S01.E10: The Verdict

[Moose135]

Are judges like Ito in LA/CA appointed or elected? I was really surprised to see that Ito had remained on the bench after this trial. In many places I think he would have been recalled or lost his next election.

 

He was elected, and from this old newspaper article he ran unopposed in his election the year following the trial.

[psychoticstate]

I think the renewed discussion of this case that this show has brought about has taught me how truly misunderstood the term "reasonable doubt" is by a lot of people.

 

And that convoluted conspiracy theories are far more appreciated than a simple "boring" story.

 

Well said.

 

Yes but the state can't rely on Occam's Razor.  The burden of proof is upon them, to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that OJ committed those murders that he was accused of.  The state felt they had enough physical and forensic evidence to show that.  But the defense managed to raise some very credible doubts about the veracity and trustworthiness of the physical and forensic evidence.  After that, the state could only show that OJ had motive.  They could not show means, as they never found the knife.  They tried to show opportunity, but gave themselves a very narrow window in which the murders had to have occurred.  The eyewitnesses that they provided to discredit OJ's alibi appeared too flaky to trust (Kato, and Clark did herself no favors by treating him as if he were a stupid child), or contradicted his own testimony (the limo driver).  Motive alone is not enough.  The state has an affirmative responsibility to show that OJ actually committed those crimes.  They could not do so. 

 

Crime labs and police officers have been getting dinged all over the country, time and again, for falsifying evidence, and we are not talking about isolated instances here, but thousands upon thousands of cases, some high-profile, but many others just your run-of-the-mill drug cases.  Once the police have zeroed n on a suspect, it is apparently routine for the police/crime labs/prosecutors to ignore/fudge/sway evidence in the direction of convicting that person.  The sad thing is, I don't think it was a grand conspiracy against OJ in particular, it was just another day at the office for most of them.  The blood preservative they were never able to explain, the control samples with the victim's blood already mixed in, the sock where they "discovered" weeks later had a large bloodstain on it that pooled to the other side, almost as if no one was wearing it when blood was applied, the bloodstains on the fence appearing, with a fresh blood sample on them, weeks later, the bloody glove being walked from one crime scene to the other, etc. all raised some serious doubts about both the police work and the crime lab work.  And then on top of all the points the defense raised about the forensic evidence, you have one of the detectives forced to take the 5th on whether he planted evidence in this case.  It honestly doesn't get much more of a slam dunk case on reasonable doubt than that.

 

OJ did not have to provide alternatives to who did it and why they might have done so.  It is on the state to show that it was OJ that committed the crime. They could not do it, not with most of the evidence they had directly linking him to the crime being so thoroughly discredited.  After that, all you have are inferences and logical leaps.  And that should not be enough to convict someone of murder, not beyond a reasonable doubt.  The state asked the jury to trust them on the evidence, while the defense showed that time and again, the state has behaved in a very untrustworthy manner in regards to the evidence.  The jury was not dumb, they reached an imminently logical conclusion. If the state can't even show a case that is good enough, under normal circumstances, to make past a motion for preliminary dismissal without the discredited forensic evidence, what is there to debate or deliberate over?

 

What I'm saying with regard to Occam's Razor is that the simplest theory is that the murders were a crime of passion.  Nicole was the intended target and I believe that Simpson went there that night to kill her and her alone.  Ron had the extreme misfortune to show up during this and was basically collateral damage.

 

A conspiracy of this type would involve multiple persons.  The more persons involved the more likely that someone is going to talk.  No one has.  In this world of social media and outlets that are willing to shell out big bucks for tell-alls, new evidence/proof, I find it hard to believe that not one person has said a word about corruption or conspiracy in this particular case.  Not even a friend of a friend who was told this in confidence.  People are people - - someone would have blabbed.

 

FWIW, if the LAPD was going to frame a black man, I don't think they would have chosen a public figure like O.J. Simpson.  Never mind that they didn't know his whereabouts or even if he was lying dead of stab wounds like Ron and Nicole, they had been on good terms with him for years.  Simpson hardly represented the black community, as he said himself.  And because he was a celebrity, the media would be all over any case involving him (and were.)  It would have been a losing situation for the LAPD.  If they were routinely framing people as often as some think, they would have been smart enough to know who they could and could not frame.  Simpson would not have been one of them.

 

Except that we have no evidence of that. The members of the jury who were interviewed have stated that in the beginning they leaned in the "Oj is guilty" mindset.  But as the defense advanced the case, especially showing how the evidence was contaminated and mishandled, they did not think that the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  While they felt Cochran was very entertaining, the most persuasive lawyer, by far, was Scheck.   I don't know if the defense's case was some insane conspiracy theory, when in fact, it we have seen time and time again that police and crime labs  have done in thousands of cases, in LA and elsewhere, exactly what the defense has accused them of doing in OJ's case.  The pressure to win this case must have been enormous.  And the pressure to make sure the results match the prosecutor's theory of the case must have also been enormous.  But the defense brought up many valid questions regarding the evidence, and the only answers the prosecutor's side could really give was a "just trust on this.".  But the jury did not give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt in this area. Nor should they.  The benefit of the doubt legally belongs to the defense.

 

I simply cannot believe that the majority of the jury felt this way when juror Carrie Bess was quoted as saying after the verdict that they had to look out for one of their own.  It just doesn't add up.  Plus both jury consultants came to the same conclusion that African American women believed in Simpson's innocence, more so than any other demographic and turned a blind eye to the domestic violence issues.

[Rustybones]

Here's my suggestion for a new ACS.......Corporal Russell Williams, the highest ranking officer in the Canadian Air Force.  He started with breaking into homes and stealing women's underwear, then progressed to rape, and he murdered several women.  He turned out to be a crossdresser and when he was arrested they found many pictures of him in women's underwear, and drawers of women's bras and panties.

 

ETA....Oops, just realized this was in Canada and not an American Crime Story.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Rustybones

[Joimiaroxeu]

Plus both jury consultants came to the same conclusion that African American women believed in Simpson's innocence, more so than any other demographic and turned a blind eye to the domestic violence issues.

I wonder if it was OJ's innocence so much as Nicole having done something to "deserve" being killed. And apparently Ron was just written off as one of those unfortunate "at the wrong place, at the wrong time" moments...

[GHScorpiosRule]

Vanity Fair fact check

 

Vulture fact check

 

EW.com

 

Marcia Clark's reaction

 

 

 

How ironic that Vanity Fair has provided the viewers with a fact check and get Fred Goldman's name wrong! It says "Ron" turns the key in the ignition after the verdict in the garage and all they hear is news about the OJ verdict.

[DangerousMinds]

Absolutely. Unfortunately, at least here in NY, if you're charged with 1st degree murder your only option is a jury trial. No bench trial.

