S01.E10: The Verdict

[SFoster21]

I have always felt worse for the Goldman family. Their son had nothing to do with OJ, Nicole or their fucked up relationship. Ron Goldman was just working, doing his job, just returning a pair of glasses; I believe he was supposed to go out later with friends, when he walked in on the scene and paid with his life.

But like I said before, trials in this country are not about justice and sometimes I think that sucks, but other times I don't.

Sad testimony at the trial: his friend and co-worker calling his beeper that night. Like Sydney's call home.

[ketose]

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

 

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

[psychoticstate]

You are loading your premises and jumping to various conclusions.

 

There is no way of knowing that the random crappy person "waited till her children were in the house." Or that s/he knew Nicole's routine involved a morning run. Or that Nicole was the primary target rather than Ron. Or that stabbing was necessarily "personal." There are undoubtedly hundreds of stabbings across the country each year that fairly brutal are done by strangers.

 

All of which is not to say I think that OJ is innocent. I do not. I do agree that the prosecution did a terrible job. They thought that domestic violence + DNA equals conviction. They were wrong.

 

They did not, for whatever reason, introduce enough of what I think to be the hardest to debunk evidence of OJ's guilt: OJ's own actions and statements.

 

Even with the soft questioning that was done of him, OJ was contradictory and nonsensical in his answers as to what he was doing and saying along the time of the murders. I remember off the top of my head the notion of when he got the cut on his hand, for example.

 

Then there was the slow speed chase and the suicide note -- it is IMO clear evidence of guilt.

 

The domestic violence stuff you can handwave a little (especially 20 years ago when DV wasn't taken as seriously as it is now) as disconnected from the killing.

 

The DNA you can point to the incompetence and inconsistencies with how the evidence was handled and you can make the claim that the LAPD generally -- and the star detective in Fuhrman in this case -- is racially prejudiced and is willing to plant evidence to implicate black people.

 

You can't make the claim that anyone is responsible for the actions that OJ did but OJ himself, and those actions made him look guilty as hell.

 

I'm not quite sure what "loading your premises" means.

 

In any event, NIcole's injuries and the crime scene being her residence suggest that she was the intended target.  Her wounds were very precise, delivered to intentionally kill as quietly and mercilessly as possible.  

 

I think the random person theory can be discounted.  Assuming that the murders were committed over a drug burn, I would think that a professional hit or a hit done by someone with the drug motive would be much cleaner.  In other words, done with no other witnesses and perhaps with a gunshot.  Certainly not the frenzied attack that Ron sustained, leaving behind a cap and glove, coins in the walkway and blood drops.  

 

Stabbing IS a very personal means of killing someone - - you have to get up close and personal in order to do so.  Either the perp has rage against the person and/or wants that close contact.  Some psychologists have opined that stabbing is a substitution for a sexual act.  (Read Susan Atkins' grand jury testimony on the killing of Sharon Tate, where she said the stabbing was like an orgasm or sexual release.) 

 

Regardless, I do agree that Simpson's actions were those of a guilty person.

Sad testimony at the trial: his friend and co-worker calling his beeper that night. Like Sydney's call home.

 

Very true.  Sydney's call to her mother was unbearable.

 

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

 

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

 

Occam's Razor is a good example here.  The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

[deerstalker]

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Bama]

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

 

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

[MargotWendice]

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

Yes! It has confirmed my thought that if I am ever charged with a crime I am going before a judge. No jury.

[Chaos Theory]

I am not going debate the merits of the prosecution case except to say I have zero doubt that OJ was guilty and the defense got him off by turning a logical case into an emotional one. Oh could have stood in the courtroom and said he did it and the jury would have still aquitted him by that point. It was pure emotion not evidence or the lack of it.

Years later we can debate whether there was enough evidence to convict him but back then Clark could have had a written confession and it wouldn't have mattered.

[TVHappy9463]

Well done show. Like many on this forum, I lived this, and too see it this way was incredible.  This has been such a great example of excellent TV, writing, directing all the acting. My heart still breaks for the Browns, The Goldman's and Sydney and Justin.  

[deerstalker]

I am not going debate the merits of the prosecution case except to say I have zero doubt that OJ was guilty and the defense got him off by turning a logical case into an emotional one. Oh could have stood in the courtroom and said he did it and the jury would have still aquitted him by that point. It was pure emotion not evidence or the lack of it.

