S01.E10: The Verdict

[txhorns79]

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.

 

I don't know if that's about race so much as it is about that person's morals being very out of whack.  One can only hope that if she was in a situation where she was being abused, people don't treat her in the same fashion. 

 

 

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.

 

I think the key though is that the connection between the murders was figured out, relatively quickly.  The idea that a random person happened upon Nicole and Ron, and the police, rather than investigate, immediately (without even knowing whether OJ had an alibi(!)) engaged in a decades long conspiracy to frame him defies credulity.     

Edited April 8, 2016 by txhorns79

[GinnyMars]

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? 

 

 

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.

 

(Based on the show, as I have no knowledge of the real-life case), I think it's more to do with his relationship with Nicole. Being striken that OJ hadn't asked how she'd died, shocked that he would smirk and put on a show while putting on the gloves covered in his wife's blood... When you loved that woman, when you're mourning her, that has got to make you think...

[Neurochick]

When I was a child, I used to hear this saying:  "Black people know white people better than white people know black people, because white people don't have to and black people need to in order to survive," something like that.  I think this case showed that.  Darden knew damn well that Fuhrman was bad news, that he shouldn't have been put on the stand, Clark was unfortunately racially tone deaf, which IMO was not her fault.  I remember what she said about black women, she prosecuted domestic violence cases where black women were the victims, "they love me," she said.  She had no clue, not her fault.

 

What this case showed was that black people and white people see the world differently.  Sometimes, white people feel their feelings, their opinions are the default and everybody should have them.  The Seinfeld vs Martin argument was classic, because it showed that this group had completely different ideas as to what was and what wasn't funny.  I never liked Martin OR Seinfeld, so there is that.  I know some black people who feel all whites are deep down inside, racists and if you really believe that, it's easy to believe how the jury found OJ not guilty.  It's like this:  If Fuhrman is a racist, and he's a police officer and other police officers know he's a racist and he's still on the force, then maybe other police officers feel the same way Fuhrman does.  

 

The irony of this case was that OJ got acquitted because Cochran said "OJ is a black man who was set up because he was black."  Ironic.  I remember when I was a child, seeing OJ Simpson in black magazines, with his first wife and their children.  When he married Nicole, it was as if he'd distanced himself from black people.  So when OJ was acquitted because of race, the black community, a community he didn't feel he belonged to, embraced him somewhat, but his white friends, the ones he wanted to be around, dismissed him.

 

Also, Darden who, as he told Cochran in the show (I wonder if that conversation did happen) never left the black community.  Yet, I remember some black people called him an "Uncle Tom."  And I also remember when he had a book signing (I think) maybe in 1996, at Barnes and Noble, in midtown Manhattan, every single person on that line was white.   After seeing this show, I wonder how Darden felt, "here I am a man who lives in a black neighborhood, part of the black community, has become disliked by that very community."  

 

If the real Chris Darden was like the TV Chris Darden, then he should have been lead prosecutor on that case, perhaps he could have used the "race card" in a different way, that OJ didn't deserve black people's loyalty.  

[ByTor]

Embarrassing isn't really how I'd describe it--more like heartbreaking.

Which is why I said "embarrassing (to say the least)"

[Milburn Stone]

That damn jury didn't deserve one ounce of gratitude. They didn't do their job. They didn't give a shit about evidence or their civic duty. They just wanted out and used peer pressure to get the holdouts to change their votes.

 

Watching the episode made me more angry at the jurors who voted guilty on the first ballot than I was at anyone else. Those two or three jurors not only knew OJ was guilty, they knew they had a duty to stick to their guns, and they didn't.

 

I can forgive the immediate-not-guilty jurors for being blinded by hurt and past injustices. I can even see their point--that there's a difference believing OJ did it, and believing that the state proved that OJ did it. But I have a harder time forgiving the "he's guilty" jurors for not doing their jobs. Sure, they had next to no chance of swaying their fellow jurors. I have no illusions about that. That's fine--end the trial in a mistrial then, and cause a do-over. Or for gosh sakes, at least try. Don't abdicate the solemn responsibility that you well know is the foundation of our justice system. I can understand everything else about the OJ trial. I don't think I'll ever understand that.

 

It might have been the portrayal by the actress of the "old white woman juror" (for lack of a better term) that made me so angry. That portrayal left no doubt in my mind that this juror knew what she was supposed to do, and didn't do it. Maybe the real-life juror didn't have that understanding. On the other hand, maybe the portrayal was accurate.

 

I think Neurochick's point is a great one, that white people and black people see the world differently. As a juror, you're supposed to use your common sense and your life experience in coming up with a verdict. Many of the jurors did, and that's why they voted not guilty. But the jurors whose common sense and life experience told them something different, didn't in the end honor their own common sense and life experience.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[txhorns79]

I can understand everything else about the OJ trial. I don't think I'll ever understand that.

 

I understand it.  They had been sequestered for months, tensions were running high and they had to deal with ten or so angry jurors who would blame them for further delays.  I agree with you that it's inappropriate for someone who truly believes OJ is guilty to change their mind under that kind of pressure, but I do see how it could end up being too much for someone and they just kind of give up.    

[Jel]

Does anyone remember (from the actual trial) if the prosecution ever said anything like "It's possible that MF planted the glove AND that OJ did it? (Lol, hopefully more eloquently than that, though!)

Edited April 8, 2016 by Jel

[ganesh]

Watching the episode made me more angry at the jurors who voted guilty on the first ballot than I was at the rest of the jury. Those two or three jurors not only knew OJ was guilty, they knew they had a duty to stick to their guns, and they didn't.

 

Real life Marcia Clark said they deliberated for only 2 hours. That's one fast turnaround for the 2 guilty votes. I don't buy the further delays arguments. If after two hours, no one is budging, then you have the hung jury. I don't get why switching your vote makes it faster. 

[DangerousMinds]

I understand it.  They had been sequestered for months, tensions were running high and they had to deal with ten or so angry jurors who would blame them for further delays.  I agree with you that it's inappropriate for someone who truly believes OJ is guilty to change their mind under that kind of pressure, but I do see how it could end up being too much for someone and they just kind of give up.    

After all they'd already been through, they couldn't stick to their beliefs and suck it up for a week or so more? That is just pathetic to me.

Does anyone remember (from the actual trial) if the prosecution ever said anything like "It's possible that MF planted the glove AND that OJ did it? (Lol, hopefully more eloquently than that, though!)

No, because it wasn't at all possible. Maybe he planted evidence in other cases, but it would have been impossible here.