I think the chickens came home to roost for the LAPD. Wasnt it like literally a year or 2 later that the LAPD was under fire for rampant police corruption. Dozens of convictions were overturned due to misconduct, including planting evidence and what not. The whole idea of the LAPD planting evidence wasnt a work of fiction Cochran cooked up. It was something very real. And in my opinion, the jury wouldnt have any way of knowing (beyond a reasonable doubt) that the LAPD hadnt done any funny business in OJ's case. Not with racist Furhman on the stand pleading the 5th to whether or not he planted evidence. Not with another detective taking home evidence and walking around with the defendant's blood. Not with the lead forensics guy sounding so inept with how he collected the samples and controlled the crime scene. All those things combined with the LAPD's history (business as usual as the poster upthread said) and I surely wouldnt have felt comfortable convicting and possibly sending someone to death row if i were on that jury.

Are there links or verified sources for this information?

[Guest]

I swore I wouldn't watch another episode of this show, but I suck and watched the finale. I thought David Schwimmer was terrific as the alternate-universe Robert Kardashian.

 

 

Dropping the Bible is the new dropping the mic. The way that scene was shot between OJ and Bobby with OJ sensing something amiss to look up and catch Bobby's eye and the confusion, fear, and shock on OJ's face when Bobby dropped that Bible on the table and left was just great. They even slowed it up as a 'moment in time' that both men would remember and OJ just looked so forlorn when he realized *Bobby* was done with him. So good.

 

I assume this scene, like much of the other scenes in the finale, was just another composite to wrap up their story together. There's no way Kardashian was torn up by any conflicting emotions that day. Here's OJ and Bob and the Bible at the acquittal celebration. 

 

 

Robert Kardashian was an opportunistic garbage human whose actual garbageness will somehow be whitewashed by Schwimmer's fictionalized portrayal.

ETA: In this interview segment, Kardashian tells Barbara Walters that Robert Shapiro, at one point, wanted OJ to accept a plea deal with Kardashian accepting one as well for being an accomplice (presumably for removing the suitcase from OJ's house and then disposing of its incriminating contents).

Edited April 7, 2016 by Guest

[toodles]

I thought David Schwimmer was great in this episode.

I didn't like Cuba at all. I think he was really miscast. In my opinion he didn't have that scary, dark quality that oj has.

[deerstalker]

FWIW, if the LAPD was going to frame a black man, I don't think they would have chosen a public figure like O.J. Simpson.  Never mind that they didn't know his whereabouts or even if he was lying dead of stab wounds like Ron and Nicole, they had been on good terms with him for years.  Simpson hardly represented the black community, as he said himself.  And because he was a celebrity, the media would be all over any case involving him (and were.)  It would have been a losing situation for the LAPD.  If they were routinely framing people as often as some think, they would have been smart enough to know who they could and could not frame.  Simpson would not have been one of them.

 

It's not a matter of "if."  The LAPD is on the record for routinely framing black and Hispanic suspects, planting evidence, and perjuring themselves on the stand in cases involving minority suspects.  Cochran did not run with some crazy, wild-eyed theory, this is what the LAPD was well-known for.  They seem to have zeroed in on OJ as a suspect very early on in the case, the detectives rushing from the blood-soaked scene of the crime to OJ's estate, jumping over walls to gain entry (and potentially cross-contaminating both scenes in the process).  I think if the LAPD was routinely framing people for decades, and not being challenged on it, they had no reason to think that the OJ case would be any different than any of the others they had framed.  Indeed, his case made a huge overhaul of both the crime lab and police crime scene procedures necessary, as the case exposed huge deficiencies in both. There is absolutely no way a detective should be walking around with a vial of the suspect's blood at both crime scenes.  And given the fact that once again, you have a detective who has to plead the 5th when asked if he planted evidence in this case, you have more than enough reasonable doubt in my opinion.  I think you have to be bending over backwards to give every benefit of the doubt to the prosecution to see it any other way.  And that's not how it is supposed to work.

 

I was reading an article with one of the jurors from the case. She said the deliberations were very brief, because the original vote was 10-2 to acquit, but what the show fudged, the two "guilty" voters refused to identify themselves, and they refused to discuss why they voted guilty. She said that everyone agreed that the state's forensic evidence was unreliable, especially in light of Fuhrman pleading the 5th. They did look at the limo driver's testimony that the prosecution was using to discredit OJ's alibi.  He testified that that when he arrived, the Bronco wasn't there, but when he checked later, the Bronco had appeared.  But the defense did a simple, no drama discrediting of his testimony and reliability. He had testified that there were two other vehicles (besides the missing Bronco) also in the driveway that night.  But there should have only been one (OJ's daughter Arlene was out, but returned later on.) The prosecution had been coaching him using pictures taken that night, after the daughter had returned.  Once again, an unforced error on the prosecution's part.  After that, the jury felt confident there was more than enough space to find reasonable doubt.

[dubbel zout]

I'm sure it's been there the whole series, but this is the first episode where I noticed the "Producer" card in the titles for Travolta.

 

It's been there the whole time, yes. I laughed the first time I saw it, because I'm sure it was something that was thrown in to satisfy Travolta's ego. (Though I have no doubt he also scored some extra dough for the title.) I wonder how much creative input he actually had.

[ganesh]

I don't get or buy that the jury rendered the verdict so fast because they didn't want to be sequestered for so long. If, as the show portrayed, a whole bunch were like "I don't think he did it and I'm not budging," then, "oh well, I guess I'll change my vote then because I don't want to stay here either," is ridiculous. "I'm not changing my vote either. Looks like we're stuck. Not our problem anymore."

[GHScorpiosRule]

This site is giving me fits! Keeps freezing on me or just hangs...

 

Anyhoo, I'll just say this here without quoting: I find it ironic that Vanity Fair, which has been one of the sources to fact check this show, ended up making a HUGE mistake in the article for the finale.  It referred to Fred Goldman, in the parking garage scene as Ron.  And it still hasn't been corrected.

 

And I can't remember if it was here or in the general case thread, but yeah, Robert Kardashian was celebrating with OJ the night of the verdict. So, I'm side-eyeing his whole despair over the verdict.  Yes, he was shocked at the verdict, but if he saw this as the end of his friendship with OJ, then maybe he shouldn't have been partying with him that night?

[Finnegan]

TxHorns, I think the poster was saying that Cochran didn't create the racial tensions that came up during the case...he just shone a spotlight on the underlying conditions that led to black citizens' sense of alienation. He didn't "stir up" anything...Mark Furhman did say that stuff, he did have a history of investigations (so did at least one other officer on the case IIRC). Cochran pointed out what was already there.

[Trillian]

I suspect the court knew the verdict long before it was read. Before calling everyone back into court the court does usually make sure that the verdict is correctly recorded and there are no misunderstandings. Because that would be super awkward.

 

There was a case a few years back that made the news here in Canada where the foreperson coughed between "we find the accused" and "guilty".   Everyone heard it as "not guilty".  As I recall, the accused was actually released before the powers that be caught the error.  So, yeah, super awkward

[BeatrixK]

OK -- ACS totally stuck the landing.  I'm in for ACS Hurricane Katrina.

 

Random thoughts -

 

- Please don't bother writing an Emmy acceptance speech for lead actor in a Mini Series if your name isn't Courtney B. Vance. 