Years later we can debate whether there was enough evidence to convict him but back then Clark could have had a written confession and it wouldn't have mattered.

 

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

[whiporee]

 

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

 

I agree. Because I get the feeling a lot of people think it means "in all likelihood" or "the most logical answer." 

 

Law.com  says this: part of jury instructions in all criminal trials, in which the jurors are told that they can only find the defendant guilty if they are convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" of his or her guilt. Sometimes referred to as "to a moral certainty," the phrase is fraught with uncertainty as to meaning, but try: "you better be damned sure."

 

I think the fact that Furhman took the Fifth when asked about planting evidence, and that he took the Fifth when asked whether he had lied on the stand, the fact that the gloves did not appear to fit, the fact that there wasn't more blood, the fact that there was no murder weapon found, the fact that the murder scene was shown to be bungled all could combine to make someone not be damned sure. 

 

Another defintion is: This means that the proposition, scenario, or facts presented by the prosecution must be proven to the jury to the extent that there could be no “reasonable doubt” in the mind of a “reasonable person” that the defendant is guilty. If, after all evidence and testimony have been presented, even a small doubt affects any member of the jury’s belief that the defendant is guilty, the burden of proof has not been met.

 

Again, I think those hurdles were not cleared high enough to condemn a jury who felt that doubt existed. 

 

I realize that other reasonable minds might disagree. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by whiporee

[FuriousStyles]

It won't. Game of Thrones and The Americans will be entered in the Drama Series categories, while this show falls into the Miniseries/TV Movie categories. Its main competition will probably the too-similarly named American Crime and American Horror Story: Hotel...and just typing those two shows out now made me realize how hilarious it's going to be when the Outstanding Miniseries or TV Movie result is read.

I hope they let Steve Harvey present the award. ;)

Finally got a chance to watch the finale. First off, I cant believe its been 10 weeks. This miniseries was fantastic from start to finish. Its a shame the basis of it stems from the murder of 2 people, but damn it was a great piece of art.

I must commend Courtney Vance on his work as Johnnie Cochran. He did a great job throughout but I believe he saved his best for last. I have never watched Cochran's closing arguments (other than the "if it doesnt fit" snip) but if Cochran was half as animated and passionate as Vance was then yeah, the prosection didnt stand a chance (though according to many they never did, but whatever).

Wasnt surprised Cochran received death threats. 20 years later, people are practically dancing on his grave glad that he died of cancer. I can only imagine the hatred at that time, when all he did was the job he was paid handsomely to do.

Did they really play hot potato with the verdict forms for so long like they did? The wait for everyone not just OJ must have been agonizing. My God.

Love love love the real life footage of the reactions from the public. And the split screen inside the courtroom. RK did genuinely look stunned.

One of the biggest reasons I wanted to watch this was to see the behind the scenes stuff. How did the prosecution react after the glove stuff. The infighting between the Dream Team. In this episode, it was what happened after the verdict. Marcia broke my heart talking about how ashamed she was. Man what a tought tough thing to go through.

[Umbelina]

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

One juror said that. 

 

Seriously though, what do you expect them to say?  "Yeah, we didn't do our jobs, we just wanted to go home, it was about time a black guy got off, we stuck it to the man, we were sick of sequestration?" 

 

Anyway, this stuff, about the case, not the show, really does belong in the other thread.

[Aethera]

Hi guys. I'm still seeing too many opinions stated as fact - which tends to lead to arguments. Just put "I think" or "I believe" at the start of things that are not actually facts, and watch the miracle transformation of reactions! Act now, and I'll throw in "From my perspective" and "In my opinion" absolutely free! Just pay shipping and handling! (Now there's a 90s phrase for you.)

[ganesh]

American Crime Story should have been called American Tragedy. I didn't realize that the deliberations were so short. I can't believe OJ got to stand up and "give a statement" either! I don't remember that. 

 

If the jurors for real were all like "I will never believe he did it" for real, then they're idiots. It's one thing to say "well, they didn't prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt." 

 

I don't think I would have caved at that point and switched to not guilty. I can't imagine. Just one juror, *one* had to hang on their convictions.

 

 

I am not going debate the merits of the prosecution case except to say I have zero doubt that OJ was guilty and the defense got him off by turning a logical case into an emotional one.

