S01.E10: The Verdict

[DangerousMinds]

How did Fuhrman get OJ's blood on/in the Bronco when OJ's blood hadn't been collected yet?

[starri]

I had to work up the nerve to watch the episode.  It took me until today.  Of course, give them all of the Emmys.

 

I can't quite wrap my head around how grown-man me could be so much more emotionally affected by this recreation than teenaged-boy me watching the real thing.  I guess a large part of it is because I guess I wasn't cognizant of the realities of relationships and especially intimate partner violence as a kid.  But being in 4th period AP Government and hearing the clerk mispronounce OJ's name is burned into my brain.  We were stupid kids.  We were glad the famous guy from the Naked Gun movies was acquitted.

 

I wish they'd left in Darden's "Now Ron, he was in the wrong place at the wrong time  Nicole, she was in the wrong place for a long time" in the episode.  That stuck with me for twenty years.

 

I guess where I'm left is the realization that all these people that I thought were cartoon characters are actually much more dimensional and complicated than I ever thought back then.  In as much as I found Johnnie Cochran's tactics abhorrent, I also understand what motivated him, and I'm glad it was a light that got shone.  I just wish it had been in another venue.  Marcia Clark...this whole thing was revelatory.  I don't think the show was trying to canonize her (because it didn't exactly try to make her look better in her disagreements with Darden, and didn't hide her vast misreading of the situation she was up against), but what I saw was the only woman in a roomful of men being judged for a lot of things that were completely unfair to her.

 

Even if Ryan Murphy's only real involvement in the show was the directing and attaching his name to it to get it made, it's almost enough to absolve him of the worst of Glee's excesses.  I said almost.

[Kromm]

Well, let's look at it. Assuming it happened, and assuming that it was a black power salute (which is reasonable because he was a former Black Panther, and that would have been a fairly common action for him to take), he could have been saying: "We didn't let those fuckers frame you." Or he could have been saying, "My brother, I'm sorry you had to go through all this bullshit they put you through." or he could have just have been delighted at doing the right thing and that the sequestration was over. I know I raise my fist to the air when I'm happy about something sometimes. I think any of those are as plausible as it saying "Hey look, we let you off even though we know you're guilty so we could stick it to the man." 

Even if those were the case, doesn't that ignore the precept that the jurors aren't supposed to have, develop or express a relationship with the accused?  They're not there to be his advocates--that's the job of his lawyer. Falling into an expression of advocacy, no matter if the message is that an injustice was done, OR if one was prevented, both equally ignore the job that juror was instructed he had to do.

[Apprentice79]

Even if those were the case, doesn't that ignore the precept that the jurors aren't supposed to have, develop or express a relationship with the accused?  They're not there to be his advocates--that's the job of his lawyer. Falling into an expression of advocacy, no matter if the message is that an injustice was done, OR if one was prevented, both equally ignore the job that juror was instructed he had to do.

He should not have done it because it was insensitive to the families....It was neither the time nor the place..It looks bad and it gives people the perception that it was a racist gesture, especially those who have no knowledge about it and the defunct Black Panther Party...

[txhorns79]

He should not have done it because it was insensitive to the families....It was neither the time nor the place..It looks bad and it gives people the perception that it was a racist gesture, especially those who have no knowledge about it and the defunct Black Panther Party...

 

I didn't think it was racist.  I thought the guy was stupid to do it as a general principle. I think the role of the juror is that of neutral observer coming into the case without preconceived notions about either side.  You wouldn't want a juror to compromise that by using the moments after the verdict is announced to do something that undermines that role, and suggests that he was using his vote on the jury to send a message, rather than decide the case based on evidence before him.     

 

 

Assuming it happened,

 

This concurrent news account in the New York Times states in happened.  I can't imagine why they would make that up. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by txhorns79

[Finnegan]

Yeah, it was insensitive of the juror to give the salute, but I don't think it remotely came off as "hey we got your guilty ass off to make a point...mission achieved!" I thought it was more of a "stay strong" message. Think about the salute being used at the Olympic Games...that wasn't a "fuck the man" gesture, it was a "we are black and proud" gesture. I've also seen it used as a generic greeting, from one black person to another. It's a pretty versatile gesture, it can mean anything from "hi" to "fight the power".

I agree with the poster upthread who pointed out that the majority of the defense's strategy was forensic. One thing they brought up was the fact that the socks at Rockingham had a blood stain on both sides that couldn't have gotten there while a person was wearing them...and the blood on the socks contained EDTA. There was also the timeline, and how little blood was in the Bronco or at Rockingham in general. I watched some juror interviews earlier and they all mentioned that this, not Furhman, was the evidence that opened reasonable doubt for them. I think the LAPD corruption/incompetence angle cast further doubt on evidence that already looked incomplete to the jury.