- Same goes for Lead Actress in a Mini Series if your name isn't Sarah Paulson

- Loved Free OJ realizing that not guilty in the eyes of the law didn't mean jack squat in the court of public opinion...and Public Opinion's verdict was likely harsher and more punitive than anything LA could have handed down.  That final shot of Giant Pre-glory days OJ statue overshadowing tiny, 'free' OJ was perfect juxtaposition.

 

OK...bring it on - let me see the battles between Nagin and Blanco over Katrina.  I'm all in next season!

[psychoticstate]

My sister nearly died a few years ago as the result of medical malpractice.  Long story short she was in a coma for three days after suffering a stroke caused by the doctor injecting her with the wrong substance that went to her brain and caused the seizure/stroke.  Medical records were sent to Harvard for review and they agreed that it was pretty much going to be a slam dunk and she'd win.

 

They opted for a jury trial.  After a three-day trial and a day of deliberation, the doctor was exonerated and she got nothing.

 

I am so sorry for what your sister went through.  Thank God she survived. 

 

You never know with a jury.  My brother was in a motorcycle accident; a lady in a BMW pulled out in front of him at a flat, clear intersection and struck him.  There were witnesses, he required surgery, he was unable to work for roughly 8 months.  He had medical records, doctors' testimony, witness statements and his own testimony.  The idiot who hit him actually LAUGHED on the stand when recounting that she hit him.  And the jury awarded my brother nothing - - no compensation for his bike, that was totaled, no reimbursement of medical bills (he had to pay for his own ambulance) and no compensation for lost pay or the future medical expenses that doctors told him to expect (they said the break he suffered in his ankle/foot was so severe that it would bring on arthritis.)  

 

I've believed for years that we should follow the professional jury system that Switzerland uses.  As I recall, a computer assigns the jury (potential jurors are assigned numbers.)  It's random as far as the makeup of the jury.  Jurors are trained there to know the ins and outs of the law and this is their job, so no losing time from work or getting tiny reimbursement checks for your jury duty.  Since the jurors are trained in the law, less likely a chance of not understanding (and then possibly discounting) evidence and/or making an emotional decision versus an educated one. 

[Neurochick]

The current GOP frontrunner took out a full page ad in 1989 calling for the rounding up and execution of the Central Park 5, who turned out not to be guilty at all.

 

 

Yes, I remember that, can't remember if it was in the Times or the News (probably the Post).

[Hanahope]

I'm a Manson case scholar, and Charles Manson was allowed to make a statement in court outside the presence of the jury, just as OJ did. His was a rambling statement that went on and on, unlike OJ's. So Ito's ruling was not unique. And I don't recall Judge Older (who presided over Manson's case) ever described as a famewhore who had lost control of his courtroom.

 

Well, Manson also took the stand, testified and was cross-examined.  So the jury got to hear him answer questions and decide  on his credibility, unlike OJ, who just got to make a statement, unopposed, .

 

Aslo, Clark is right that the jury would hear about the statements from the tv cameras.  That's totally Ito's fault, both for allowing the cameras into the courtroom 9which didn't happen in Manson) and for allowing OJ to make his statement.  I wish they had shown the arguments over allowing the cameras into the courtoom. that had to have bene the worst decision by Ito, as it affected all his later decisions.

 

sorry for bad typing, this site keeps freezing on me and hanging up due to the video ads.

[GHScorpiosRule]

Well, Manson also took the stand, testified and was cross-examined. So the jury got to hear him answer questions and decide on his credibility, unlike OJ, who just got to make a statement, unopposed, .

Aslo, Clark is right that the jury would hear about the statements from the tv cameras. That's totally Ito's fault, both for allowing the cameras into the courtroom 9which didn't happen in Manson) and for allowing OJ to make his statement. I wish they had shown the arguments over allowing the cameras into the courtoom. that had to have bene the worst decision by Ito, as it affected all his later decisions.

sorry for bad typing, this site keeps freezing on me and hanging up due to the video ads.

Same thing kept happening to me and I reported it to David in the bugs thread.

The site is much faster and not freezing from my iPhone, which is where I'm typing from.

Another thing I wish the show had done was the questioning of Ron Shipp- an LAPD officer who was friends with OJ and purported to be Nicole's friend, yet did nothing about the abuse. While being questioned by Douglas, he turned to OJ and asked him how could he do it? Or something like that. Or even Marcia questioning Kato.

[psychoticstate]

I wonder if it was OJ's innocence so much as Nicole having done something to "deserve" being killed. And apparently Ron was just written off as one of those unfortunate "at the wrong place, at the wrong time" moments...

 

Interesting point.  I do recall in Toobin's book that he stated the black women viewed Nicole as a gold digger and a bitch and maybe got what was coming to her. Some comments were along the lines of maybe Simpson learned his lesson and will find a black woman now (I think insinuating that the white Nicole was nothing but problems for him).  

 

The jury was also polled on a scale of 1 to 10 for who they found sympathetic.  Simpson averaged out to around an 8 or 9, I think.  Nicole averaged lower; someone even ranked her a 4.  A murder victim who nearly had her head cut off and she was deemed less sympathetic than the man who was accused of doing that to her?   Very sad.

 

Perhaps even sadder was that Ron was never mentioned.  Either the test jury had no feelings about him one way or the other or he did not even warrant consideration in their minds.  You would think the sympathy factor would be even greater in his case.  He played no role in the Brown-Simpson relationship/marriage/divorce and had no acquaintance with Simpson before June 12.  

[psychoticstate]

Same thing kept happening to me and I reported it to David in the bugs thread.

The site is much faster and not freezing from my iPhone, which is where I'm typing from.

Another thing I wish the show had done was the questioning of Ron Shipp- an LAPD officer who was friends with OJ and purported to be Nicole's friend, yet did nothing about the abuse. While being questioned by Douglas, he turned to OJ and asked him how could he do it? Or something like that. Or even Marcia questioning Kato.

 

 

I remember reading or hearing that Nicole had asked Ron Shipp to come over and talk to Simpson after he had beaten her, thinking that maybe Shipp could talk sense into Simpson.  In the interviews I've seen with Shipp post-trials, he always seems sad about everything.  He's got to have some terrible guilt about Nicole and the abuse.

 

Same with A.C. Cowlings.  I believe that he did love Nicole as a friend, based on his civil trial depo.  The tears and the breakdown were real.  

 

No telling how many friends or acquaintances didn't pick up on signs and/or looked the other way because it was O.J. 

[foursugars]

I can't believe no one on the jury didn't think that taking 4 hours to deliberate wasn't a good idea. 

 

This is addressed by one of the jurors in this Vulture interview. She more or less says that without TVs in their rooms, they'd each had eight months of solitary evenings spent rehashing what had been said in the trial over and over again, and there was no real need for debate when they were finally allowed to discuss it between themselves... I disagree with many of the things she says, but the interview is a pretty interesting read!

 

I thought Chris and Marcia's closing statements were actually more impressive than Johnnie's.

 

Lastly... Okay, this feels like a pretty shallow topic, especially now that I've actually watched this very powerful finale... But to all the Marcia/Chris shippers out there, I compiled a few of the things they've said in interviews on Tumblr. (Spoiler alert: my conclusion is, yes, it did happen.)