[txhorns79]

Real life Marcia Clark said they deliberated for only 2 hours. That's one fast turnaround for the 2 guilty votes. I don't buy the further delays arguments. If after two hours, no one is budging, then you have the hung jury. I don't get why switching your vote makes it faster.

 

For case like this, I think the Court would have continued to send them back for more deliberation if they had tried to claim they were hopelessly deadlocked after only two hours of deliberation. 

[Jel]

 

No, because it wasn't at all possible. Maybe he planted evidence in other cases, but it would have been impossible here.

The old memory banks are not what they used to be, so please enlighten me. Why was it impossible? Wasn't he at Bundy?

[txhorns79]

Does anyone remember (from the actual trial) if the prosecution ever said anything like "It's possible that MF planted the glove AND that OJ did it? (Lol, hopefully more eloquently than that, though!)

 

I can't imagine any scenario where the prosecution would give any credence to the idea that Furhman planted evidence in the case, unless there was some reason they had to admit he planted evidence. 

 

 

Why was it impossible? Wasn't he at Bundy?

 

Being at a place doesn't mean you had the opportunity or motive to plant evidence.  As far as I recall, there was nothing, aside from insinuations, to suggest that evidence had been planted. 

Edited April 8, 2016 by txhorns79

[DangerousMinds]

The old memory banks are not what they used to be, so please enlighten me. Why was it impossible? Wasn't he at Bundy?

The facts of the case have been rehashed here many, many times already. 

[Jel]

The facts of the case have been rehashed here many, many times already. 

Well, thanks for taking the time to say you're not going to be taking the time. ;)

[TheLastKidPicked]

 

 

Quick question here:

The last scene at the party when OJ interacted with the waiter he didn't know -- was that supposed to signify some larger point?  Was it showing how OJ would no longer be surrounded by close friends and societal elites, but rather, unknowns and suck-ups?  Or was it a subtle reference to Marcia Clark's earlier story about the waiter who raped her?  That Simpson is just like the waiter and every other guilty defendant who has gotten away with a crime?

 

IMHO, I think it was just show him trying to get back into his old "honorary white guy" lifestyle only to find that just about every caucasian man in the room aside from RK was the hired help.

Very interesting that you both brought this up, as it was discussed at our house as well.  This is a much deeper scene if you have ever experienced anything like it before (and I hope you haven't).

 

The big boss at our company bought a new boat and invited everyone he knew to have a launching party.   We noticed right away the only people there were people on the payroll.

 

It was so sad that we hoped he wouldn't notice this, but it was pretty obvious.  I think this scene did a nice job of showing OJ as he begins to realize that the only people left around him, like the waiter, were paid to be there.  And when the money runs out, those people will be gone as well.

[ganesh]

After all they'd already been through, they couldn't stick to their beliefs and suck it up for a week or so more? That is just pathetic to me.

 

For case like this, I think the Court would have continued to send them back for more deliberation if they had tried to claim they were hopelessly deadlocked after only two hours of deliberation.

 

There's going to be a line where Ito presumably would be like, "ok, this isn't going to change." So, what, a day, a week?

 

So you flake out on letting a murderer go free after only 2 hours because you're tired? ok. 

[psychoticstate]

The old memory banks are not what they used to be, so please enlighten me. Why was it impossible? Wasn't he at Bundy?

 

Fuhrman was the seventeenth detective on the scene.  For him to have planted the glove, he would have had to pick up a second glove at Bundy that was not noticed by the other sixteen detectives that preceded him (as well as the ones that followed him to the scene), managed to smuggle it in his sock (as he wore no jacket) to Rockingham, where he conveniently and luckily was ordered to go by his more senior detectives, jump the fence at Rockingham, where again he was luckily and conveniently ordered to do so by his more senior detectives, and plant the glove outside where Kato luckily and conveniently heard the thump earlier that evening.  Luckily and conveniently, despite it being a June evening, he did not leave any of his own hair, sweat, DNA or fibers on the glove between the transfer.  And he may have also used said glove to smear blood in the Bronco, sight unseen by Lange and Vannatter, and while said Bronco was locked.

 

And he did all this with other officers, detectives, crime lab personnel, the coroner, etc. around, including the media, which arrived shortly thereafter. 

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.

 

 

kj, your post demonstrates to me why our jury system does not work and we really should revert to a professional juror system.

 

Excellent, very well said post.

[psychoticstate]

Real life Marcia Clark said they deliberated for only 2 hours. That's one fast turnaround for the 2 guilty votes. I don't buy the further delays arguments. If after two hours, no one is budging, then you have the hung jury. I don't get why switching your vote makes it faster. 

 

This was backed up by Jeffrey Toobin, who said the same.  BTW, he mentioned in his book after attending the trial and having access to the defense that his conclusion was that SImpson did it.  His opinion on whether or not the LAPD framed a guilty man?  Didn't happen.  He felt in this particular case there was no corruption, conspiracy or misconduct, just a douchebag who killed his ex-wife and a young man, period.

 

I was listening to a book by John Douglas of the FBI and he briefly mentioned the Simpson case.  He said it was amazing to him that the jury could take a piece of evidence that simply could not be controverted, like the DNA matching Simpson, and toss it out, claim it had been corrupted, planted, etc. and yet take a piece of evidence like the gloves, something that could be affected by temperature, wear and tear, blood soaking, etc. and very easily say that since the gloves didn't fit at trial they clearly never could have fit.  It's an interesting perspective (and to me shows again that a jury of peers does not work.) 

 

He also mentioned that most murder cases and convictions are based on circumstantial evidence.  Very rarely is there a smoking gun but our society and the average layperson expects one from watching the many television programs and movies we have on the subject.  It led me to think if Ron had not been present that night,the majority of the physical evidence would not have existed.  For instance, I don't think Simpson would have cut himself during his murder of Nicole. So no blood from him at the scene or at Rockingham.  He likely would not have lost one glove at Bundy nor the knit cap.  Let's assume that he may still have stepped in blood and left the bloody footprint.   And dropped one glove at Rockingham, which would have had Nicole's blood and hair on it.