 

 

 

 

 

Even at the end, I think they might have had the chance if Clark and Darden went with the emotional angle. They had Goldman right there in the courtroom pouring out emotion left and right. 

 

Oprah wasn't buying it for sure. 

 

I don't think I've ever seen a tv show with such uncanny casting for so many roles. 

 

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

 

I'm having a tough time seeing how 1 in 25 billion isn't past reasonable doubt either.

[Finnegan]

Excellent points, Deerstalker. The prosecution's case rested on physical evidence that was not only unreliable in itself (contaminated blood samples, glove that didn't fit) but was collected and analyzed by a police force that had proven itself, over and over, to be corrupt and untrustworthy in investigations. Planting evidence and lying didn't even need to be part of a racial vendetta against OJ, just "another day at the office" for cops and techs. That said, Mark Fuhrman's testimony spoke volumes about how racism was institutionalized in the LAPD. I can't blame Johnny Cochrane for being happy that the Furhman tapes and perjury brought that larger injustice to light.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Finnegan

[Simon Boccanegra]

OJ did not have to provide alternatives to who did it and why they might have done so.  It is on the state to show that it was OJ that committed the crime.

 

Okay, let's go with that a minute. If you're accused of murder, or you're defending someone who is, and you have a plausible alternative explanation, you present it. I can't imagine there has ever been a case in which someone said, "I know what really happened, but I'm not saying, because it isn't up to me/my client to prove my/his innocence."  

 

In fact, Johnnie Cochran, Lee Bailey, and other members of the defense did try to divert suspicion to parties other than OJ Simpson...very feebly, because how else was it going to go, with their client having committed the murders? Don't take my word for it: look at Cochran's opening statement, in which he referred to Mary Anne Gerchas as a "very interesting lady" who was going to tell the jury about four gentlemen, two Latino and two Caucasian, with knit caps on their heads, skulking around in the Bundy area prior to the murders. Cochran's description of Ms. Gerchas as "very interesting" was a whopper of an understatement, but she wasn't interesting in a way that would have helped the defense. The jury never heard a word from her, because Cochran wasn't dumb enough to follow through with putting her on the stand. We also heard about "the world of Faye Resnick," and about Colombian drug lords.  

 

They never pursued any of this very vigorously; they either tried to get it in through the back door or they abandoned it entirely (as in the case of Gerchas, who would have been sub-Rosa Lopez in witness quality). They didn't really have much: whispers, speculation, fantasy, smokescreens, slander, obfuscation. Not much in the way of facts, and not much to counter the circumstantial and physical evidence: Nicole's statements to friends and in her diaries; the cuts on Simpson; the fact that the one and only hour of that day his whereabouts could not be accounted for was the hour of the murders; the blood, hair, and fiber evidence; his behavior after the murders. All of it pointing one way.  

 

When substantially the same defense was presented in the civil trial, with a no-nonsense judge and a smarter jury, it crumbled. Of course, Petrocelli, et al. also had the gift of Simpson being compelled to speak on his behalf, which never goes well for him.  

Edited April 7, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[ganesh]

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

[SinInTheCamp]

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

One of the cases on which I served as juror was a criminal case, and deliberations went like this: We selected a foreperson, took a vote to see where everyone was at, and found that we were all unanimously in favor of a guilty verdict. The foreperson was ready to call for the jury forms; this had taken all of five minutes. There was nothing to deliberate. I was the one who earned the ire of other jurors for "wasting time" when I argued for reviewing the finer points of the case because, as I noted, I'd want my jury to do the same for me if I were in the defendent's chair. I think I convinced them to stay for a total of 30 minutes. So I can see a 4-hour verdict (as shocking as it may seem) if the two jurors leaning toward guilty were easily swayed in the other direction.

[Olive]

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

 

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

Reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence are terms that are horribly misunderstood by many.  I think juries should be educated on them either before being sworn in or before deliberations.  

 

I am surprised Paula Barbieri wasn't shown more in this series.  From her account, she rushed right back to OJ's side after the murders and was very much a part of each and every meeting and decision made.  Also, she was with him when he was released for the after party and for the Star magazine photo shoot.  She was disgusted by his actions post acquittal and that's when she left for good.  According to her anyway.

