with Tim Meadows that season, skewering him. 

 

http://www.nbc.com/s...trial-oj/n10583

 

 

Thanks for posting that - I think I saw that when it aired but had forgotten it. Such a funny and apt parody of so many of the ridiculous aspects of the trial.  Also, that reminded me of how much I love Tim Meadows.

[helenamonster]

I don't think we can simply state there's "no bearing" as if its some absolute. We're not talking about some morality or rights situation here, after all, but when the rubber meets the road of people's real behaviors.

 

I think the more accurate statement would be that an actors sexuality DOESN'T HAVE TO affect chemistry. In other words, it's a case by case basis, where the mere fact than an actor is gay doesn't necessarily have erase chemistry, but it would just be P.C. madness to act like it's impossible. I've met plenty of gay people who I doubt would be able to simulate heterosexual attraction, and of course countless more heterosexual people who wouldn't stand a chance of simulating homosexual attraction.  IMO to deny this is taking political correctness a bit too far. It's more about what a good actor is capable of, and about how many people are more on a spectrum than reigned in by absolutes than it is some sweeping statement that applies.

 

Although as you've said, Paulson being bisexual kind of answers this in her specific case. And yes, her being a far better than average actor.

 

Not to get too far off topic, but I respectfully disagree. I think the ability for an actor to generate chemistry is different on a case-by-case basis, the cases being the actor and whatever other actor they're paired with in any given scenario. There are plenty of heterosexual actors who can't generate chemistry with certain actors of the opposite sex, but when they're paired with the right person, magic happens. I don't think the chemistry between Paulson and Brown has anything to do with their respective sexualities. I just think they're two actors who are a) great on their own and b) just have that certain something that makes them spark off of each other fantastically.

 

I'm also someone who, when talking about chemistry, thinks that there's more types of chemistry than just romantic chemistry. There's chemistry between people playing friends, parents/children, enemies...like Paulson and Vance have to generate a very antagonistic vibe due to the positions of their characters and I think they do that extremely well. Perhaps if someone else, even a great actor, had been in either of their places in this show, the vibe wouldn't be as good. I also thought the scene from early on in "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" where Clark stops outside her house to smoke before going in and her son comes out to talk to her was great. I believed Paulson as a mother in that scene, despite the fact that she doesn't have any children in her real life.

 

TL;DR: Mileages vary, but I think an actor's ability to generate chemistry with a screen partner is based on their own skill and if they can generate a rapport with the other actor. Great actors certainly use aspects of their real life to inform their work, but they are also able to turn certain aspects of who they really are off if it doesn't correlate with who their character is supposed to be.

[tvfanatic13]

Good lord I am going to miss this show! Will there be a support group??

[CeeBeeGee]

Good lord I am going to miss this show! Will there be a support group??

 

I'm hoping we can all migrate as a group to the forum for Confirmation, to wallow further in the '90s.

[starri]

I really don't know if my blood pressure can handle that one.

[TimWil]

The constant grinning and mugging of the actress playing Shawn was particularly bad in this episide.

[Finnegan]

Well I've been enjoying this show immensely. I'm actually getting anxious about it being over. I've decided to just watch it over from the beginning after the conclusion.

Does anyone know what Darden has said post-trial about the defence's race-based argument? I find it difficult to believe that he would agree that race didn't factor in to the investigation. Not only was Fuhrman -- someone who actually fantasized about *genocide* -- in the mix, but it's the LAPD in the 90s. If it's the LAPD and a black suspect or victim, it's safe to assume that racism played a role in the investigation. Just in the first few minutes of the investigation, the fact that the victims were white likely directed how much effort and manpower the LAPD were willing to invest.

One of the things I loved about this episode was what Cochrane said: "now it's all here for America to see." Furhman was just caught on tape actually voicing the racist attitudes and habits that poisoned the entire justice system in LA. The implication was that if one cop could terrorize black citizens with little penalty or remorse, the rest could too, which throws the other officers' testimony into question too. It wasn't just about Furhman as a cop, it was about Furhman as a symbol of a completely corrupt justice system.