 

So the prosecution's evidence would have been the victim being his ex-wife, whom he had a contentious relationship with and one that was reaching fever pitch by June 1994.  Nicole had broken up with him for good, returned jewelry he had given her and he was pissed.  He wrote her a letter, threatening to turn her in to the IRS and send her to prison.  That's pretty ragey.  They also could have had the Navy SEALs from the set of Frogman who "trained" Simpson on how to kill quickly and quietly, showed him how to use a knife to do so and told him about wearing dark clothing, a knit cap and shoes that you would discard immediately after.  Jill Shively could have testified to seeing him fleeing Bundy Drive that night.  The prosecutors could have asked Kato if it was normal for Simpson to ask him for money to take with him to the airport or to mention he was going to McDonalds.  Heck, was it normal for Simpson to go to McDonalds?  Alan Park's testimony would have been the same - - lights on, nobody answering the buzzer, seeing a man running across the lawn, the Bronco, Simpson profusely sweating during the drive to the airport, despite it being a fairly cool night.    Lange would testify that Simpson never asked how his ex-wife was killed during the initial phone call.  The 30 minute interview would still stand, unless the police had let him go on talking and nailed him down to specific times.  The prosecution would have entered the "suicide" note and slow speed chase into evidence.

 

Outside of the glove and perhaps the bloody shoe print (how many people wore a size 12 and had even heard of Bruno Magli?), everything would have been circumstantial.  But convincing.  It showed a pattern, a means and opportunity.  

 

Sad to say that if there had been less physical evidence, it may have been more likely to get Simpson convicted. 

[Neurochick]

I don't know about a professional juror system.  Juries are made up of people; people go through things in life.  You might believe one thing at 25 but another at 45.  Who is going to determine who should and who shouldn't be on a jury?  I mean look at Fuhrman, he never should have been a police officer, yet he passed all of the tests including psychological to be one.

 

IMHO, I think it was just show him trying to get back into his old "honorary white guy" lifestyle only to find that just about every caucasian man in the room aside from RK was the hired help.

 

True.  OJ was an "honorary white guy."  He lived in a white neighborhood, he had a white wife, he didn't seem to have much to do with the black community.  The one thing an honorary white guy can't do is talk about racism because people will say things like, "well, we don't see color when we see you."  OJ got off because he had a lawyer who was able to prove racism.  There was no way most white people would say, "everything's cool, we're friends again."  

 

If anything Darden was, at least then, welcomed by some white people; I never will forget that line outside on Fifth Avenue for his book signing, not a black person was there.  

 

ETA:  If the jury system doesn't work, what does?  Do you want to have a judge, a person who has been either elected or appointed, decide?  As I said, look at the case of the Central Park Five, THAT is what happens when the state, politicians, and the media decide to create a narrative, even if it's all bullshit.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Neurochick

[Kromm]

For case like this, I think the Court would have continued to send them back for more deliberation if they had tried to claim they were hopelessly deadlocked after only two hours of deliberation. 

Ito may have come off as over his head and something of a shmuck on occasion, but yes, he would have kept sending them back for more deliberation. He knew as well as anyone else how much money the county had spent on the trial, and also how much worse the situation likely would be with a hung jury. Even best case he would have insisted on a few weeks deliberation, I'd bet, and the reaction to the eventual hung jury would have been even more "then why did LA county waste all that time and money?"  And yeah... Black Power Salute Guy (that was real) would have made their lives hell for those few weeks too.

 

Want more on Black Power Salute Guy?  Well he's kind of evidence that however sympathetic we want to be to Marcia Clark and the Prosecutor's office as human beings, they actually WERE incompetent. His name is Lionel Cryer and he was an actual, literal ex-Black Panther. And they left him on the Jury. And it wasn't because the Prosecution had run out of peremptory challenges they could make for jurors. They had several of those left over unused.

 

Cryer of course puts a different spin on things. He claims it was all about a lack of evidence, "reasonable doubt" and a bad prosecution: https://www.eurweb.com/2016/04/meet-real-juror-who-gave-o-j-the-black-power-salute/

 

There are at this point dozens, maybe hundreds of interviews with these jurors out there now actually. They're all over the board with how they currently talk about the situation. Some claim if they'd had the evidence as presented in the civil trial they might have voted guilty. Whether we believe them or not on that is hard to say, but I suspect Lionel Cryer would never have voted guilty no matter what, whether he'll admit it or not.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Kromm

[psychoticstate]

Cryer of course puts a different spin on things. He claims it was all about a lack of evidence, "reasonable doubt" and a bad prosecution: https://www.eurweb.c...k-power-salute/

 

 

 

 

If a juror - - any juror - - wants to say they felt there was reasonable doubt, fine.  I don't have to agree.  But to claim a lack of evidence in this case???  It makes my brain want to explode. 

[Kromm]

If a juror - - any juror - - wants to say they felt there was reasonable doubt, fine.  I don't have to agree.  But to claim a lack of evidence in this case???  It makes my brain want to explode. 

Here's one juror who, face to face with Meredith Viera and Kim Goldman (ouch) comes close to saying the same thing... except she adds that caveat that if they'd had the evidence that was presented at the Civil Trial, she might (note: might) have gone the other way. Not sure I believe her any more than Kim Goldman does, but if true it points the finger back at Ito and the prosecutor's office both. 

[DangerousMinds]

Fuhrman was the seventeenth detective on the scene.  For him to have planted the glove, he would have had to pick up a second glove at Bundy that was not noticed by the other sixteen detectives that preceded him (as well as the ones that followed him to the scene), managed to smuggle it in his sock (as he wore no jacket) to Rockingham, where he conveniently and luckily was ordered to go by his more senior detectives, jump the fence at Rockingham, where again he was luckily and conveniently ordered to do so by his more senior detectives, and plant the glove outside where Kato luckily and conveniently heard the thump earlier that evening.  Luckily and conveniently, despite it being a June evening, he did not leave any of his own hair, sweat, DNA or fibers on the glove between the transfer.  And he may have also used said glove to smear blood in the Bronco, sight unseen by Lange and Vannatter, and while said Bronco was locked.

 

And he did all this with other officers, detectives, crime lab personnel, the coroner, etc. around, including the media, which arrived shortly thereafter. 

 

 

kj, your post demonstrates to me why our jury system does not work and we really should revert to a professional juror system.

 

Excellent, very well said post.

Thank you! You said it far better than I could have. The facts of the case make it impossible for Fuhrman to have planted evidence in THIS case.

[psychoticstate]

My computer won't let me watch the clip but that sounds like a cop out to me.  This is one case that you could never say there was a lack of evidence.  There was an overload of evidence; the jury chose not to believe it.  

[psychoticstate]

ETA:  If the jury system doesn't work, what does?  Do you want to have a judge, a person who has been either elected or appointed, decide?  As I said, look at the case of the Central Park Five, THAT is what happens when the state, politicians, and the media decide to create a narrative, even if it's all bullshit.