Personally (and I think OJ did it), I keep wondering where all the blood was. The prosecution described a trail of blood at Rockingham, but in fact, it was a tiny amount of sporadic blood drops on the driveway.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Finnegan

[VanillaBeanne]

I also think OJ did it but do think there should have been more blood. I believe that if OJ stabbed Nicole from behind, he would not have gotten that much blood on him, since the blood would be gushing away from him. That said, he should have had some blood from Nicole. What I can't believe is that OJ could have stabbed Ron over 20 times and none of those wounds were gushers. That didn't make sense to me. Especially since everything in the Bronco and car were white. However, some poster a few weeks back had a pretty convincing theory. The poster noted that OJ took Kato in the Bentley to MCDonalds, which was unusual since he usually drove the Bronco. He theorized that OJ did this because he was surprised by Kato's request to join him, and didn't want Kato to see what was in the Bronco, which was presumably items OJ would use in Nicole's murder, and lots of plastic tarp.

The police never found the murder weapon, and if OJ was able to dispose of the murder weapon, why couldn't he have also thrown out some plastic sheeting?

Edited April 10, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[psychoticstate]

He should not have done it because it was insensitive to the families....It was neither the time nor the place..It looks bad and it gives people the perception that it was a racist gesture, especially those who have no knowledge about it and the defunct Black Panther Party...

Agreed.  I never took the salute as a racist statement or anything like that.  I believed it was done to show unison, in line with what Carrie Bess said after the verdict.

 

I also think OJ did it but do think there should have been more blood. I believe that if OJ stabbed Nicole from behind, he would not have gotten that much blood on him, since the blood would be gushing away from him. That said, he should have had some blood from Nicole. What I can't believe is that OJ could have stabbed Ron over 20 times and none of those wounds were gushers. That didn't make sense to me. Especially since everything in the Bronco and car were white. However, some poster a few weeks back had a pretty convincing theory. The poster noted that OJ took Kato in the Bentley to MCDonalds, which was unusual since he usually drove the Bronco. He theorized that OJ did this because he was surprised by Kato's request to join him, and didn't want Kato to see what was in the Bronco, which was presumably items OJ would use in Nicole's murder, and lots of plastic tarp.

The police never found the murder weapon, and if OJ was able to dispose of the murder weapon, why couldn't he have also thrown out some plastic sheeting?

I believe that the reports stated that Ron's clothing was soaked in blood.  He was wearing jeans and some type of sweatshirt or overshirt.  Based on some pics I have seen one side of his shirt and his jeans were absolutely soaked in his blood.  Also, Simpson was wearing knit or sweat type pants and shirt.  That type of clothing would absorb a decent amount of fluid like blood. 

 

Regarding Nicole's blood, I think Simpson got some on his shoes and Nicole's blood was found on the gloves.  Again, I think he may have gotten some of her blood on the cuff or sleeve of his shirt, which would have soaked in.  And it likely would have been droplets - - not a spray or direct bleeding.

 

The suggestion about plastic or tarp is a good one.  It reminds me that I read at some point that Broncos like Simpson's had the spare tire housed in a large "bag."  Investigators found that bag missing when they searched the Bronco.  As they found a shovel in the back of the vehicle, I always assumed that Simpson's plan initially was to carry off Nicole's body and bury it.  Now I wonder if he used that tire bag to sit on and/or throw the stained clothing, shoes and weapon in.

[whiporee]

 

This concurrent news account in the New York Times states in happened.  I can't imagine why they would make that up.

 

I don't think they made it up because you're right they had no reason to, but I don't know whether it was as pronounced as the show made it.  And that's because I don't take on faith anything the show displays regarding the jury. So he probably did something, but I don't know whether it was as emphatic as was shown. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by whiporee

[deerstalker]

Agreed.  I never took the salute as a racist statement or anything like that.  I believed it was done to show unison, in line with what Carrie Bess said after the verdict.

 

I believe that the reports stated that Ron's clothing was soaked in blood.  He was wearing jeans and some type of sweatshirt or overshirt.  Based on some pics I have seen one side of his shirt and his jeans were absolutely soaked in his blood.  Also, Simpson was wearing knit or sweat type pants and shirt.  That type of clothing would absorb a decent amount of fluid like blood. 

 

Regarding Nicole's blood, I think Simpson got some on his shoes and Nicole's blood was found on the gloves.  Again, I think he may have gotten some of her blood on the cuff or sleeve of his shirt, which would have soaked in.  And it likely would have been droplets - - not a spray or direct bleeding.

 

The suggestion about plastic or tarp is a good one.  It reminds me that I read at some point that Broncos like Simpson's had the spare tire housed in a large "bag."  Investigators found that bag missing when they searched the Bronco.  As they found a shovel in the back of the vehicle, I always assumed that Simpson's plan initially was to carry off Nicole's body and bury it.  Now I wonder if he used that tire bag to sit on and/or throw the stained clothing, shoes and weapon in.

 

 

But the limo driver supposedly saw someone dressed in black clothing (presumably Simpson) entering through the front door and going into the house. The police supposedly found the bloody sock in bedroom.  But, as more than one juror mentioned, Simpson had all-white carpeting and rugs throughout his house.  They found it very unlikely, given the amount of blood involved, that there wouldn't have been far more visible blood tracked throughout the house, if Simpson was still wearing the murder clothes, as alleged. 