 

I'll miss this show. Count me in for next year!

[Catherinewriter]

Good show, show. So much agony with so little payoff. I would never have believed they could bring it off so well. Writing, acting, direction. So Lane actually said, "Get in the car, Bob, or I'll tell them you're Jewish." Good one, Nathan. 

 

I'm pretty sure of this, but put it out there for legal eagles: Neither the Goldmans nor the Browns can speak against OJ in his upcoming parole hearing, right? Because this case isn't their case. Actually, I don't know enough about the memorabilia case to know who might have standing at his parole hearing.

 

How do the commenters who have talked about it know about the Katrina series supposedly coming up next season?

[GinnyMars]

I don't think this has been brought up yet about the episode or the real-life events of the trial, but... is that Johnnie Cochran attempting a subtle version of a "Black Power" salute as he finishes his closing argument? It's at 16'01.

 

https://40.media.tumblr.com/9ea87910effd71d1819a55429e7ff938/tumblr_o5a2ew8wgZ1vqj56xo2_1280.png

https://40.media.tumblr.com/540516362f35fb59de9c14c361852b4c/tumblr_o5a2ew8wgZ1vqj56xo1_1280.png

(sorry, I have no idea how to create a GIF)

[FozzyBear]

Thank you for posting this...I hope some people will realize that Black people are not paranoid and stupid when it comes to the police...We have had legitimate grievances against them over the years..

I think The Central Park 5 is an excellent example of the way institutional racism affects police departments and how that breaks down relations between PD and POC. The frightening thing about that case isn't I don't think there was a conspiracy in the way Marica Clark talked about with OJ. I don't think anybody ever got together in a room and all agreed they were going to frame these 5 boys for a crime they knew they didn't commit. I think public pressure, racist assumptions about crime and criminals, and ignorant policies and procedures conspired. Nobody wanted (well probably no one) wanted to send 5 innocent teenagers to prison, but they did it anyway. I think that's the framework many jurors were working with. They likely didn't buy into the giant conspiracy that the defense was trying to disprove, but that the LAPD given the chance to take down a black man (even a rich one that some officers may have liked)made assumptions and got tunnel vision and steared the evidence in a way that proved yet another black man went off the rails and killed a nice white lady...because that sort of confirmed their world view. Then you have questions about evidence and Furhman and I can see it. The jury couldn't know about what would come out in the civil trial or that OJ would write that horrible book. And it isn't their job to go all Murder She Wrote and figure out if not OJ then who. I could see the not guilty verdict. I really can. I don't think it was how I would have voted, but I don't think it's completely impossible to understand.

[psychoticstate]

Good show, show. So much agony with so little payoff. I would never have believed they could bring it off so well. Writing, acting, direction. So Lane actually said, "Get in the car, Bob, or I'll tell them you're Jewish." Good one, Nathan. 

 

I'm pretty sure of this, but put it out there for legal eagles: Neither the Goldmans nor the Browns can speak against OJ in his upcoming parole hearing, right? Because this case isn't their case. Actually, I don't know enough about the memorabilia case to know who might have standing at his parole hearing.

 

How do the commenters who have talked about it know about the Katrina series supposedly coming up next season?

 

I would think the Goldmans and Browns may not, as they were not officially parties in the Nevada case.  In a roundabout way they were, as the sports memorabilia should have been theirs (or the proceeds of same) but legally, no.  

 

The criminal case will have nothing to do with the Nevada case.  Legally Simpson is not guilty of the murders so that cannot be used before the parole board.  They will have to consider whether he has "rehabilitated" and taken responsibility for what he did.  Unless he's had some major disciplinary infractions while in prison and/or one of the persons he was convicted of kidnapping and committing armed robbery on speaks out against Simpson getting parole, I expect that he will be paroled next year.

[DangerousMinds]

Yes I saw that. As much as I like Sarah Paulson I think her portrayal was really inaccurate. Marcia Clark imho was and is much more of a bit** than Sarah portrayed her. (maybe fighter would be a better word)  My evidence is that clip where she clearly felt she had lost and almost ate the head of that reporter.  I also think Sterling K. Brown is better than Chris Darden and added a quality that Darden didn't have. (smarter / more compassionate)

 

 

 

Was Marcia "bitchier" than Scheck or Bailey?

[Finnegan]

Thank you for posting this...I hope some people will realize that Black people are not paranoid and stupid when it comes to the police...We have had legitimate grievances against them over the years..

 

Which is why Shapiro's theory that Fuhrman was a "lone wolf" LAPD racist would have been a bad move. The most incriminating thing about the Fuhrman tapes and documents wasn't that he was a confirmed racist, it was that the rest of the force knew and let him (forced him, in fact) to keep working, in the same communities. Something that is in the Toobin book but didn't make it into the show was a complaint against Furhman after he put a black jaywalker into a chokehold and threatened to kill him. He was docked one day's pay for that. When he wrote KKK on a Martin Luther King Day entry on a calendar, he was reprimanded -- that's it. And his deeper thoughts and feelings about minorities, his whole ideology, was well documented in his disability appeal to the LAPD. That's not one racist, it's institutionalized racism that goes way beyond Furhman. Can you blame the jury for distrusting evidence that came out of that PD? I can't. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Finnegan

[lovinbob]

sorry for bad typing, this site keeps freezing on me and hanging up due to the video ads.

 

 

Same thing kept happening to me and I reported it to David in the bugs thread.

The site is much faster and not freezing from my iPhone, which is where I'm typing from.

I normally use Chrome, which lately doesn't seem to agree with previously.tv. Safari and Firefox work better for me.

[Asp Burger]

I don't know if Robert Kardashian was as sympathetic as he was portrayed by David Schwimmer, but Marcia Clark said she always liked him during and after the trial and was on good terms with him. She said in her latest interview that she talked to him not long before he died. Kardashian obviously did distance himself from Simpson after the verdict, and I think his doubts and his struggle with the evidence pointing at his longtime friend were truthfully portrayed.   

 

It just makes me wonder. Why? He was in that courtroom every day. He was even getting pro-defense positions drilled into his head in the hours court wasn't in session, being part of the defense team. He heard all the contamination/planting/mishandling arguments. He knew all about Mark Fuhrman. He was there for all of Johnnie Cochran's theater. He had to be looking for any life preserver to grab onto and make it not so that he was friends with a vicious, lying double murderer. Why did this person who had a very strong stake in OJ Simpson being innocent (because he knew him as a man, not as a celebrity icon or a racial symbol) look at all the same evidence and go in such a different direction from the jury? Was it "white privilege"? Or was it reason winning out over emotion? 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Asp Burger

[SinInTheCamp]

Well, Manson also took the stand, testified and was cross-examined.  So the jury got to hear him answer questions and decide  on his credibility, unlike OJ, who just got to make a statement, unopposed, .

 

Aslo, Clark is right that the jury would hear about the statements from the tv cameras.  That's totally Ito's fault, both for allowing the cameras into the courtroom 9which didn't happen in Manson) and for allowing OJ to make his statement.  I wish they had shown the arguments over allowing the cameras into the courtoom. that had to have bene the worst decision by Ito, as it affected all his later decisions.