[LeapDayBaby]

While this was an all-around excellent finale, the scenes that resonated most with me were those showing footage of people across the country -- including slender Oprah! -- awaiting the verdict. I was hugely pregnant by the end of the trial, with the running joke being that it was a tossup as to which would arrive first: my child, or the decision in the OJ trial (my son was born a few days after the verdict). I was working for a large regional bank at the time, and my boss brought a radio into the office so we could listen to the proceedings. We learned later that the bank's call center, staffed by about 100 people, had a huge drop-off in incoming calls in the minutes prior to the reading of the verdict, with not a single call for nearly five minutes. It was a phenomenon that was unmatched until midmorning on September 11, 2001.

 

Emmys all around for the cast, and I'm hoping that every one of them mentions Nicole and Ron in their acceptance speeches.

[deerstalker]

Okay, let's go with that a minute. If you're accused of murder, or you're defending someone who is, and you have a plausible alternative explanation, you present it. I can't imagine there has ever been a case in which someone said, "I know what really happened, but I'm not saying, because it isn't up to me/my client to prove my/his innocence."

 

What if you don't have a plausible alternative explanation?  Sometimes the only defense is, "well, it wasn't me!"  I'm thinking about the Chandra Levy case, where much hay was made about the Congressman that she had an affair with before she disappeared.  The only thing he had going was, he didn't know what happened to her, but he had nothing to do with it.  Her body was found years later off the running trail, and a man with a history of attacking women along this trail was implicated.  But what if the DC police had taken it upon themselves to make sure that the Congressman, whom everyone was quite sure was guilty, paid for his crimes? Or the Central Park 5, who also had no plausible theory about who might have attacked the jogger, but only knew that it wasn't them?  This is why the burden of proof is on the state to prove that defendant actually did do t, rather than the defendant having to prove that he is innocent of the crime.

 

When substantially the same defense was presented in the civil trial, with a no-nonsense judge and a smarter jury, it crumbled. Of course, Petrocelli, et al. also had the gift of Simpson being compelled to speak on his behalf, which never goes well for him.

 

The burden of proof, and the stakes are much, much lower in a civil trial.  In a civil trial, it is not a "beyond a reasonable doubt", but merely a "preponderance of the evidence", basically just slightly more likely than not.  I don't think the two trials are comparable at all.  The plaintiffs also had the benefit of public sentiment being strongly against OJ by that time, the judge ruled that Fuhrman did not have to testify, and he excluded a lot of the evidence showing that the evidence was mishandled, ruling it "too speculative."  It was not substantially the same defense, in my opinion, and even if it was, the legal analysis for that defense is not the same.

[Bronzedog]

I would think that being sequestered for a year may have played a role in the two jurors who initially voted guilty to change their votes. Being sequestered for that long is a lot to ask of people. JMO, of course.

[VanillaBeanne]

I know they had to leave a lot out since they are condensing a year long trial into ten hour long episodes, but just want to point out that the show cut out the "more logical - less emotional" points of Cochrane's closing argument, such as the 15 questions for Marcia Clark part. I thought the questions were pretty good.

Also, Scheck also gave closing arguments, focusing on the lack of integrity and chain of custody in collecting and handling evidence. He also relied heavily on Dr Henry Lee's testimony in his closing argument. All of that was left out.

Interestingly enough, it looks like the show did shoot scenes with Dr Henry Lee, but those made the cutting room floor. See the link below and if you go to the actors IMDb page, he has two ACS credits listed. Dr Henry lee's testimony was a significant part of the defense's case, and most pundits agree that Lee was very effective, personable and clear in delivering the message that there was "something wrong" in how the evidence was collected by the LAPD. I think he was as much as a part of the popular lore of the trial as Kato, so I was surprised he was cut.

http://www.thewrap.com/ryan-murphys-oj-simpson-drama-american-crime-story-adds-paul-kim-as-forensics-expert-henry-lee-exclusive/

Edited April 7, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[Simon Boccanegra]

What if you don't have a plausible alternative explanation?  Sometimes the only defense is, "well, it wasn't me!"

 

Which is not a defense that OJ Simpson has been able to make with any authority at any point over the last 22 years.  

 

I'm thinking about the Chandra Levy case, where much hay was made about the Congressman that she had an affair with before she disappeared.  The only thing he had going was, he didn't know what happened to her, but he had nothing to do with it.  Her body was found years later off the running trail, and a man with a history of attacking women along this trail was implicated.  But what if the DC police had taken it upon themselves to make sure that the Congressman, whom everyone was quite sure was guilty, paid for his crimes?