 

 

 

I don't know about a judge but individuals who go to school to learn the law and procedure and then their careers are serving on juries.  That way things like reasonable doubt would not be misinterpreted or issues, as in this case, where at least one jury member stated they did not understand the DNA evidence and so they tossed it out and did not use it in their deliberations.   That alone shows me this jury was not competent to sit on this case.  If they didn't understand, they should have sent a note to Ito that said they did not understand and ask for clarification.  You don't just say "I don't get it, I don't want to get it and so I don't care about that stuff."   Imagine that in a rape case or rape/murder where DNA is the absolute crux of the case.  I wouldn't want a jury of people who didn't understand a conclusive DNA match.

[Kromm]

I don't know about a judge but individuals who go to school to learn the law and procedure and then their careers are serving on juries.  That way things like reasonable doubt would not be misinterpreted or issues, as in this case, where at least one jury member stated they did not understand the DNA evidence and so they tossed it out and did not use it in their deliberations.   That alone shows me this jury was not competent to sit on this case.  If they didn't understand, they should have sent a note to Ito that said they did not understand and ask for clarification.  You don't just say "I don't get it, I don't want to get it and so I don't care about that stuff."   Imagine that in a rape case or rape/murder where DNA is the absolute crux of the case.  I wouldn't want a jury of people who didn't understand a conclusive DNA match.

I post this with reservations only in that the voice Norm Macdonald does and his observations about what the woman he's imitating looked like may come off as a bit racist... but if we can suck it up and see past that, if he's actually conveying something an actual juror said (lord knows, they've been interviewed so many times--I even made a new thread elsewhere we can post interviews, from anyone in the case including the jurors)... well it's interesting that the juror would say what Norm jokes about.

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Kromm

[DangerousMinds]

If a juror - - any juror - - wants to say they felt there was reasonable doubt, fine.  I don't have to agree.  But to claim a lack of evidence in this case???  It makes my brain want to explode. 

I know, right? I don't think I've ever heard of a case with more evidence! Even discounting much of the physical evidence, it was enormous.

I don't know about a judge but individuals who go to school to learn the law and procedure and then their careers are serving on juries.  That way things like reasonable doubt would not be misinterpreted or issues, as in this case, where at least one jury member stated they did not understand the DNA evidence and so they tossed it out and did not use it in their deliberations.   That alone shows me this jury was not competent to sit on this case.  If they didn't understand, they should have sent a note to Ito that said they did not understand and ask for clarification.  You don't just say "I don't get it, I don't want to get it and so I don't care about that stuff."   Imagine that in a rape case or rape/murder where DNA is the absolute crux of the case.  I wouldn't want a jury of people who didn't understand a conclusive DNA match.

Other western countries do well with panels of judges, not just one judge.

[psychoticstate]

I know, right? I don't think I've ever heard of a case with more evidence! Even discounting much of the physical evidence, it was enormous.

 

Exactly!  You can discount all the physical evidence and you still have a shit ton of circumstantial evidence.  I've been reading true crime since I was 11 and work in the legal field and I have never seen or heard of a case with as much evidence as this one.  And evidence that points to one, and only one, person.

I post this with reservations only in that the voice Norm Macdonald does and his observations about what the woman he's imitating looked like may come off as a bit racist... but if we can suck it up and see past that, if he's actually conveying something an actual juror said (lord knows, they've been interviewed so many times--I even made a new thread elsewhere we can post interviews, from anyone in the case including the jurors)... well it's interesting that the juror would say what Norm jokes about.

 

 

Darn it, my computer won't let me see any videos.  Kromm, can you give a brief summary?

 

I'll definitely watch these once I'm home.

[DangerousMinds]

I don't know about a judge but individuals who go to school to learn the law and procedure and then their careers are serving on juries.  That way things like reasonable doubt would not be misinterpreted or issues, as in this case, where at least one jury member stated they did not understand the DNA evidence and so they tossed it out and did not use it in their deliberations.   That alone shows me this jury was not competent to sit on this case.  If they didn't understand, they should have sent a note to Ito that said they did not understand and ask for clarification.  You don't just say "I don't get it, I don't want to get it and so I don't care about that stuff."   Imagine that in a rape case or rape/murder where DNA is the absolute crux of the case.  I wouldn't want a jury of people who didn't understand a conclusive DNA match.

I would assume some jurors understood DNA a lot more than others. Again, this is where deliberation should have kicked in, as required by law and their civic duty. RK seemed to have no problem grasping the huge importance of DNA.

[Kromm]

I would assume some jurors understood DNA a lot more than others. Again, this is where deliberation should have kicked in, as required by law and their civic duty. RK seemed to have no problem grasping the huge importance of DNA.

This is where the show and it's portrayal of what went on inside that deliberation room probably break down again, While so many of that jury have gone on record, would they really, for example, admit that Lionel Cryer got all in their face and that they actually gave in because he intimidated them? I doubt it.

[psychoticstate]

I would assume some jurors understood DNA a lot more than others. Again, this is where deliberation should have kicked in, as required by law and their civic duty. RK seemed to have no problem grasping the huge importance of DNA.

 

True.  I will fault the prosecution here as keeping their Dennis Fung on the stand for a week was insane.  His testimony should have been one day and he should have spoken to the jury like he was talking to an elementary school class about DNA - - the ladder, etc. Make it as basic as possible.  And yes, draw a picture or chart to show the number of people in the world and how many times you'd have to go around the world in order to have that DNA match a person besides Simpson (in other words, it was impossible.)  

 

Not only did RK understand and grasp what the DNA evidence told but so apparently did Simpson's golfing and country club buddies, who didn't return after the DNA testimony.

[foursugars]

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've been getting comments from a MarciaAndChris scholar on Tumblr; is it one of you? Lol. I know it's probably someone who saw the post in the tags. Anyway, if you guys wanna read the book excerpts they sent, check out http://marciaandchris.tumblr.com/. I'd say they're pretty juicy!