 

sorry for bad typing, this site keeps freezing on me and hanging up due to the video ads.

I'm not sure where you got your information, but that's absolutely wrong about Manson. He gave a statement (NOT testimony) outside the presence of the jury, and the "cross-examination" consisted of Bugliosi asking him four philosophical questions pertaining to Charlie's ramblings about death and one question about whether he'd be willing to testify in front of the jury. Manson replied, "No, I've already relieved all the pressure that I had." So yes, he made an unopposed statement and no, the jury did not get to hear him answer questions.

There's a reason I said I was a Manson scholar...I really wasn't making an idle boast.

Information also got to the sequestered jury on the Manson case as well. One of the defense attorneys brought in a newspaper and Manson grabbed it off the table and flashed the headline, which read, "Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares" to the jury. So although there were no cameras in that courtroom, media was leaked to the jury anyway (albeit by the defendent), and likely through conjugal visits as well.

Of course, with the advent of Court TV, cameras became a nearly ubiquitous presence in courtrooms anyway.

[Simon Boccanegra]

He gave a statement (NOT testimony) outside the presence of the jury, and the "cross-examination" consisted of Bugliosi asking him four philosophical questions pertaining to Charlie's ramblings about death and one question about whether he'd be willing to testify in front of the jury.

 

Thanks for that, SinInTheCamp; that matches my own recollection. I haven't read Helter Skelter in years, but I recall Bugliosi writing that he was asked (possibly by the judge?) why he had not "seriously" cross-examined Manson, and he was surprised; he had thought the answer was obvious. He had notebooks full of questions he wanted to ask Manson, but he had no intention of giving him a "dry run" outside the presence of the jury. So, when I saw the earlier post that he was cross-examined, I thought...not in any meaningful sense. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[deerstalker]

 

It just makes me wonder. Why? He was in that courtroom every day. He was even getting pro-defense positions drilled into his head in the hours court wasn't in session, being part of the defense team. He heard all the contamination/planting/mishandling arguments. He knew all about Mark Fuhrman. He was there for all of Johnnie Cochran's theater. He had to be looking for any life preserver to grab onto and make it not so that he was friends with a vicious, lying double murderer. Why did this person who had a very strong stake in OJ Simpson being innocent (because he knew him as a man, not as a celebrity icon or a racial symbol) look at all the same evidence and go in such a different direction from the jury? Was it "white privilege"? Or was it reason winning out over emotion?

 

Kardashian had no problem with OJ throughout the trial, and given the pictures posted on this thread and elsewhere, he seemed rather cozy with OJ during the immediate aftermath as well.  But to continue to allow OJ into his social circle would have meant sharing in his social pariah status among their cohorts.  He, like Shapiro, wanted nothing to do with that.

[FozzyBear]

I'm not sure where you got your information, but that's absolutely wrong about Manson. He gave a statement (NOT testimony) outside the presence of the jury, and the "cross-examination" consisted of Bugliosi asking him four philosophical questions pertaining to Charlie's ramblings about death and one question about whether he'd be willing to testify in front of the jury. Manson replied, "No, I've already relieved all the pressure that I had." So yes, he made an unopposed statement and no, the jury did not get to hear him answer questions.

There's a reason I said I was a Manson scholar...I really wasn't making an idle boast.

Information also got to the sequestered jury on the Manson case as well. One of the defense attorneys brought in a newspaper and Manson grabbed it off the table and flashed the headline, which read, "Manson Guilty, Nixon Declares" to the jury. So although there were no cameras in that courtroom, media was leaked to the jury anyway (albeit by the defendent), and likely through conjugal visits as well.

Of course, with the advent of Court TV, cameras became a nearly ubiquitous presence in courtrooms anyway.

The Manson case also brings up an interesting point about assuming Nicole was the target due to the personal nature of the attack. That was the assumption on that case too and it proved not to be true. It was all just random (especially the LaBianca's). For the longest time PD wasn't putting the two cases together because there was no connection between the victims and they assumed no one would perform such violent murders on strangers so all the victims must have known the person who killed them. You just never know I guess.

[dubbel zout]

My thoughts have always gone out to Sidney and Justin they lost a mother and a father and have to live embarrassing lives.

What is embarrassing about their lives? By all accounts, both have been able to have quiet lives out of the spotlight. No one has posed for Playboy, written a tell-all book, or been on a reality show.

[ByTor]

What is embarrassing about their lives? By all accounts, both have been able to have quiet lives out of the spotlight. No one has posed for Playboy, written a tell-all book, or been on a reality show.

I imagine it's embarrassing (to say the least) when your father is on trial for murdering your mother.

[CeeBeeGee]

Embarrassing isn't really how I'd describe it--more like heartbreaking. It's absolutely appalling that he tried to gain sympathy during his speech to the court by referring to Sydney and Justin. Jesus, dude, you murdered their mother. You slaughtered her, and left the body there for them to find. And before that you beat the crap out of her regularly. You're a terrible father. You aren't fit to look Sydney and Justin in the face, or say their names.

[helenamonster]

I saw an article years after the trial on the anniversary of the Moon landing. A member of the Flat Earth Society claimed that O.J. Simpson was framed for murder by the government because he starred in Capricorn One. The movie was about a Mars landing staged by the government, supposedly just like what "really" happened in 1969.

 

I am skeptical about any conspiracy that is extraordinarily complicated, involves too many people and has no clear financial incentive. People are good at inventing alternate theories. OJ was demanding and occasionally violent. He had motive and opportunity. He had his stuff all over the place and it fell right into a time line. If it quacks like a duck...

 

I find this post interesting as there seems to be moderate agreement within the psychology community that people who believe in one conspiracy theory tend to be more accepting of other conspiracy theories. While the LAPD/OJ conspiracy isn't as far-fetched as many others (Bush did 9/11, Holocaust deniers, Sandy Hook truthers) as it does have a basis in past behavior within the LAPD and the police system in the US at large, it's still hard for me to reconcile due to the number of people and outright prescience that they would be necessary to pull it off. Not to mention the fact that, as has been stated many times, picking a famous, well-liked black man to frame, especially one that had a very friendly relationship with the police, while at the same time letting a deranged murderer go free, would be...well, I don't think there's a word in the English language to describe how stupid all of those people would have been to attempt it.

 

I'm sure it's been there the whole series, but this is the first episode where I noticed the "Producer" card in the titles for Travolta. Blech. While he's done a decent job with the role, I shudder at the thought that he's getting more even money to pass off to David Miscavige.

 

How 'bout this. We know Season 2 is "Hurricane Katrina". Can Season 3 be "The Crimes of the Church of Scientology"?  Lets see if Travolta (who's pushing to be in Season 2) wants back for Season 3 if that's the case.

 

American Crime Story: What the f*** happened to Shelly Miscavige, you turds?

 

I've believed for years that we should follow the professional jury system that Switzerland uses.  As I recall, a computer assigns the jury (potential jurors are assigned numbers.)  It's random as far as the makeup of the jury.  Jurors are trained there to know the ins and outs of the law and this is their job, so no losing time from work or getting tiny reimbursement checks for your jury duty.  Since the jurors are trained in the law, less likely a chance of not understanding (and then possibly discounting) evidence and/or making an emotional decision versus an educated one. 