 

The prosecution claims that Simpson got rid of the knife and clothes at the airport, which is plausible enough.  But gathering up all the tarp material out of the Bronco, then getting rid of it would have probably involved a fair amount of time, blood transfer, and probably been quite noisy and noticeable. He would have had to have done that before he leaped over the wall, so then where would have put it? If he was carrying balled up tarp, that would have been pretty noticeable.

Edited April 10, 2016 by deerstalker

[Isabella15]

...

The prosecution claims that Simpson got rid of the knife and clothes at the airport, which is plausible enough.  But getting gathering up all the tarp material out of the Bronco, then getting rid of it would have probably involved a fair amount of time, blood transfer, and probably been quite noisy and noticeable. He would have had to have done that before he leaped over the wall, so then where would have put it? If he was carrying balled up tarp, that would have been pretty noticeable.

 

I think OJ had help cleaning up the Bronco, and getting rid of evidence connecting him to the murders.  He had time to call someone and tell them he needed help, and that the Bronco was parked outside the gate.  He was a fastidious guy, so he may have had seat covers on the car that were removed if they got blood on them.  He could have had something over his clothes, or a change of clothes in his car. 

 

Who did he call?  Because Al Cowlings took the Fifth in the civil trial for certain key periods of time, a lot of people think he was the one who helped OJ clean up.   But there was definitely time to get help with car and house cleanup, between the time that the murders happened, and the time that the cops showed up at Rockingham. 

 

That part of the story would be difficult to confirm, unless somebody confessed or was seen.  If Al Cowlings had been prosecuted for helping OJ run for the border, and for the Bronco chase, maybe something would have come out.  But he wasn't. 

 

We also don't know who helped OJ make the arrangements for the boat waiting to take him to the Bahamas, or wherever he was planning to go.  Because the LAPD gave OJ preferential treatment, and allowed him to turn himself in, they gave him time to make plans for his getaway.  The talk of suicide came after he knew he wasn't going to make it to Mexico.

 

Still, the finale episode wrapped up the criminal trial very well, I thought.  This was an ambitious project and they got a lot of things right, especially ending with the pictures of Ron and Nicole. 

Edited April 10, 2016 by Isabella15

[Finnegan]

I also think OJ did it but do think there should have been more blood. I believe that if OJ stabbed Nicole from behind, he would not have gotten that much blood on him, since the blood would be gushing away from him. That said, he should have had some blood from Nicole. What I can't believe is that OJ could have stabbed Ron over 20 times and none of those wounds were gushers. That didn't make sense to me. Especially since everything in the Bronco and car were white. However, some poster a few weeks back had a pretty convincing theory. The poster noted that OJ took Kato in the Bentley to MCDonalds, which was unusual since he usually drove the Bronco. He theorized that OJ did this because he was surprised by Kato's request to join him, and didn't want Kato to see what was in the Bronco, which was presumably items OJ would use in Nicole's murder, and lots of plastic tarp.

The police never found the murder weapon, and if OJ was able to dispose of the murder weapon, why couldn't he have also thrown out some plastic sheeting?

 

Wasn't it that they did find the (untouched) bag for the spare tire in the trunk alongside a shovel and were going to claim it was a body bag until they found out it just came in the trunk of every Bronco?

 

Yeah...the blood. In If I Did It, the "hypothetical" OJ takes off all his clothes at the end of the driveway and then drives home in his underwear. I don't remember, though, where he put the clothes, and why there wasn't a ton of blood in the trunk. Did he take off his shoes and throw them out with the rest of his bloody clothes, but for some reason leave his socks in the middle of his white-carpeted bedroom? Why was the "trail of blood" going to his front door at Rockingham and not through the alley where he jumped over the fence and the glove was found? It makes no sense to me. This crime the way the prosecution theorized it has OJ being both super-meticulous (disposing of blood evidence and the murder weapon) and incredibly stupid (leaving his own cap and glove at the crime scene, and scattering evidence around his own home). 

[Kromm]

He should not have done it because it was insensitive to the families....It was neither the time nor the place..It looks bad and it gives people the perception that it was a racist gesture, especially those who have no knowledge about it and the defunct Black Panther Party...

I'm saying this goes beyond any debate over how it seemed to any observer, be it family, press... whoever. He shouldn't have done it simply because it means he was defying the duty placed before him (and explained to him) as a juror. Again, a juror is not an advocate. Making oneself into an advocate, acting like one, means he wasn't doing his civic duty as a juror. And while that's not a crime, it does make him a total fuckhead, even beyond any question of how insensitive his gesture seemed. If all juries boiled down to advocacy, then every single jury would be a hung one, or at best one where a verdict is railroaded through like this one was. A juror can't help but form opinions from a trial--that's not only inevitable but necessary--but they can't mistake that for being on someone's "side". The only side they're supposed to be on is the court's side--what if we're being cheesy we might explain as "justice's side". The moment that juror decided he was on OJ's side, the evidence ceased to matter to him. It instead became about serving OJ rather than serving the court, or serving justice.