I think it's possible to believe OJ did it while still harbouring doubt about evidence collected by one of the most anti-black police forces in the country's history.

The guy playing Fred Goldman looks exactly like him! The only weak link for me right now is CGJ, I like his acting but he looks too small to play OJ to me.

[Umbelina]

Darden wrote an entire book.  He blasted the defense, blasted Ito, said justice was not done, and OJ was obviously guilty.  His book is called "In Contempt." https://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/02/bsp/contempt.html

Near the end of the book -- and here it feels like Mr. Darden himself talking, not a co-writer conjuring up whispery ghosts -- Mr. Darden says: ''As a young man, racism seemed to me a single-edged knife, one that whites used to hold blacks down. Now I see that our own racism can be as dangerous and insidious as that which we have battled for centuries. . . . We cannot defeat their racism with our own; we cannot defeat bigotry by cheating justice.''

 

There is more discussion about this in the book thread.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Umbelina

[Finnegan]

Thanks Umbelina. I knew about the book, and Darden's opinion of the crime (which I agree with), I was curious what he thought about how race played into the investigation?

I know I'm in the minority, but... I just don't think the denfese's strategy was overly cynical. I think any LAPD investigation would have been ripe for suspicion at that point in the city's history.

[Umbelina]

That's why I included that quote, it pretty much answers your question.

[LennieBriscoe]

Only a fool would argue that racism is non-existent amongst American police departments.

The problem with the "racist cop(s) planting evidence to frame OJ" theory is that nobody---NOBODY---looked at OJ Simpson and said, "Black man," including Simpson himself.

Moreover, WERE the police so inclined to go after OJ to lock him up just because he is African-American, they'd had more than a few chances earlier with the crimes of assault and battery. "I think you know who he is," said Nicole, once again left to her own devices.

Instead, the LA police played tennis with OJ Simpson!

From February 2, 1995:

"O.J. Simpson's long and usually friendly relationship with the Los Angeles Police Department snapped into sharper focus Wednesday, as a former officer testified that he often played tennis at Simpson's Rockingham Avenue estate and had introduced a parade of 40 awe-struck and autograph-seeking colleagues to the former football great.

Former Officer Ronald G. Shipp, taking the stand during Simpson's murder trial, offered the latest and most specific examples of the closeness that existed between Simpson and police officers at the West Los Angeles Division, charged with patrolling his neighborhood.

Prosecutors have alleged that such a pattern of contacts made Nicole Simpson feel powerless to call on police to protect her from an abusive spouse whose physical attacks, they assert, escalated to murder on June 12. Simpson has pleaded not guilty to charges that he murdered his ex-wife and her friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman.

Since the beginning of the murder case, details have emerged about a number of on- and off-duty contacts between Simpson and LAPD members, raising questions about preferential treatment or inappropriate behavior--which have prompted internal police investigations on several fronts." http://articles.latimes.com/1995-02-02/news/mn-27324_1_nicole-simpson

No, no police or detectives spontaneously decided to pick the murder night, a night of unknowns, the prime one's being OJ's whereabouts, to "frame" Orenthal James Simpson.

Edited April 2, 2016 by LennieBriscoe

[deerstalker]

I think that the problem is that they didn't necessarily have to decide that night to frame OJ, or to frame OJ because he was black.  I think the defense successfully showed that there was some indication that at least some of the evidence was probably planted and fudged by the police department (the missing blood from OJ's vial, the "miraculously appearing bloodstains weeks later on the gate, the sock with blood soaked all the way to other side, as if blood was put on it when no one was wearing it, preservatives in the bllod samples, etc) and more was mishandled.  Once they knew that OJ was the suspect, evidence could basically be "backdated" by the lab and officers to fit within that narrative. 

 

Keep in mind that OJ probably did it, so some of that evidence was actually probably true evidence.  But which ones?  Once the police take it upon themselves to start framing a guilty man, all the evidence should be looked at quite skeptically.  The jury reached the correct verdict.  It sucks, but that is the way the jury system is set up in the United States.  It's just a shame that more people cannot afford the high-powered lawyers that can competently point out the flaws that poorer defendants routinely have to put up with.