 

This is very interesting and I had no idea that's how Switzerland's jury system worked. What a cool job. You could learn all about the law and be involved in the justice system without the stress of being a lawyer (though I'm sure being a professional juror would be stressful, especially in more serious cases like rape and murder).

 

It just makes me wonder. Why? He was in that courtroom every day. He was even getting pro-defense positions drilled into his head in the hours court wasn't in session, being part of the defense team. He heard all the contamination/planting/mishandling arguments. He knew all about Mark Fuhrman. He was there for all of Johnnie Cochran's theater. He had to be looking for any life preserver to grab onto and make it not so that he was friends with a vicious, lying double murderer. Why did this person who had a very strong stake in OJ Simpson being innocent (because he knew him as a man, not as a celebrity icon or a racial symbol) look at all the same evidence and go in such a different direction from the jury? Was it "white privilege"? Or was it reason winning out over emotion? 

 

It is hard to answer this question based on this show, since it's a fictionalized reenactment, but based on what was shown...I thought the key to Kardashian's change of heart was in the episode where the DNA evidence was presented. There's a quick scene where Kardashian goes to Scheck, asking him if it's really possible for the DNA to be OJ's. Scheck's answer was worded in such a way that he was assuring Kardashian that he could discredit Fung and confuse the jury about the validity of the evidence, but he did nothing to assuage Kardashian's fear that the DNA was OJ's and could only be OJ's and no one else's. When the non-Kardashian members of the Dream Team were faced with evidence that pointed to OJ's guilt, they saw it as an obstacle to overcome. They didn't care whether OJ was guilty or not; I wouldn't be surprised if they all thought he did it. But Kardashian did care, due to his prior personal relationship with OJ. So when he saw the same evidence, it pointed to the guilt of someone he considered a close friend.

[Umbelina]

I've been thinking about Sydney and Justin a lot through this too.  Someone posted that video of OJ's "best" friend then in Florida, talking about how Sydney was a mess, and took it all very hard.  What a violation to disclose stuff like that.  One of the Browns gave a statement that both are doing well, that they have never talked about the murders with them, that both have graduated and are professionals now.

 

All through this latest though, I have to admit I did wonder, "Are they watching this?"  I still do wonder.  I did see those paparazzi photos of them taken at a funeral, and wondered what all this renewed attention might mean for them, other than being stalked for the photos.  They've managed to live their lives away from media spotlights, and I'm pretty glad about that, they've had enough horror in their lives.

[CeeBeeGee]

I really hope the paps et al. have the decency to leave them the hell alone.

[psychoticstate]

I've been thinking about Sydney and Justin a lot through this too.  Someone posted that video of OJ's "best" friend then in Florida, talking about how Sydney was a mess, and took it all very hard.  What a violation to disclose stuff like that.  One of the Browns gave a statement that both are doing well, that they have never talked about the murders with them, that both have graduated and are professionals now.

 

All through this latest though, I have to admit I did wonder, "Are they watching this?"  I still do wonder.  I did see those paparazzi photos of them taken at a funeral, and wondered what all this renewed attention might mean for them, other than being stalked for the photos.  They've managed to live their lives away from media spotlights, and I'm pretty glad about that, they've had enough horror in their lives.

 

 

I really hope the paps et al. have the decency to leave them the hell alone.

 

I have to admit that I have wondered what Sydney and Justin think of their father and his guilt or innocence.  I cannot imagine the horror of knowing your father killed your mother.

 

I listened to Simpson's former sports agent's audiobook.  I thought it would be a cheesefest but it was actually fairly interesting. He believed in Simpson's innocence until Simpson moved to Florida.  He went to see him and saw Sydney, then around 15 or 16, I think.  The agent mentioned that he always liked the kids and got along well with them.  He noticed that Sydney seemed depressed and unhappy.  When he spoke to her about it, she said that her father was more interested in partying/drugs and women than he was in her.  Justin was okay because Justin was into sports, like his dad.  But she was left out and very much alone. She told him she couldn't wait until she graduated from high school so that she could leave.  That just breaks my heart.  Especially when you consider that the Browns wanted to keep the children and Simpson not only took them away from Lou and Juditha but took them out of California and all the way across the country.

 

A bit OT from Sydney and Justin but the agent said that he and Nicole never got along during her lifetime but he came to understand her better after she was killed and had a great deal of sympathy for what she must have gone through with Simpson.  He did say that Nicole was a wonderful, devoted mother who was in attendance at every single event for the children (something that he said Simpson was not interested in and that Sydney mentioned - - her dad never came to her school games or events, which led this agent to realize that Nicole would have been there for every single one.)

 

I think the media has done the right thing by leaving Sydney and Justin to their private lives.  Lou Brown died around 2 years ago, I think, and he was buried next to Nicole in Lake Forest.  Sydney and Justin flew in from Florida to attend his funeral.  The media did show up and took a few photographs of them at the cemetery.  Hard to believe that Sydney was 28, I think at the time.  Both "kids" were nice looking and the accompanying article stated that they had both graduated from college, were both working in the restaurant industry in Florida and were decent young adults.  I'm sure Nicole would be proud of them.

 

It also reminds me of a portion of Kim Goldman's book in which she said that she received a letter from Sydney and Justin (I don't recall when, other than that fact that both kids were adults) expressing sympathy for the loss of Ron.  That tells me a lot about the decency and kindness of Sydney and Justin.

Edited April 7, 2016 by psychoticstate

[ketose]

This is addressed by one of the jurors in this Vulture interview. She more or less says that without TVs in their rooms, they'd each had eight months of solitary evenings spent rehashing what had been said in the trial over and over again, and there was no real need for debate when they were finally allowed to discuss it between themselves... I disagree with many of the things she says, but the interview is a pretty interesting read!

 

I thought Chris and Marcia's closing statements were actually more impressive than Johnnie's.

 

Lastly... Okay, this feels like a pretty shallow topic, especially now that I've actually watched this very powerful finale... But to all the Marcia/Chris shippers out there, I compiled a few of the things they've said in interviews on Tumblr. (Spoiler alert: my conclusion is, yes, it did happen.)

 

I'll miss this show. Count me in for next year!

I'm just wondering if there was a love scene that was shot, but cut out for time or story reasons. That would be one hot DVD extra.

 

The funny ha ha of this episode was, OJ saying while shaving "I'm so nervous, I hope, I don't cut myself" That was fucking funny shit.

The song playing during OJ's um, welcome home party was "Everybody Everybody by Black Box" with the repeated lyrics playing "Set Me Freeeee." More funny shit.\

I posted about this upthread. When I looked it up, the lyrics are actually "sad and free." I thought that was a perfect way to describe Oj after the trial.

[Kromm]

Yes I saw that. As much as I like Sarah Paulson I think her portrayal was really inaccurate. Marcia Clark imho was and is much more of a bit** than Sarah portrayed her. (maybe fighter would be a better word)  My evidence is that clip where she clearly felt she had lost and almost ate the head of that reporter.  