[Umbelina]

OJ's timeline was off because Kato wanted to go with him when OJ (for the first time ever) came to borrow $20 because he was going out for a burger.  Kato hadn't eaten since a snack after a run that morning, and only because OJ was being nice to him all day (again, first time ever) asked to go along.  Why DID he take the Bentley?  He almost never did.  I think it's because Kato was coming, and fastidious OJ not only had stuff in the Bronco, but also had covered the driver's seat with plastic, or something like that.

 

So, OJ gets home later than he planned from killing Nicole and Ron, and OOOPS!  The limo is already there!  So I think he originally tried to sneak behind the house, there was a tree with limbs made for climbing on his neighbor's property, right by Kato's room.  What he didn't count on how very very dark it was, and how much junk was strewn around in that narrow walkway.  So he hit Kato's wall, 3 times, got up and probably tried to make it all the way up to the laundry room or garage entrance, but didn't make it, doubled back the short way by the pool, and that's where Kato and the limo driver saw him. 

 

As soon as he went in the house, straight to the laundry room, with the rest of the clothes he hadn't taken off, dark laundry was wet in the machine, but the idiot Vanatter didn't listen to Fuhrman and didn't collect it.  Then upstairs, as far as footprints, he could have easily left slippers in that laundry room, the maid called and said she'd be out all night.  This was planned.  The blood drops were his own from his cut finger.

 

I don't believe multiple reporters 1) reported on a juror doing the black power salute AND 2) Not one of them knew what it was.  It's a pretty famous gesture.  I think every reporter there mentioned it. 

[Lemontree23]

Chaos Theory, I just finished an audiobook of Marcia Clark's and thought it was very well done.  So much so that I ordered another.

 

I read her book on the criminal case when it was released and I thought it was good.

I run a little free library and I think I have at least two of her books in my inventory! I never thought to read them before this!

[ketose]

An interesting bit of trivia. I was looking up Chris Darden on Wikipedia. In 1997, he married a woman named Marcia.

[Lemontree23]

if anyone is interested, this website is always interesting - breaks down O.J.'s own words to analyze his statements for guilt

 

http://www.statementanalysis.com/oj-simpson/

[Apprentice79]

An interesting bit of trivia. I was looking up Chris Darden on Wikipedia. In 1997, he married a woman named Marcia.

I thought that he was divorced..He said in a recent interview that he does not know how to be in a relationship...

[ketose]

I thought that he was divorced..He said in a recent interview that he does not know how to be in a relationship...

I saw a video from an Oprah where are they now around 2015 where Darden was married to Marcia Carter for 17 years.

[Apprentice79]

I saw a video from an Oprah where are they now around 2015 where Darden was married to Marcia Carter for 17 years.

Okay, that is good to know..

[jaync]

The "crowd" reaction shots really did seem to show a clear divide.

​Not sure why the use of quotations, as what was shown was actual footage of the real crowds at the time. It was what it was.

 

The scene in which the defense is watching TV coverage, and Sean tells Cochran, "you got the president", revealed so much to me. First off, Sean, no Johnnie didn't get the president. Clinton was discussing the racial tension following the verdict. But I see you share Johnnie's view that it's all about Johnnie...His ego was raging and he seemed to have a bit of a God complex.

​That tear he dropped...muthafucka, please. It's a shame that massive ego couldn't swallow the cancer.

 

I grew to accept him in the part.

Yeah, my first reaction to CGJ playing O.J. was similar to that of Michael Keaton being picked to be Batman. But, as in the latter case, I think CGJ ultimately pulled it off.

 

The "where are they now" O.J. shot...it's always funny seeing that ol' fat murdering thug in jail scrubs and shackles, and thinking about his weak ass boohooing to that Vegas judge.

[Aethera]

Hey guys. I've been fine with us wandering away from the episode a bit, since this is the last one, and a lot of posts are partially about the ep and partially not, making moving them difficult without leaving dangling posts everywhere. But now that we've gotten a week past the airing, let's take further discussion of OJ's current live to the OJ thread, and of the overall case to the Full Case thread, please!

[FuriousStyles]

I'm not sure what you mean by "have to." If you mean the defense didn't have to in the sense that they were able to obtain a not-guilty verdict without doing so, then of course you're right, because they got that not-guilty verdict. But if you mean they didn't have to in the sense that the law didn't require them to create reasonable doubt for the jury to come in with a not-guilty verdict, then I think you're incorrect. The law requires the jury to find reasonable doubt, not doubt. Because there is a difference. The case hasn't been invented in which doubt is totally absent. But presence of doubt is not enough for a not-guilty verdict in a criminal case. The doubt must be reasonable doubt.

Legally speaking the defense doesnt have to do anything. They can sit there the whole trial and not say a word. They dont have to prove the defendant's innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, all Johnnie and Co. did was poke holes in the prosecution's case.