 

To the best of my knowledge, Ms. Levy had no history of calling the police because Gary Condit was beating and threatening her. She did not confide to friends that her greatest fear was that Gary Condit was going to kill her and get away with it. Gary Condit had not made statements in the recent past like "You hung up on me, and you're not going to get away with that, bitch." Levy had not written in a diary about her fears of him. She had not put photographs of her battered face in a safe deposit box with her will shortly before her murder. There was not a mountain of hair, blood, or fiber evidence connecting Gary Condit to her murder. Gary Condit did not have cuts on his hands, sustained the day of her murder, that he was unable to explain. Gary Condit did not get in a vehicle driven by an underling, with cash, a passport, and a disguise, and lead the police on a chase.   

 

So, to me, those are the two cases that aren't remotely comparable.  

 

The plaintiffs also had the benefit of public sentiment being strongly against OJ by that time

 

Public sentiment both against and for Simpson existed in 1994 and 1996. There were people cheering for him in the freeway chase, and there were people two years later who said that maybe someone stole his shoes out of his closet and wore them in commission of the murders. I think you can look around and see that even now he has a vocal cheering section.

 

Both sides in the civil case sought to exclude jurors they perceived as unwilling to listen to the evidence and put aside preconceived notions. That was not solely the defense's boulder to push up the hill.  

 

the judge [...] excluded a lot of the evidence showing that the evidence was mishandled, ruling it "too speculative"

 

Judge Fujisaki was referred to by some as "the anti-Ito," and that goes right to the heart of what I meant when I characterized him as no-nonsense.

 

Dr Henry lee's testimony was a significant part of the defense's case, and most pundits agree that Lee was very effective, personable and clear in delivering the message that there was "something wrong" in how the evidence was collected by the LAPD.

 

That doesn't speak well of the quality of television punditry. What Dr. Lee claimed was a parallel-lines shoe print at the crime scene that did not match the Bruno Maglis was demonstrated to be trowel marks made by workers in the laying of cement. Parallel ines on Goldman's jeans, which he also claimed were a shoe print, were in fact not; they were the result of by a swiping or brushing motion with the sleeve of the ribbed, heavily textured shirt Goldman was wearing. That he missed this conclusion in his examination of the materials was described by an FBI expert as incredible. Lee also made much of bloodstains on a paper bindle with swatches, claiming there should have been no leakage when the swatches had been left out to dry before being packaged. I think he knew there were several non-sinister explanations for that, but being a defense expert, it wasn't up to him to make them.   

 

Although Dr. Lee did testify in the civil trial, and his findings were challenged there as well, he ultimately expressed that he wished he had never gotten involved in the Simpson case.  

Edited April 7, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[VanillaBeanne]

Dr Lee's testimony was more than just the shoe print. He was not your classic hired gun defense expert. first, I have read that he was not paid for his testimony. Second, he was a forensic pathologist for the state of Connecticut, and generally when the testified at trials, he was testifying for the prosecution and not the defense. He testified in clear terms about problems with the blood collection and lab work, such as the LAPD forensics team not handling samples properly, the sock having a wet transfer that could only happen if there was no foot in it, even the antiquated microscopes used by the LAPD, and generally things not adding up. Yes, the prosecution was able to refute Lee's shoe print theory but they did not refute much else. (I'll take your word that his testimony was refuted in the civil trial as I have no desire to read up on the civil trial, but for the criminal trial, which is all I'm arguing about as I believe OJ was guilty but the defense raised sufficient reasonable doubt in the criminal trial, most of Dr Lee's daggers landed and weren't deflected by the prosecution)

And let's not forget that much of the argument that Scheck and Lee laid out in the trial about how unreliable/incompetent/untrained the LAPD forensic team was was validated, in my opinion, by Los Angeles after the trial investing millions in LAPD forensic training, additional personnel and equipment to correct the problems brought to light with its forensic lab during the OJ trial. That was one of the few good outcomes of the trial, so Scheck and Lee should get credit for that.

Edited April 7, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[Kromm]

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

 

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

[Finnegan]

What if you don't have a plausible alternative explanation? Sometimes the only defense is, "well, it wasn't me!" I'm thinking about the Chandra Levy case, where much hay was made about the Congressman that she had an affair with before she disappeared.