I think we saw a few moments from Paulson's Marcia where she got angry or went off on people. And this is why I think that scene would have really served the show well. Because she didn't simply go off on those guys for no reason. She didn't consider herself a celebrity and I think the clear subtext is that she resented being stalked and followed to the house where her child also lived.  That anger was half about her knowing an instant verdict probably meant she'd lost the case, but also the way her whole life had been affected by the case.

 

It's hard to remember back to a time before the intrusive press we have today, and to some extent they've done it since the Hearst paper days (or arguably even the English Victorian papers), but the OJ trial is what launched the outrageous over the top modern version of it. So Clark was definitely unprepared for it.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Kromm

[preeya]

Here's my suggestion for a new ACS.......Corporal Russell Williams, the highest ranking officer in the Canadian Air Force.  He started with breaking into homes and stealing women's underwear, then progressed to rape, and he murdered several women.  He turned out to be a crossdresser and when he was arrested they found many pictures of him in women's underwear, and drawers of women's bras and panties.

 

ETA....Oops, just realized this was in Canada and not an American Crime Story.

Sounds like a good story for Criminal Minds.

[Callaphera]

Sounds like a good story for Criminal Minds.

 

Eh. Criminal Minds did a Robert "Willie" Pickton inspired episode (a two parter, I believe) and it was nowhere near as fascinating or crazy as the real story. I don't know if they could do it justice. Honestly, if ACS wanted to expand into North American Crime Story, I think the Pickton case would make a really interesting ten part series. 

 

To bring it back on topic: I still can't separate Cuba Gooding Jr.'s OJ from Rod Tidwell. "Show me the not guilty, jury!" doesn't have the same ring to it, though. 

[kathe5133]

I have to admit that I have wondered what Sydney and Justin think of their father and his guilt or innocence.  I cannot imagine the horror of knowing your father killed your mother.

 

I listened to Simpson's former sports agent's audiobook.  I thought it would be a cheesefest but it was actually fairly interesting. He believed in Simpson's innocence until Simpson moved to Florida.  He went to see him and saw Sydney, then around 15 or 16, I think.  The agent mentioned that he always liked the kids and got along well with them.  He noticed that Sydney seemed depressed and unhappy.  When he spoke to her about it, she said that her father was more interested in partying/drugs and women than he was in her.  Justin was okay because Justin was into sports, like his dad.  But she was left out and very much alone. She told him she couldn't wait until she graduated from high school so that she could leave.  That just breaks my heart.  Especially when you consider that the Browns wanted to keep the children and Simpson not only took them away from Lou and Juditha but took them out of California and all the way across the country.

 

A bit OT from Sydney and Justin but the agent said that he and Nicole never got along during her lifetime but he came to understand her better after she was killed and had a great deal of sympathy for what she must have gone through with Simpson.  He did say that Nicole was a wonderful, devoted mother who was in attendance at every single event for the children (something that he said Simpson was not interested in and that Sydney mentioned - - her dad never came to her school games or events, which led this agent to realize that Nicole would have been there for every single one.)

 

I think the media has done the right thing by leaving Sydney and Justin to their private lives.  Lou Brown died around 2 years ago, I think, and he was buried next to Nicole in Lake Forest.  Sydney and Justin flew in from Florida to attend his funeral.  The media did show up and took a few photographs of them at the cemetery.  Hard to believe that Sydney was 28, I think at the time.  Both "kids" were nice looking and the accompanying article stated that they had both graduated from college, were both working in the restaurant industry in Florida and were decent young adults.  I'm sure Nicole would be proud of them.

 

It also reminds me of a portion of Kim Goldman's book in which she said that she received a letter from Sydney and Justin (I don't recall when, other than that fact that both kids were adults) expressing sympathy for the loss of Ron.  That tells me a lot about the decency and kindness of Sydney and Justin.

u

Regarding the former sports agent. He cares about Simpsons kids? Really? Why is he divulging private details told to him by OJ's daughter? To show how much he cares? I think he's looking for attention. The Browns to me have always been a class act regarding the children. "They are fine, we don't talk about it". I'm sure both kids have struggled and I suspect perhaps the Browns have discussed some things with them, but it's private and no ones business. I hope both Sydney and Justin are doing well, but if they are not, me knowing about it, in detail, is unappealing and certainly unhelpful to them.

[LostWithSawyer]

It's interesting that you mention this, because it was the precursor to it that cost her the trial.

 

Trials aren't about revenge. Her job is not to seek vengence, and the fact that that was her motivation is why she lost. She assumed that everyone looks at cases the way she does, as a way to get vengence for the victims. But juries aren't necessarily like that, and not everyone is looking for vengence. Some people look for justice, and they aren't the same thing. But because she assumed the jury would see things the way she did, she framed her arguments that way. Clark presented her case as though someone must pay for this crime; Cochran presented it as a quest for justice. Clark's closing arguments made the case that it was clear Simpson committed the crime, but Cochran pointed out that a conviction based on corrupt evidence is not justice. The jury sided with Cochran not because they were biased or racially blind, but because their definition of justice was different from Clark's.  If we're going by this portrayal of events, then Clark worked under the assumption that close was good enough, because the jury ought to want vengence as much as she did -- that's why she could say that evidence found be a racist police office didn't matter. it's why she could argue that a single drop of blood from a bloody crime scene was enough. It's why she hung her case on DNA presented by someone who didn't know how to present it, and why she didn't have arguments against the idea that the evidence was mishandled. She thought close was enough. Most times it would have been. In this trial it wasn't.

 

And I'm glad. I'm not overly glad Simpson got off, but I'm much less comfortable with the State going after people with vengence in mind. And I'm especially not comfortable with prosecutors using their office to work out personal demons and desires for revenge. That might just be my take, but the state has a lot of power, and those who can dispense it must act on a higher motivation than getting even.  

 

I read above that someone thought Darden's close was powerful, and it was. But it also opened an easy door -- if he was so full of rage, why wasn't there more blood in the Bronco? He didn't have time to put plastic on the seats or wipe things down. And in his desire to make the case about the victims, he asked the jury to react emotionally. When they reacted emotionally, that led them back to their gut reactions about LAPD, about Furhman and even about Simpson. It was powerful stuff, but it was the exact wrong message to send. 

 

Now that it's over, I think it was a great show, well acted, well produced. And I also think it was absolute bullshit. It didn't investigate the case or the killings or what made it so compelling 20 years ago -- Murphy & Co. wanted to make a show about a miscarriage of justice, and that's what they showed. It was total bullshit that key parts of the defense's case -- like Henry Lee, like the obliteration of Fung, things that brought into real question the viability of the collected evidence -- were barely mentioned or brushed aside. There were big problems with the state's case that went beyond race baiting, and it was a total screw job that this show is the way the case is now viewed and remembered. Add into that the way they portrayed the jury, as the white members being bullied by their black peers, was reprehensible. We don't know what happened in that room, but to portray it the way they did, without even a hint of the white jurors making a case or an argument, was, well, flat out wrong. It presents as fact that the jury acted wrongly, and frankly, that may be what Murphy believes, but it's absolutely not a fact, nor is it one that any juror has ever suggested. No one was in the room where it happened besides those jurors, and to present their behavior in that light was, like I said, just wrong. 