I saw a lot of back and forth about the trustworthiness of the evidence collected, and I find it pretty troubling that some people would handwave so much of the key evidence that we know for *a fact* was contaminated, mislabeled or improperly handled, and convict someone. OJ did it. I dont doubt that for a second. But the prosecution has to PRESENT a case to PROVE he did it. I said it before, the prosecution's presentation of their case sucked from start to finish and they paid for it. Some of it, obviously wasnt their fault. Marcia and Co. have nothing to do with how evidence is collected, but they had a choice in putting a known racist cop on the stand, who eventually had to plead the 5th on whether he planted evidence. As a juror or just a human being, a racist cop pleads the 5th, Im not thinking "well hey from a legal perspective pleading the 5th is not an admission of guilt". Ok sure, legally speaking that's true, but considering there were already questions about the LAPD before this trial and then certainly during it, Furhman's testimony, if you could even call it that, was the nail in the coffin, all of which could have been avoided.

Edited April 11, 2016 by FuriousStyles

[psychoticstate]

if anyone is interested, this website is always interesting - breaks down O.J.'s own words to analyze his statements for guilt

 

http://www.statementanalysis.com/oj-simpson/

 

Mark McClish's analyses are fascinating. 

 

I think he's spot on with Simpson.

[MissScarlett]

Mr Scarlett and I watched this last night. In typical Murphy fashion, this was a riveting first season. I feel like he really captured that moment in our history very well. It took me back to 8th grade history class. We were glued to the tv while Judge Ito read the verdict.

[Steph619]

I watched the finale yesterday and I was amazed by how well the show built the tension around the reading of the verdict that is so well-known by now. As crazy as it sounds, a part of me still hoped that the verdict would be different. I felt for Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden because I think they did work really hard for such a long time to bring justice for Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, all while facing so much backlash and criticism from the public and the media. Most of all, I felt for the families because they walked away with nothing. I liked that the show ended with the pictures of Nicole and Ron because their murders was what the case was really about and it's unfortunate that they didn't get the justice they deserved.

 

All in all, I thought this show was great. It was riveting and held my attention week after week. The acting was excellent, but probably the person that I was most impressed by at the end of the show was David Schwimmer. When I first started watching, all I could think when I saw him on screen was Ross from Friends, but at the end, I forgot about Ross and just saw Robert Kardashian. The part where he slams down the Bible at the party as his declaration that he was done with O.J. was amazing.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Steph619

[MaryPatShelby]

I really liked Schwimmer in that role of "4B". I was surprised when he turned out to be a comedic actor.

Some actually people think OJ was covering for his son who committed the murders. If that's true then he is the shittiest son ever!

I remember before Friends, David Schwimmer was on the first season of NYPD Blue as David Caruso's neighbor who was mugged who a buys a gun and goes Bernie Goetz and gets killed. It was an incredibly heavy, serious role and I hope after this show Schwimmer gets more roles like that again.

I really liked Schwimmer in that role of "4B". I was surprised when he turned out to be a comedic actor.

Now, someone talk to me about the 5th amendment. As far as I understand it's an amendment our constitution, so is a protection all of us enjoy and have a right to invoke. But when someone does use that protection, they're a lying liar who lies? And if Fuhrman's pleading the 5th happened outside of the jury's presence, how can it have had such a huge effect on the verdict as some people believe?

Edited April 14, 2016 by MaryPatShelby

[FuriousStyles]

The 5th Amendment protects you from a legal perspective. It doesnt when it comes to the court of public opinion. I think its only a natural response to assume someone is lying when they invoke the 5th amendment. Its like "well why don't you answer that question?" "What are you hiding?".

As far as how did Furhman invoking the 5th have an affect on the jury, its assumed that the jury was fed A LOT of information during the trial by the conjugal visits thet were allowed to have.

[DangerousMinds]

They are clearly instructed that they cannot consider such "evidence" though. This brings to mind those who feel asking for a lawyer while being questioned by police reflects guilt. No, it's our constitutional right and the intelligent decision, regardless of innocence or guilt.

[CeeBeeGee]

It's only natural to assume someone is a murderer when they don't take the stand to defend themselves against the charge of murder. What was OJ hiding?

[helenamonster]

Is it really natural? I think most people understand the risk that anyone, guilty or otherwise, would run by waiving their Fifth Amendment right and taking the stand. Even if I was 100% innocent, I would never take the stand in my own defense unless my lawyer was absolutely certain it would work to my benefit.

[CeeBeeGee]

Is it really natural? I think most people understand the risk that anyone, guilty or otherwise, would run by waiving their Fifth Amendment right and taking the stand. Even if I was 100% innocent, I would never take the stand in my own defense unless my lawyer was absolutely certain it would work to my benefit.

 

I'm quoting this:

 

I think its only a natural response to assume someone is lying when they invoke the 5th amendment. Its like "well why don't you answer that question?" "What are you hiding?".

 

I think the risks and the benefit should be weighed and assessed--someone posted here "there is nothing so loud as the silence of the defendant" and I kind of agree with that. But yeah, it can frequently backfire if you're guilty and arrogant, as it did in the civil trial. Specifically I'm trying to make the point that if the jury assumed Mark Fuhrman was lying because he took the Fifth, they should've done the same for OJ.

[DangerousMinds]

And they didn't even see him taking the 5th, apparently just heard secondhand and then never discussed it with the other jurors. You know, deliberate.