 

***

 

On a completely unrelated note, it looks like the exchange between Chris and Johnnie at the end really did happen, although a bit differently. From a comment on Chris's book:

 

"To add insult to injury, after the verdict and subsequent black celebrations, some black lawyers group decided to "honor" Darden at a dinner - with Johnnie Cochran as the guest speaker, no less - with what I'll term a BLACK GUILT-ASSUAGING AWARD. This was basically their way of saying to Darden, after taking him to the public opinion woodshed for over a year, that "You're still 'down' with us. You're welcome back into the community." In accepting his award, Darden, to his credit, let them know: "You don't have to welcome me back into the community, because I never left." "

[psychoticstate]

This is where the show and it's portrayal of what went on inside that deliberation room probably break down again, While so many of that jury have gone on record, would they really, for example, admit that Lionel Cryer got all in their face and that they actually gave in because he intimidated them? I doubt it.

 

You're right, they probably would not have.  I think they were afraid of the public reaction as well, as everyone seemed to think a replay of the 1992 riots would take place if the verdict was guilty.

 

If I had been on that jury when I was younger, I may very well have folded under pressure.  Today?  I would stick to my guns and hang it up if necessary.   

[deerstalker]

I think the defense did a really good job of showing that the DNA evidence did not matter.  "Garbage in, garbage out."  If the police and crime labs are corrupt and incompetent, how can anyone rely on them for accuracy in results?  So I think most of the jury understood the gist of DNA just fine, but thought that the evidence was planted and/or corrupted, so it would always show what the prosecution wanted it to show.

 

The interview with the juror that I read said the initial vote was 10-2 to acquit.  The two people who voted guilty refused to identify themselves, or argue the case that OJ was guilty.  Despite that, they continued to talk things over, with most agreeing that the state witnesses were unreliable, especially as Fuhrman took the 5th in regards to planting evidence.  They asked to see the limo driver's testimony, but found that he contradicted himself about several facts, so they discounted his statements. When they voted again after the discussion, everyone was in agreement to acquit.

 

Furman and Vannater were unreliable witnesses from the beginning.  Two detectives race from one crime scene to the other because they want to make sure the victims children are taken care of?  Which is normally the job for CPS, but they were just feeling so generous that they somehow felt they had to do it.  One of the detectives is so concerned about the ex-husband of the victim that he vaults over the fence, wanders around the estate in the dark, and just so happens to find the bloody glove? Their story was bullshit from the very beginning to me.  It is clear that they thought OJ was a suspect, given the couple's history together, and rather than wait to get a warrant, they created probable cause to gain access to his estate.  So listening to this story from Fuhrman and Vannatter, many people can already doubt their testimonies.  If they are lying about that, what else are they lying about? 

 

I think the problem that many people have is that this jury did not give deference to the police and police testimony they way they were "supposed" to.  Given the ubiquity of cell phone cameras now, we have seen that the police routinely lie, about facts both big and small, and other police will also lie and back them up, automatically. It wasn't a huge conspiracy, it was just Tuesday.  The police and crime labs were so used to not being challenged on their veracity and findings that they did not think they were risking anything by lying. I just think the minority communities knew intimately about this tendency even before the cell phones.  But if the case was so low stakes for Fuhrman, why lie about using the N-word in front of the jury?  He already admitted his racist thoughts as a tactic to try to retire early, so he wasn't averse to admitting it under normal circumstances.

 

I don't know why people are so incredulous about the police lying and backing each other up about planting evidence.  We have seen it in cases both big and small. They don't get called out on it, so they don't feel as if they are risking anything.  And the person who violates this "blue wall of silence" gets severely punished for it by his peers. We have seen a huge portion of the crime labs across the country being cited for manufacturing evidence that helps the prosecution.  The defense was able to show that the control vial of Simpson's blood already had DNA from Ron and Nicole in it. That the bloody sock had preservatives that only come from a crime lab. That a vial of his blood was left with a detective who did not logged it in immediately, but instead went to both crime scenes. That the amount of blood taken from OJ was somehow "mislogged" and some of it was missing.  Or as the defense DNA witness said, "If you find a cockroach in a bowl of spaghetti, you don't look for another cockroach before you throw out the whole bowl of spaghetti."  The jury threw the whole bowl out, which I think was the correct thing to do.  OJ might have done it. Some of the evidence might have been perfectly valid. But which evidence?  Once an agent from the state has to take the 5th on planting evidence, pretty much everything is in doubt after that.  They didn't need to deliberate or sort through evidence once you are aware of that, you can't trust the case that the prosecution has put on. 

 

Or to put to simply, if you want to win a murder case, don't have state representatives admit to planting evidence.  Especially if the entire theory of the defense is that the state has planted evidence.  Everything else is just handwaving.

[Apprentice79]

Ito may have come off as over his head and something of a shmuck on occasion, but yes, he would have kept sending them back for more deliberation. He knew as well as anyone else how much money the county had spent on the trial, and also how much worse the situation likely would be with a hung jury. Even best case he would have insisted on a few weeks deliberation, I'd bet, and the reaction to the eventual hung jury would have been even more "then why did LA county waste all that time and money?"  And yeah... Black Power Salute Guy (that was real) would have made their lives hell for those few weeks too.

 

Want more on Black Power Salute Guy?  Well he's kind of evidence that however sympathetic we want to be to Marcia Clark and the Prosecutor's office as human beings, they actually WERE incompetent. His name is Lionel Cryer and he was an actual, literal ex-Black Panther. And they left him on the Jury. And it wasn't because the Prosecution had run out of peremptory challenges they could make for jurors. They had several of those left over unused.

 

Cryer of course puts a different spin on things. He claims it was all about a lack of evidence, "reasonable doubt" and a bad prosecution: https://www.eurweb.com/2016/04/meet-real-juror-who-gave-o-j-the-black-power-salute/

 

There are at this point dozens, maybe hundreds of interviews with these jurors out there now actually. They're all over the board with how they currently talk about the situation. Some claim if they'd had the evidence as presented in the civil trial they might have voted guilty. Whether we believe them or not on that is hard to say, but I suspect Lionel Cryer would never have voted guilty no matter what, whether he'll admit it or not.

I just wanted to say that the Black power salute has never had the racist connotation as the Heil Hitler salute that was used by the Nazis in World War II and the neo Nazis of today. Plus, the Black Panthers were never in the same league as the Ku Klux Klan who terrorized and murdered many Black people. The KKK still exists in different forms in the country. Whereas the Black Panther Party no longer exists..

 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country" and he supervised an extensive program of surveillance, infiltration, perjury, police harassment, and many other tactics designed to undermine Panther leadership, incriminate party members, discredit and criminalize the Party, and drain the organization of resources and manpower. The program was also accused of using assassination against Black Panther members.