 

Good show, I hope it wins some awards (though I like The Americans a lot more), and an interesting way to revisit a piece of history. Just not a very fair one.

Great post, and an important perspective that often isn't considered in discussion surrounding this case.

  

Sorry. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. If you engage a known anti-Semitic organization to protect you, you will be rightfully accused of either anti-Semitism yourself or trying to minimize it. I'm sure Fuhrman received a few death threats after the tapes were made public--imagine the reaction if he'd enlisted the protection of the Klan.

I feel the same way about Fox News hiring Furhman, a known racist. To take it a step further, the fact that people aren't outraged that he was employed by the channel BECAUSE of his known racism is astounding. Furhman was not widely known prior to the case, so I cannot imagine any other reason for his employment. Instead of hearing complaints, Fox News continues to be #1 in ratings. This is the stark reality of the true feelings of many citizens in our nation, and yet another reason I am incredulous when people think you can somehow disregard race in today's society.

[CeeBeeGee]

I feel the same way about Fox News hiring Furhman, a known racist. To take it a step further, the fact that people aren't outraged that he was employed by the channel BECAUSE of his known racism is astounding. Furhman was not widely known prior to the case, so I cannot imagine any other reason for his employment. Instead of hearing complaints, Fox News continues to be #1 in ratings. This is the stark reality of the true feelings of many citizens in our nation, and yet another reason I am incredulous when people think you can somehow disregard race in today's society.

 

I fully agree. I actually hadn't known before this series that Fuhrman was a commentator on Fox (I don't EVER watch Fox) but sadly, I'm not surprised. Yes, you are correct that he must've been hired because of his notoriety--he's a decent detective (he got Michael Skakel put away for Martha Moxley's murder which, yay) but I somehow doubt Fox was thinking of that when they hired him.

 

Is Fox really #1 in the ratings? JFC.

[BW Manilowe]

Good show, show. So much agony with so little payoff. I would never have believed they could bring it off so well. Writing, acting, direction. So Lane actually said, "Get in the car, Bob, or I'll tell them you're Jewish." Good one, Nathan.

I'm pretty sure of this, but put it out there for legal eagles: Neither the Goldmans nor the Browns can speak against OJ in his upcoming parole hearing, right? Because this case isn't their case. Actually, I don't know enough about the memorabilia case to know who might have standing at his parole hearing.

How do the commenters who have talked about it know about the Katrina series supposedly coming up next season?

Because they started mentioning it in articles connected to this season of the show, either once they learned it was a ratings success or around "midseason" for this season. That's how.

I normally use Chrome, which lately doesn't seem to agree with previously.tv. Safari and Firefox work better for me.

Reading the Mobile version of the site also helps. It doesn't have ads.

Edited April 8, 2016 by BW Manilowe

[kj4ever]

Interesting point.  I do recall in Toobin's book that he stated the black women viewed Nicole as a gold digger and a bitch and maybe got what was coming to her. Some comments were along the lines of maybe Simpson learned his lesson and will find a black woman now (I think insinuating that the white Nicole was nothing but problems for him).  

 

The jury was also polled on a scale of 1 to 10 for who they found sympathetic.  Simpson averaged out to around an 8 or 9, I think.  Nicole averaged lower; someone even ranked her a 4.  A murder victim who nearly had her head cut off and she was deemed less sympathetic than the man who was accused of doing that to her?   Very sad.

 

Perhaps even sadder was that Ron was never mentioned.  Either the test jury had no feelings about him one way or the other or he did not even warrant consideration in their minds.  You would think the sympathy factor would be even greater in his case.  He played no role in the Brown-Simpson relationship/marriage/divorce and had no acquaintance with Simpson before June 12.  

This show, especially The Verdict episode, has brought up so many memories for me.  At the time of the verdict reading I was working in a factory to put myself through college.  It was a very diverse environment with probably more African Americans compared to other races.  With all of us working on a line together the division of the races was just astounding as the blacks cheered and the white people were shell shocked as we listened to the verdict on various radios.

 

Arguments during lunch that day practically broke out into fist fights between people who had been friends for years.  It was truly just sad all around and many people who were close enough that their families would do things together never spoke again.  My take from the black community there was they did not see this as a murder case - they saw it as The Police Vs. OJ, and OJ won.  If I had grown up seeing systematic abuse by police and racism I might have felt the same way, but I can't know how it is to feel that.

 

The one thing that I will remember even when I'm 95 years old is one of my good friends saying "I don't care if he beat that white gold digging blonde bitch" after someone asked "What about the domestic abuse?"   That was more shocking than the verdict to me, because this was a woman who would ask me to watch her kids, and my looks were very in line with how Nicole looked.  It was a huge wake up call to me and how far apart the races really are in this country - a very hard pill to swallow for a 20 year old that had obviously lived in a very big bubble.

 

Fast forward to the present day and I was on an actual jury last week.  It was a big old mess of a family and the step Father had allegedly stabbed the son.  You would think that would be pretty cut and dry, but in actuality the Father was cooking and the step son got pissed and charge him.  The Father, and elderly black man fell backing up from the son and the son fell on top of him.  He had a pairing knife in his hand because he was chopping veggies when the kid charged him.  The kid said that he stabbed him before he fell and the Father, well he didn't say anything because he didn't testify.  The sister and the Mother both said they didn't see him get stabbed until he got up from falling.

 

It was pretty cut and dry and had me wondering why the would even prosecute this man.  They couldn't prove a thing.  We STILL went through all the evidence for 5 hours and there were only 2 days of testimony.  It was the longest 5 hours for me because I was the alternate so they took all my notes away and I wasn't allowed to talk.  The voting was 10 for not guilty and 2 for guilty.

 

The reasons for the not guilty ballets?  One was a man who was just on a jury for a pedophile and they learned afterwards that the man had been in jail twice before for molesting children and had been accused like 20 other times but didn't get convicted.  He was convinced that this man must have done something else and they were going after him for this because they couldn't get him on some other charge.  Seriously?  It took the other jurors over a half an hour to get this guy to not convict him because he thought he probably did something else.

 

The second guy, well he kept bringing up this show and how OJ was set free because the prosecution wasn't strong and we shouldn't let this guy go just because our prosecutor didn't do his job right.  That they wouldn't bring him in if he didn't do it.  In our jury instructions the first thing it tells you is you cannot assume they are guilty just because they were charged.  I think that line was read to this fool over 20 times before he threw his hands up in the air and said "Fuck it, go ahead, let the guy get off.  When he commits another crime you all will have to live with it."

 

If I ever commit a crime I will do everything in my power not to have a jury of my "peers" decide my fate. It was a terrifying experience.  I think we should be able to submit names to the government after we are on jury stating why certain people should never ever be allowed on a jury again.  The scary part?  Both of those men had been on several trials before, deciding someone's fate and obviously could not follow instructions given to them and thought they had the right to blatantly disregard them.

Edited April 8, 2016 by kj4ever