[MaryPatShelby]

They are clearly instructed that they cannot consider such "evidence" though. This brings to mind those who feel asking for a lawyer while being questioned by police reflects guilt. No, it's our constitutional right and the intelligent decision, regardless of innocence or guilt.

Thanks; I was also thinking the same, that jury instructions should include that taking the 5th is not evidence of anything. Also, I'm fairly certain that jury instructions routinely state that the defendant not testifying should not be taken as evidence of guilt. Most of the time it is not recommended by the defense because of cross-examination; no matter how innocent a defendant is, they can be completely torn apart on cross, and the risks of that really have to be weighed.

[VanillaBeanne]

Even if the jury was not aware that Fuhrman pled the fifth, they had every right to assume Fuhrman was lying and believe everything the defense said about him based solely on the fact that Fuhrman was caught lying about a material point in his testimony. Per the judges instructions, they could assume everything that the witness said was untruthful, such as the parts of Fuhrman's testimony when he said he innocently discovered the evidence. The jury was 100% entitled to believe that he was lying about how he discovered the glove. And they did, even Anise Asenbach aka the Demon, who said right afterwards she thought OJ was guilty but also believed Fuhrman was lying and thought he planted some evidence.

So I'm not sure I agree with the arguments above that the jury should not have held Fuhrman's pleading the fifth against him if they weren't going to hold OJ's pleading the fifth. And beside, Furhman was a witness, if they had seen him plead the fifth they would have been entitled to believe whatever they wanted about him. That is not using it against him since he's not the one on trial.

[DangerousMinds]

They didn't even deliberate over any of this material. Period.

[VanillaBeanne]

They didn't even deliberate over any of this material. Period.

Actually they did - the ones who didn't deliberate were the two who voted guilty. The jury first took a vote that was ten to two in favor of acquittal. Then those in favor of acquittal gave their rationale and when they were done and it was time for the two guilty votes to give their rationale for finding him not guilty, they said nothing. What more did you expect the ten acquittal votes to do at this point? They called for a revoke, and it was 12-0 for acquittal.

(This was portrayed very differently on ACS. I'm basing this off Brenda Morans interview in the very excellent tv program by American Justice called "why OJ was found not guilty", or something. You can find it on YouTube. I can't link it. It's really really good. It has interviewed from the prosecution, the families, and four jurors and does a good job of showing the defense's arguments and the prosecutions gaffes - it's not slanted. The announcer at the end basically says that he disagrees with the jury but the show shows everything that led to the acquittal)

Where is the outrage over those two jurors who actually thought OJ was guilty but couldn't be bothered to engage in deliberations? In fact, earlier on in this thread I read a post where someone said they couldn't blame them because those two jurors were understandably tired and wanted to go home, which made me laugh, considering how all of the other jurors have been criticized relentlessly on this board. There has been so little criticism over those two jurors on this board, and I think they are worse than black power guy. At least he voted for what he believed. (Although I think the gesture was inappropriate).

Edited April 17, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[FuriousStyles]

Thanks; I was also thinking the same, that jury instructions should include that taking the 5th is not evidence of anything. Also, I'm fairly certain that jury instructions routinely state that the defendant not testifying should not be taken as evidence of guilt. Most of the time it is not recommended by the defense because of cross-examination; no matter how innocent a defendant is, they can be completely torn apart on cross, and the risks of that really have to be weighed.

Jury instructions says lots of things (obviously). Doesnt mean the jury actually follows suit. And thats in every trial, not just this one. Many folks in this very thread or in other episode threads have recounted their personal experiences being on juries where other jurors they encountered picked and chose what they wanted to believe and what rules they wanted to follow. Happens all the time. As topsy turvy as this trial was, is anyone really surprised at the idea that the jury didnt follow every single rule.

Plus as VanillaBeanne pointed out, the jury was well within their rights to discount all of Furhman's testimony. The guy is an ADMITTED racist. He should have never been put on the stand in the first place. Everything regarding what went wrong with him and his testimony and subsequently the jury's reaction to him is Marcia Clark's and whoever else agreed to put him on the stand fault.

[Milburn Stone]

Where is the outrage over those two jurors who actually thought OJ was guilty but couldn't be bothered to engage in deliberations?

 

Since you asked, that outrage is contained here:

 

http://forums.previously.tv/topic/41487-s01e10-the-verdict/?p=2128882

[VanillaBeanne]

I never said there was no criticism. In fact I said "There has been so little criticism over those two jurors on this board, and I think they are worse than black power guy", so way to selectively quote part of my post. And no I don think those two jurors have seen anything approaching outrage, esp when you compare it to the other jurors.

I read and remembered your post before. In fact, the post I refererenced above about a poster saying that "they understand the two jurors because they were tired and wanted to go home" was the post that followed right after yours. You brought up how you blamed the two jurors more and the next reply was "well they wanted to go home and catch up on all the Seinfield they missed". (Okay, making up the Seinfield part but not the free pass they were giving) Again, no real outrage.