 

At its inception, the Black Panther Party's core practice was its armed citizens' patrols to monitor the behavior of police officers and challenge police brutality in Oakland, California. In 1969, community social programs became a core activity of party members. The Black Panther Party instituted a variety of community social programs, most extensively the Free Breakfast for Children Programs, and community health clinics. They did alot of good for Black people in need and to encourage Black people to become self-sufficient and to build their own communities around the country.  Black people felt safe  from the police in the communities that had Black panthers patrolling in them.They were militant in their demeanor to intimidate those who meant to harm Black people, but, they never kidnapped, terrorized, lynched and murdered white people. It is too bad we cannot say the same thing for the KKK and other neo-nazi groups that still exist in the United States...The government made sure to destroy the Black Panther Party through dubious means. Yet, Nothing has ever been done to eradicate White supremacist groups  from our land, I wonder why..I leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions...

Edited April 8, 2016 by Apprentice79

[psychoticstate]

I watched both videos that Kromm posted on my iPad and besides the amazement that the female juror supposedly said "Everybody's got blood!"  (!!!!!!) I noticed that in both clips it was incorrectly stated that Simpson was found innocent.

 

He was not.  He was found not guilty, which is not the same thing.  

[Kromm]

I just wanted to say that the Black power salute has never had the racist connotation as the Heil Hitler salute that was used by the Nazis in World War II and the neo Nazis of today. Plus, the Black Panthers were never in the same league as the Ku Klux Klan who terrorized and murdered many Black people. The KKK still exists in different forms in the country. Whereas the Black Panther Party no longer exists..

 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country" and he supervised an extensive program of surveillance, infiltration, perjury, police harassment, and many other tactics designed to undermine Panther leadership, incriminate party members, discredit and criminalize the Party, and drain the organization of resources and manpower. The program was also accused of using assassination against Black Panther members.

 

At its inception, the Black Panther Party's core practice was its armed citizens' patrols to monitor the behavior of police officers and challenge police brutality in Oakland, California. In 1969, community social programs became a core activity of party members. The Black Panther Party instituted a variety of community social programs, most extensively the Free Breakfast for Children Programs, and community health clinics. They did alot of good for Black people in need and to encourage Black people to become self-sufficient and to build their own communities around the country.  Black people felt safe  from the police in the communities that had Black panthers patrolling in them.They were militant in their demeanor to intimidate those who meant to harm Black people, but, they never kidnapped, terrorized, lynched and murdered white people. It is too bad we cannot say the same thing for the KKK and other neo-nazi groups that still exist in the United States...The government made sure to destroy the Black Panther Party through dubious means. Yet, Nothing has ever been done to eradicate White supremacist groups  from our land, I wonder why..I leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions...

Nobody's saying the Black Panthers were racist. What this is about is that they were absolutely committed to a viewpoint, to a hardline, that made a bias clear in a juror. With that bias he never should have been on that jury, since even from Day 1 it was clear that race would figure into the case. 

 

People can have biases for good reason, by the way. "Bias" is not a judgment, actually--it's just a factual statement about if someone can be objective. A Black Panther was never going to be objective about the LAPD, or likely even about a famous black man being charged with a crime (particularly one with white victims). Morally there may indeed be plenty of sociological justifications for that bias, and even for how it caused this person to think and act. Legally is another matter entirely. Not that his actual bias is illegal either--it's just that it was the job of the prosecution to eliminate that bias from the jury and they failed miserably.

Edited April 8, 2016 by Kromm

[txhorns79]

Or to put to simply, if you want to win a murder case, don't have state representatives admit to planting evidence.  Especially if the entire theory of the defense is that the state has planted evidence.  Everything else is just handwaving.

 

Furhman didn't admit he planted evidence in this case.  He took the Fifth to a more general question.  Though you are right on one thing.  If people are determined to believe in a conspiracy, nothing will sway them, regardless of the evidence.   

[CeeBeeGee]

I just wanted to say that the Black power salute has never had the racist connotation as the Heil Hitler salute that was used by the Nazis in World War II and the neo Nazis of today. Plus, the Black Panthers were never in the same league as the Ku Klux Klan who terrorized and murdered many Black people. The KKK still exists in different forms in the country. Whereas the Black Panther no longer exists..

 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country" and he supervised an extensive program of surveillance, infiltration, perjury, police harassment, and many other tactics designed to undermine Panther leadership, incriminate party members, discredit and criminalize the Party, and drain the organization of resources and manpower. The program was also accused of using assassination against Black Panther members.

 

At its inception, the Black Panther Party's core practice was its armed citizens' patrols to monitor the behavior of police officers and challenge police brutality in Oakland, California. In 1969, community social programs became a core activity of party members. The Black Panther Party instituted a variety of community social programs, most extensively the Free Breakfast for Children Programs, and community health clinics. They did alot of good for Black people in need and to encourage Black people to become self-sufficient and to build their own communities around the country. They were form initially to combat police brutality in Oakland California and to monitor  police officers who patrolled Black communities...They were militant in their demeanor to intimidate those who meant to harm Black people, but, they never kidnapped, terrorized, lynched and murdered white people. It is too bad we cannot say the same thing for the KKK and other neo-nazi groups that still exist in the United States...The government made sure to destroy the Black Panther Party through dubious means. Yet, Nothing has ever been done to eradicate White supremacist groups  from our land, I wonder why..I leave it up to you to draw your own conclusions...

 

Yes, the Panthers were not really the black analogue to the KKK--as you say, they performed many non-political functions (free breakfasts being perhaps the most well-known) and yes, Hoover's COINTELPRO was an egregious example of taxpayer resources being used to spy, and worse, on citizens and any organization Hoover found suspicious. (Although to be fair, COINTELPRO also went after the Klan.) Side note: The absolute worst was the cold-blooded murder of Fred Hampton. The local Chicago chapter of the BPP had been infiltrated and the guy dosed Hampton with a bunch of barbiturates. After he passed out, CPD busted down the door and just shot him. It's horrifying.

 

That said, giving the BPP salute after a verdict that came almost immediately--indicating little or no deliberation for an eight month trial--is shockingly inappropriate. He might as well have flipped off the Goldmans.

[deerstalker]

Furhman didn't admit he planted evidence in this case.  He took the Fifth to a more general question.  Though you are right on one thing.  If people are determined to believe in a conspiracy, nothing will sway them, regardless of the evidence.   

 

Fuhrman took the 5th when he was asked whether or not he ever planted evidence.  He also took the 5th when he was asked whether he planted evidence in this case. If, as the prosecution, your police officers can't say an unequivocal "NO!" to either question while on the stand, plan on losing the case.  Your witness has just created enough reasonable doubt to drive a truck through.  Would anyone really want it any other way?