[Simon Boccanegra]

The problem with the "racist cop(s) planting evidence to frame OJ" theory is that nobody---NOBODY---looked at OJ Simpson and said, "Black man," including Simpson himself.

 

Yes. The police had always been deferential in their dealings with Simpson, before the murders and after them. To what other murder suspect, black or otherwise, would they give that much leeway in terms of surrendering himself for custody, with this much circumstantial and physical evidence? Read Simpson's conversation with Detective Lange during the Bronco chase, or listen to the audio recording of it.

 

LANGE: You're going to see them again. You want to see them

again. Please, you're scaring us, you're scaring them. Please, man.

SIMPSON: Hey, you've been a good guy, too, man.

LANGE: Thanks.

SIMPSON: Let me tell you. I know you're doing your job. You've

been honest with me right from the beginning.

LANGE: I appreciate that.

SIMPSON: Just saying you're doing your job. I know you're doing

your job.

 

Is that what you say when you didn't commit murders but you're being told by law enforcement that there's a ton of evidence pointing at you? Because if there were a frame in place, by that point wouldn't Simpson know it? Would he still think one of the chief detectives on the case was a good guy? 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[dubbel zout]

I don't think the LAPD framed Simpson, but it was very horribly corrupt and had done so enough in the past that the defense could reasonably bring that into the trial. And there's no argument that some of the evidence had been mishandled, unintentionally or not. I don't understand why the prosecution didn't try to counter all this with the special treatment OJ received, historically and at the time of the murders, from the LAPD.

[Pallas]

I don't understand why the prosecution didn't try to counter all this with the special treatment OJ received, historically and at the time of the murders, from the LAPD.

 

Maybe because the Office of the District Attorney relies, every day, on the cooperation of its police department, on the street and in the courtroom. Maybe because the prosecution didn't like how it went with the cops they'd already called. And maybe because arguing that the defendant received special treatment, acknowledged the defense strategy -- one that the defense could only imply -- that the police framed the defendant.

 

For the prosecutors to address that implication through some embarrassed, resentful cops' testimony, almost makes the charge explicit. That charge itself -- that white cops and Asian techs framed and shamed a successful black man -- invoked by the prosecution, and released into this courtroom, was apt to be explosive. And even so, it was.

[dubbel zout]

Maybe because the prosecution didn't like how it went with the cops they'd already called.

Which is entirely the fault of the prosecution, because it wasn't prepared. Which probably answers my question. Clark and Darden were playing catchup for so much of the trial. 

[Finnegan]

Yes, that all makes sense. I'm wondering now -- and this is the brilliance of the storytelling on this show -- if just the very fact of the LAPD's history as corrupt didn't itself produce reasonable doubt for the jury. The jury went into this knowing that LAPD officers lie and brutalize and fake evidence...why would they start believing them *now*? Isn't that sort of a tall order?

The other side of that is that there is evidence that the LAPD's racism didn't extend to OJ himself, and that a frame up would have been unlikely if not impossible. I get that. But I completely understand where the reasonable doubt was coming from: at that point in the city's history, the LAPD was about as reliable as a jailhouse snitch.

[RemoteControlFreak]

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.

Fuhrman was by no means the prosecution's star witness in the OJ Simpson trial.  In fact, while the prosecution recognized that Fuhrman had to be one of their witnesses, they put him on the stand with great trepidation.

 

He became the de facto star witness for the defense when Cochran was able to make  the entire case about Fuhrman's racism rather than about the abundant evidence against Simpson.

 

But, yes, there was a lot of bungling by the prosecution. They couldn't keep up with Cochran's game and they seriously misread the jury.  To name only two of their mistakes.

Edited April 3, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[Rustybones]

For anyone interested, Esquire is showing the original trial all day today.  Fuhrman is on the stand.

[smiley13]

For anyone interested, Esquire is showing the original trial all day today.  Fuhrman is on the stand.

Very interesting, now there goes my afternoon.  Any hope of getting something productive done is gone.... :)