Edited April 17, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[dubbel zout]

jurors they encountered picked and chose what they wanted to believe

This isn't against the law: Jurors can believe all of the evidence, none of it, or some of it. 

[Milburn Stone]

This isn't against the law: Jurors can believe all of the evidence, none of it, or some of it. 

 

Exactly. That's what jurors are "paid" for, so to speak. To use their common sense and life experience to determine who's telling the truth and who's lying.

 

Logically, it's impossible to believe all the evidence. Because the evidence will conflict. If Witness X says "I saw him do it," and Witness Y says "I was there, too, and he didn't do it," both pieces of testimony are evidence, but you can't believe both. You are being asked to pick and choose the one that your heart and mind believe to be true. 

[psychoticstate]

Even if the jury was not aware that Fuhrman pled the fifth, they had every right to assume Fuhrman was lying and believe everything the defense said about him based solely on the fact that Fuhrman was caught lying about a material point in his testimony. Per the judges instructions, they could assume everything that the witness said was untruthful, such as the parts of Fuhrman's testimony when he said he innocently discovered the evidence. The jury was 100% entitled to believe that he was lying about how he discovered the glove. And they did, even Anise Asenbach aka the Demon, who said right afterwards she thought OJ was guilty but also believed Fuhrman was lying and thought he planted some evidence.

So I'm not sure I agree with the arguments above that the jury should not have held Fuhrman's pleading the fifth against him if they weren't going to hold OJ's pleading the fifth. And beside, Furhman was a witness, if they had seen him plead the fifth they would have been entitled to believe whatever they wanted about him. That is not using it against him since he's not the one on trial.

 

You have to be sworn in to plead the Fifth.  Simpson didn't do that - - he was never sworn in and did not testify so he certainly never pled the Fifth.  Pleading the Fifth is not the same as choosing not to testify.

 

 

 

Actually they did - the ones who didn't deliberate were the two who voted guilty. The jury first took a vote that was ten to two in favor of acquittal. Then those in favor of acquittal gave their rationale and when they were done and it was time for the two guilty votes to give their rationale for finding him not guilty, they said nothing. What more did you expect the ten acquittal votes to do at this point? They called for a revoke, and it was 12-0 for acquittal.

(This was portrayed very differently on ACS. I'm basing this off Brenda Morans interview in the very excellent tv program by American Justice called "why OJ was found not guilty", or something. You can find it on YouTube. I can't link it. It's really really good. It has interviewed from the prosecution, the families, and four jurors and does a good job of showing the defense's arguments and the prosecutions gaffes - it's not slanted. The announcer at the end basically says that he disagrees with the jury but the show shows everything that led to the acquittal)

Where is the outrage over those two jurors who actually thought OJ was guilty but couldn't be bothered to engage in deliberations? In fact, earlier on in this thread I read a post where someone said they couldn't blame them because those two jurors were understandably tired and wanted to go home, which made me laugh, considering how all of the other jurors have been criticized relentlessly on this board. There has been so little criticism over those two jurors on this board, and I think they are worse than black power guy. At least he voted for what he believed. (Although I think the gesture was inappropriate).

 

 

Taking a straw poll is not deliberation.  People saying they believe in guilt or innocence, or saying "where's the blood?" or saying they won't change their vote, no way, no how is not deliberating the evidence.   I would think a proper deliberation of the evidence would be writing down the timeline as the state presented it, the defense's argument on that timeline and what the witnesses said.  And then a discussion on the key pieces of evidence -- the blood, the DNA, the fibers.   Maybe the domestic violence issues in the past.    That would be an honest deliberation to me - - not taking a vote and then revoting (for whatever reason) to get the two guilty persons to change their vote.  

 

I don't know why the two guilty voters changed so quickly.  I don't think it's necessarily because they thought Simpson was innocent.  They should have stood firm if guilty is what they believed.  However, at least from how it appeared on ACS and in Toobin's book, the other jurors were not choosing to deliberate either.  

[ganesh]

Can a judge order the jury back to deliberate? Literally everyone who wasn't the jury were dumbfounded they only took 2 hours.

[psychoticstate]

Can a judge order the jury back to deliberate? Literally everyone who wasn't the jury were dumbfounded they only took 2 hours.

 

This can happen if the jury is deadlocked but once a verdict is reached?  No.  Once the verdict is reached, it's done.  

[FuriousStyles]

This isn't against the law: Jurors can believe all of the evidence, none of it, or some of it.

That what i was getting at. All jurors certainly have a right to believe what they want, yet the OJ jury for 20 years have been raked over the coals for it, when its something that's happened all over the country in countless trials.

[VanillaBeanne]

You have to be sworn in to plead the Fifth. Simpson didn't do that - - he was never sworn in and did not testify so he certainly never pled the Fifth. Pleading the Fifth is not the same as choosing not to testify.

Taking a straw poll is not deliberation. People saying they believe in guilt or innocence, or saying "where's the blood?" or saying they won't change their vote, no way, no how is not deliberating the evidence. I would think a proper deliberation of the evidence would be writing down the timeline as the state presented it, the defense's argument on that timeline and what the witnesses said. And then a discussion on the key pieces of evidence -- the blood, the DNA, the fibers. Maybe the domestic violence issues in the past. That would be an honest deliberation to me - - not taking a vote and then revoting (for whatever reason) to get the two guilty persons to change their vote.