[txhorns79]

Fuhrman took the 5th when he was asked whether or not he ever planted evidence.  He also took the 5th when he was asked whether he planted evidence in this case. If, as the prosecution, your police officers can't say an unequivocal "NO!" to either question while on the stand, plan on losing the case.  Your witness has just created enough reasonable doubt to drive a truck through.  Would anyone really want it any other way?

 

If you have a jury willing to ignore the entirety of an eight month long case based on someone taking the Fifth, then you have a bad Judge who didn't instruct the jury properly, or a bad jury who doesn't really care what the actual evidence was.   

 

As I said, if you have people who are committed to their conspiracy theory version of events, nothing is going to sway them, regardless of the evidence. 

Edited April 8, 2016 by txhorns79

[Apprentice79]

Yes, the Panthers were not really the black analogue to the KKK--as you say, they performed many non-political functions (free breakfasts being perhaps the most well-known) and yes, Hoover's COINTELPRO was an egregious example of taxpayer resources being used to spy, and worse, on citizens and any organization Hoover found suspicious. (Although to be fair, COINTELPRO also went after the Klan.) Side note: The absolute worst was the cold-blooded murder of Fred Hampton. The local Chicago chapter of the BPP had been infiltrated and the guy dosed Hampton with a bunch of barbiturates. After he passed out, CPD busted down the door and just shot him. It's horrifying.

 

That said, giving the BPP salute after a verdict that came almost immediately--indicating little or no deliberation for an eight month trial--is shockingly inappropriate. He might as well have flipped off the Goldmans.

I understand and I agree that it was inappropriate for him to do that and it was insensitive to the victims' families. 

[psychoticstate]

I think the defense did a really good job of showing that the DNA evidence did not matter.  "Garbage in, garbage out."  If the police and crime labs are corrupt and incompetent, how can anyone rely on them for accuracy in results?  So I think most of the jury understood the gist of DNA just fine, but thought that the evidence was planted and/or corrupted, so it would always show what the prosecution wanted it to show.

 

The interview with the juror that I read said the initial vote was 10-2 to acquit.  The two people who voted guilty refused to identify themselves, or argue the case that OJ was guilty.  Despite that, they continued to talk things over, with most agreeing that the state witnesses were unreliable, especially as Fuhrman took the 5th in regards to planting evidence.  They asked to see the limo driver's testimony, but found that he contradicted himself about several facts, so they discounted his statements. When they voted again after the discussion, everyone was in agreement to acquit.

 

Furman and Vannater were unreliable witnesses from the beginning.  Two detectives race from one crime scene to the other because they want to make sure the victims children are taken care of?  Which is normally the job for CPS, but they were just feeling so generous that they somehow felt they had to do it.  One of the detectives is so concerned about the ex-husband of the victim that he vaults over the fence, wanders around the estate in the dark, and just so happens to find the bloody glove? Their story was bullshit from the very beginning to me.  It is clear that they thought OJ was a suspect, given the couple's history together, and rather than wait to get a warrant, they created probable cause to gain access to his estate.  So listening to this story from Fuhrman and Vannatter, many people can already doubt their testimonies.  If they are lying about that, what else are they lying about? 

 

I think the problem that many people have is that this jury did not give deference to the police and police testimony they way they were "supposed" to.  Given the ubiquity of cell phone cameras now, we have seen that the police routinely lie, about facts both big and small, and other police will also lie and back them up, automatically. It wasn't a huge conspiracy, it was just Tuesday.  The police and crime labs were so used to not being challenged on their veracity and findings that they did not think they were risking anything by lying. I just think the minority communities knew intimately about this tendency even before the cell phones.  But if the case was so low stakes for Fuhrman, why lie about using the N-word in front of the jury?  He already admitted his racist thoughts as a tactic to try to retire early, so he wasn't averse to admitting it under normal circumstances.

 

I don't know why people are so incredulous about the police lying and backing each other up about planting evidence.  We have seen it in cases both big and small. They don't get called out on it, so they don't feel as if they are risking anything.  And the person who violates this "blue wall of silence" gets severely punished for it by his peers. We have seen a huge portion of the crime labs across the country being cited for manufacturing evidence that helps the prosecution.  The defense was able to show that the control vial of Simpson's blood already had DNA from Ron and Nicole in it. That the bloody sock had preservatives that only come from a crime lab. That a vial of his blood was left with a detective who did not logged it in immediately, but instead went to both crime scenes. That the amount of blood taken from OJ was somehow "mislogged" and some of it was missing.  Or as the defense DNA witness said, "If you find a cockroach in a bowl of spaghetti, you don't look for another cockroach before you throw out the whole bowl of spaghetti."  The jury threw the whole bowl out, which I think was the correct thing to do.  OJ might have done it. Some of the evidence might have been perfectly valid. But which evidence?  Once an agent from the state has to take the 5th on planting evidence, pretty much everything is in doubt after that.  They didn't need to deliberate or sort through evidence once you are aware of that, you can't trust the case that the prosecution has put on. 

 

Or to put to simply, if you want to win a murder case, don't have state representatives admit to planting evidence.  Especially if the entire theory of the defense is that the state has planted evidence.  Everything else is just handwaving.

 

The theory behind "garbage in, garbage out" suggests that poor quality is involved so I'm not sure that quote really applies here.  I understand what Dr. Lee (I think he said it?) was trying to imply but it's never been argued that the DNA samples were poor or they weren't Simpson's (or Nicole's or Ron's.)   However, I do agree that the defense got the jury to believe that the DNA, regardless of what it said, did not matter which is probably one reason they discounted it completely (the other being they did not understand it.) 

 

If the evidence was planted, sure, it would match Simpson.  But go back and read my post further up on this page about how difficult it would have been for Fuhrman (or really any other detective) to do that.  The defense only suggested that it could have happened.  I could have driven to Brentwood that night and slaughtered Ron and Nicole. It could have happened.  But there was no evidence that I did, just as there was no concrete evidence - - only speculation - - that evidence was planted. 

 

I could be wrong here but I thought one juror did identify herself as being one of the guilty votes; only the second person did not come forward. Regardless, there couldn't have been much debate about any merits of the case within 2 hours - - not for a case that lasted as many months and had as much evidence as this one.  Two hours is an insult and travesty, whether they had voted to acquit or convict.