This must happen quite a bit, right? Out of all the plausible alternatives I've seen floated out there (and the defence did bring this up in trial), I think that it could be some other spurned lover of Nicole's. We don't know everyone she was dating/had dated and I'm not sure there was any way to really find out. Cochran brought up the candles and "romantic" music in Nicole's home at the time of the murders which is usually understood as him trying to degrade her character by showing she was promiscuous. I saw it less as "the bitch slept around so she deserved it!" than "she was dating a number of unknown people, any of these people might have motive, means and opportunity too." Was there ever any pro-prosecution explanation for the candles and so forth at Bundy during or after trial?

That said, I'm personally convinced it was OJ. I think there was reasonable doubt, so I'm not sure I would call the verdict "injustice"..."unfortunate", perhaps. I think the blame for him walking, however, is not on the jury or the defence (who were doing their jobs) but the LAPD which had run their organization in such a consistently crooked way that at the point OJ came to trial, their investigations were thoroughly suspicious. You simply can't expect justice from a system that was that unjust. With the major credibility problems of the LA justice system, this is exactly what happens: juries distrust evidence, so they set guilty people free. I actually think the defence strategy was brilliant for honing in on this, and it did a lot of good in terms of police reform. Had they not focused on the LAPD and planted-evidence theory, OJ still would have walked *and* there might have been no greater discussion of police corruption.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Finnegan

[Madding crowd]

I think this was an excellent mini-series and the casting was fantastic. I followed the case when it was going on but didn't remember or even know every detail. I would have had a very hard time on a jury where you were almost treated like a prisoner for 8 months. Can you imagine our social media obsessed society today going with out Facebook or iPhones for 8 months? 

 

One thing I thought the show did well-I am 100 % certain OJ did the crime, but I almost felt sad for him in the end. I guess Cuba's performance wasn't bad. I also felt like the country club had no real reason to refuse the reservation to a man who had been acquitted of his charge. By this, I mean sad for the fictional OJ not the real one.

 

When this trial was going on I was a manager at a company and my staff was half black and half white. They all wanted to bring in a TV to watch the verdict so we did. The black employees cheered and the white employees shook their heads, but we were all friends so no one was upset. Later on a couple of my black employees told me they were also sure OJ did it, but didn't think there was enough proof so they couldn't condone a guilty verdict. It did make me think a lot about the case.

 

My most shocking moment: Did Bailey really say "get in the van or I'll tell them you're Jewish" to Shapiro?  What a horrible thing to say. Not sure if they can make Hurricane Katrina this compelling but I will watch for sure.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Madding crowd

[Kromm]

A few late observations.

 

1.) Did Cochrane REALLY accept help from Louis Farrakahn's kooks or was that just another "out of public view" bit of fudgery the show did?

 

2.) I was kind of pissed that one TRUE story from this day, 100% undeniably true because it was all on tape, wasn't included. Go watch the Investigative Discovery OJ documentary. One of the most fascinating things in it is the real footage shot of Marcia Clark abruptly leaving home after she got the call about the early verdict. She's got blood in her eye in it--so much so that she curses a blue streak at the paparazzi stalking her house to get that footage. It's amazing... and they didn't do a version of it here. 

 

3.) I realize some "afterwards" were necessary, but there were about 50% too many of those. As often happens with this kind of thing, each one that went over that point where it got tiresome hurt the total product a bit more, on a sliding scale. By the actual end it was agonizing.

 

4.) The real Oprah footage was interesting though.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Kromm

[ketose]

Yes! It has confirmed my thought that if I am ever charged with a crime I am going before a judge. No jury.

I've always said if I'm innocent, I want a judge. If I'm guilty, I'll take my chances with a jury.

 

One really unpopular opinion of mine is that the cops who plant evidence generally do it to make sure guilty people go to jail. It's a lot easier to frame a guilty person. If you plant evidence and the person is innocent, it could go badly for the cop.

 

The reality is that American jurisprudence was designed to give all the advantages possible to the accused. You are innocent until proven guilty. You are informed of your rights and allowed counsel at the time of an arrest. After a trial, the jury can't just decide you are "probably" or "most likely" guilty. You have to decide that there is no reasonable alternative (black ops teams and alien intervention would be unreasonable) to the defendant's guilt.