I don't know why the two guilty voters changed so quickly. I don't think it's necessarily because they thought Simpson was innocent. They should have stood firm if guilty is what they believed. However, at least from how it appeared on ACS and in Toobin's book, the other jurors were not choosing to deliberate either.

Simpson did plead the fifth. He and Fuhrman both invoked their fifth amendment right to not bear witness against themselves in a criminal proceeding. The Fifth Amendment has no requirement that you be sworn in. The terms pleading the fifth, invoking the fifth and asserting the fifth are used interchangeably but a defendant refusing to testify in his own trial is pleading the fifth.

Also, the jury did deliberate. Yes a vote is not deliberation (never said it was) but as I said the not guilty votes argued their position and they did clearly discuss some of the evidence. In fact, they asked that the limo driver's testimony be read to them because two jurors had differing notes, and wanted that point clarified. You noted your opinion as to how you would have reviewed the evidence but there is no right or wrong way for a jury to deliberate. Perhaps the two jurors who thought he was guilty should have brought up the timeline and other evidence, but since they didn't the other jurors weren't obligated to review the evidence in the way you proposed. The approach they took of having one side argue then have the other side argue their cause was not a unreasonable one, but since the other side didn't argue for guilt, you got 2 hrs of deliberation.

Quick deliberations do happen, so this was not unprecedented.

Edited April 20, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[psychoticstate]

Simpson did plead the fifth. He and Fuhrman both invoked their fifth amendment right to not bear witness against themselves in a criminal proceeding. The Fifth Amendment has no requirement that you be sworn in. The terms pleading the fifth, invoking the fifth and asserting the fifth are used interchangeably but a defendant refusing to testify in his own trial is pleading the fifth.

Also, the jury did deliberate. Yes a vote is not deliberation (never said it was) but as I said the not guilty votes argued their position and they did clearly discuss some of the evidence. In fact, they asked that the limo driver's testimony be read to them because two jurors had differing notes, and wanted that point clarified. You noted your opinion as to how you would have reviewed the evidence but there is no right or wrong way for a jury to deliberate. Perhaps the two jurors who thought he was guilty should have brought up the timeline and other evidence, but since they didn't the other jurors weren't obligated to review the evidence in the way you proposed. The approach they took of having one side argue then have the other side argue their cause was not a unreasonable one, but since the other side didn't argue for guilt, you got 2 hrs of deliberation.

Quick deliberations do happen, so this was not unprecedented.

 

 

Simpson did not plead the fifth.  He was a defendant and did not have to take the stand to testify.  He chose to invoke that right.  It's not the same as pleading the fifth.  Fuhrman was a witness and had to take the stand; he could not choose not to unless he wanted to be held in contempt.

 

You're right - - I was voicing my thoughts on this.  In my opinion, taking a straw poll and spending two hours on a case that took nine months to present is not deliberation.   

[RemoteControlFreak]

But the limo driver supposedly saw someone dressed in black clothing (presumably Simpson) entering through the front door and going into the house. The police supposedly found the bloody sock in bedroom.  But, as more than one juror mentioned, Simpson had all-white carpeting and rugs throughout his house.  They found it very unlikely, given the amount of blood involved, that there wouldn't have been far more visible blood tracked throughout the house, if Simpson was still wearing the murder clothes, as alleged. 

 

The prosecution claims that Simpson got rid of the knife and clothes at the airport, which is plausible enough.  But gathering up all the tarp material out of the Bronco, then getting rid of it would have probably involved a fair amount of time, blood transfer, and probably been quite noisy and noticeable. He would have had to have done that before he leaped over the wall, so then where would have put it? If he was carrying balled up tarp, that would have been pretty noticeable.

 

The most logical explanation given the evidence is that OJ had an outer layer of clothes -- a sweatsuit or nylon pants and jacket, hat, and shoes -- that he stripped off and placed in the mysterious duffle bag.  He didn't change his socks, hence the drops on his socks. Or he changed socks but a few drops splashed on the new socks.

 

The biggest mis-understanding of the crime scene is that because Nicole and Ron bled so much, OJ would have been covered in blood. This is not necessarily true.  There was no blood spray at the crime scene. The blood flowed from their bodies that were already on the ground. While Ron had defensive knife wounds, but that doesn't mean he had any physical contact with OJ or that he even touched the knife after he had been stabbed.  So the defensive cuts were made before any blood began to flow.

[wendyg]

It surprises me how many people seem to think that David Schwimmer hasn't been working just because he hasn't been showing up much on TV (he did a hilarious guest spot as himself on EPISODES a year or two back). He's been doing *theater* at least some of the time (including writing at least one play). It's what he said he was looking forward to doing when FRIENDS ended, and it's where he started in Chicago. Speaking of which, I highly recommend his performance in the movie IT'S THE RAGE alongside Joan Allen, Jeff Daniels, and a bunch of other well-regarded actors,