 

I don't think the jury was expected to give "deference" to the police testimony but they were supposed to be open to the testimony and then form their opinions.  I don't think they were.  They doubted every state witness, even someone as unbiased as Alan Park.   

 

I'm not incredulous about police lying, I'm just saying I don't think it happened in this case.  The police had been deferential to Simpson for years.  That could explain why Vannatter thought it was a good idea to notify Simpson about Nicole's murder.  And Simpson was a celebrity - - celebrities are treated differently than the rest of us average folks.  I just don't think Vannatter (and Lange and/or Fuhrman) immediately thought that Nicole being butchered by who knows for whatever reason, along with whoever this dead guy was,  gave them the perfect opportunity to finally frame Simpson . . . after all these years.  If they had wanted to go after him, they had plenty of opportunities over the years of domestic violence calls.  They didn't do it then, I don't think they did it here.

 

Even if the jury chose to disregard a portion (or all) of the physical evidence, there was still so much circumstantial evidence (granted, some of which the state chose not to present) - - all of it pointing to O.J. Simpson and O.J. Simpson alone.

 

It's interesting to me that when you compare the Laci Peterson case, Scott Peterson was convicted and sentenced to death on circumstantial evidence.  There was no physical evidence.  No murder weapon.  No absolute cause of death.  No blood evidence.  No confession.  But when you start lining up the blocks of an affair, a seemingly unhappy husband, some of his statements, the fact he went boating in the Bay that morning, you've built a bridge and that jury was able to connect the dots and realize it wasn't reasonable to assume that anyone else murdered Laci and her unborn baby.  The blocks laid out in this case showed very clearly that only O.J. Simpson could have murdered Ron and Nicole and it wasn't reasonable to suggest anyone else.

[psychoticstate]

Fuhrman took the 5th when he was asked whether or not he ever planted evidence.  He also took the 5th when he was asked whether he planted evidence in this case. If, as the prosecution, your police officers can't say an unequivocal "NO!" to either question while on the stand, plan on losing the case.  Your witness has just created enough reasonable doubt to drive a truck through.  Would anyone really want it any other way?

 

Taking the Fifth is not an admission of guilt.  Self-incrimination is not the same as admitting guilt.  Self-incrimination could lead to evidence being used against you either fairly or unfairly.  

 

So Fuhrman's pleading the Fifth does not equate to his planting evidence or doing anything wrong in this case.

[Umbelina]

If the real Chris Darden was like the TV Chris Darden, then he should have been lead prosecutor on that case, perhaps he could have used the "race card" in a different way, that OJ didn't deserve black people's loyalty.

 

I loved your post, but this one sentence I had to comment on.  I don't think Chris Darden was, at that time, qualified to be "lead" on this trial.  He was barely experienced enough to end up in the 2nd chair, and really, that was only because of the other attorney's heart problems.

 

Also, for the record, Darden and his family had death threats from nearly the first day.  His daughter blogged about some of those.

 

Some really good posts today.  There IS a thread here about the real case, not the finale of a TV show, and it has a lot of information, just FYI.

 

A jury saying "hung" doesn't end things.  I have no idea how much longer they would have been told to go back, but as I said earlier, in a BS civil case they kept my hung jury for about another week of deliberations.  I can't imagine the tension in that jury room.  Most of the jury had their bags packed the night before, some had arranged a trip to Las Vegas (oh, those lovely conjugal visits) the next day.  I think the best interviews, or at least the ones a bit closer to the truth are from the dismissed jurors, or the juror's statements right after the verdict, before they had time to spin things.

[Neurochick]

I don't know about a judge but individuals who go to school to learn the law and procedure and then their careers are serving on juries.  That way things like reasonable doubt would not be misinterpreted or issues, as in this case, where at least one jury member stated they did not understand the DNA evidence and so they tossed it out and did not use it in their deliberations.   That alone shows me this jury was not competent to sit on this case.  If they didn't understand, they should have sent a note to Ito that said they did not understand and ask for clarification.  You don't just say "I don't get it, I don't want to get it and so I don't care about that stuff."   Imagine that in a rape case or rape/murder where DNA is the absolute crux of the case.  I wouldn't want a jury of people who didn't understand a conclusive DNA match.

 

Here's what gets me about this whole thing.  For decades when juries were all white, all male, no one ever said, "oh, the jury system doesn't work."  But it seems that when a trial went in the opposite direction, opposite from what white people wanted then people want to throw out the jury it's all "the jury system doesn't work."  I never heard this after Simi Valley.  

[LADreamr]

I agree with most of your post, except that I heard a lot of complaints after Simi Valley, and it was exactly the rich and whiteness that they objected to. Just wanted to bring this up because I've seen this assertion a few times now. You're still right about the crappiness of the situation, though.

[Kromm]

Here's what gets me about this whole thing.  For decades when juries were all white, all male, no one ever said, "oh, the jury system doesn't work."  

PLENTY of people said "oh, the jury system doesn't work." What didn't happen was it being widely reported on, or lets face it, most white people hearing and acknowledging that opinion as valid.

 

Of course the other side of the coin is that those opinions were often most publicly stoked/repeated in rhetoric by people like Al Sharpton or Louis Farakahn, where there were plenty of other reasons for people to not want to pay attention to the facts because of who put themselves square in front of a crowd in front of a podium.  These days, you can get far wider variety of public figures speaking about issues like that, but back then your only pundits were rabblerousers, who's own hands were not that clean.

[Neurochick]

PLENTY of people said "oh, the jury system doesn't work." What didn't happen was it being widely reported on, or lets face it, most white people hearing and acknowledging that opinion as valid.

 

Of course the other side of the coin is that those opinions were often most publicly stoked/repeated in rhetoric by people like Al Sharpton or Louis Farakahn, where there were plenty of other reasons for people to not want to pay attention to the facts because of who put themselves square in front of a crowd in front of a podium.  These days, you can get far wider variety of public figures speaking about issues like that, but back then your only pundits were rabblerousers, who's own hands were not that clean.

 

Well, Simi Valley was only two or three years before the OJ jury.  I really wonder about the sanity of people who can watch a video of a man getting the shit kicked out of him by the police and think, "that's okay."  As I said in an earlier post, when I first saw THAT video of Rodney King getting beat up by the police, I thought it was from South Africa.  I never thought shit like that could happen in America, post-1965.

[Umbelina]

Everyone I knew was stunned and horrified by that jury's decision about Rodney King.  There were tons of articles written about how wrong and unjust and ridiculous that decision was.  Most of those articles are still up on the web.