 

Arguing the case again is unavoidable. That's why I appreciate the way the show tried to play this out. In the end, it didn't matter if OJ was found guilty or not guilty. All the players were still famous. Lawyer antics made a mockery of the judicial system. The LAPD was laid bare for lousy processes. OJ lost everything anyway. His White community abandoned him. He was found to be responsible in a civil trial. He lost all his stuff and eventually went to jail trying to steal back the crap he had to sell off to pay the Goldmans. 

[Bcharmer]

Did they really play hot potato with the verdict forms for so long like they did? The wait for everyone not just OJ must have been agonizing. My God.

 

I can't even imagine. I don't remember the hot potato stuff, specifically, but I do remember how excruciatingly tense those long minutes felt before the verdict was read. Seemed like it took forever. Truly a nail-biting experience. Then, when the verdict finally came, I swear, I have never been as shocked by anything I've ever seen on TV before, fact or fiction, before or since. Except for maybe watching Jack Ruby shoot Oswald on live television. But I was only 11 then... so I think the OJ verdict was far more shocking to me. I just could not believe it. Rendered me speechless. 

Edited April 7, 2016 by Bcharmer

[Umbelina]

Honestly, I think they shortened it for the TV show.  I'm glad the show included that long wait, because yes, it happened, and if anything, the wait was longer.

[FuriousStyles]

I've always said if I'm innocent, I want a judge. If I'm guilty, I'll take my chances with a jury.

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

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

Edited April 7, 2016 by FuriousStyles

[ketose]

I have another musical note. I was watching the "party" scene at the end and the song playing was "Everybody Everybody." The one hook that played over and over in the song is "sad and free." That so perfectly described what OJ became after the verdict.

 

[Mittengirl]

I know this calls for speculation, but...

If at least one of the "guilty" jurors had refused to change his/her mind, how long do you think they would have made the jury continue to deliberate? I would think that after all the time that had passed they would have had to declare a mistrial pretty quickly in order to insure the physical safety of the holdout/s and the mental safety of all the jurors. I sure would not have felt safe being the one that the other jurors know is responsible for their continued confinement.

[Umbelina]

With Ito, who knows?

 

I was on a hung jury, not sequestered though.  They kept us for a week, even though we told them it was pretty hopelessly hung.  the vote never changed much from 6-6, and occasional juror switched, but then someone else would too, and we'd be back to 6-6 which is where we ended up.  The trial was civil, and the judge later told me it should have never been brought to court.  That cheered me up considerably, since both sides were bullshitting basically, so "hung" was probably the correct decision.

[VCRTracking]

Love this:

 

Matt Zoller Seitz
‏@mattzollerseitz

Just learned F. Lee Bailey's great line in the O.J. finale ("Bob, get in the van or I'll tell 'em you're Jewish!") was a Nathan Lane ad-lib.

 

[FozzyBear]

Excellent points, Deerstalker. The prosecution's case rested on physical evidence that was not only unreliable in itself (contaminated blood samples, blood that didn't fit) but was collected and analyzed by a police force that had proven itself, over and over, to be corrupt and untrustworthy in investigations. Planting evidence and lying didn't even need to be part of a racial vendetta against OJ, just "another day at the office" for cops and techs. That said, Mark Fuhrman's testimony spoke volumes about how racism was institutionalized in the LAPD. I can't blame Johnny Cochrane for being happy that the Furhman tapes and perjury brought that larger injustice to light.

So interesting story: I read an interview with a lawyer (who I think was working on an innocence project, but I don't remember for sure) who was a prosecutor in New Orleans about this time. He was talking about the dangers of letting PD corruption go unchecked. One of the main points that he was emphasizing about why people who aren't involved with the criminal justice system should care about police misconduct both intentional and unintentional is an OJ scenario (i.e. The idea that guilty man will go free). As he said at a certain point you get to a place where PD testimony is worthless because the public doesn't believe them and then it becomes virtually impossible to try a case. He said he went something like a year generally only winning cases when he had independent(civilian) confirmation of PD testimony. Any time he had to rely on PD and PD staff testimony he pretty much lost. As he said, a lot of guilty people went free, but as many times as he tried to express this issue to the higher up he was just told to present the evidence and couldn't get the higher ups to understand that it didn't matter what evidence he presented, enough jurors had had bad experiences with PD that they did not trust the evidence testimony they were hearing. That's how bad PD corruption was in the 1990s in most major cities and that's how bad the conception of PD was at the time. I'm white and even I was like "LAPD frame a black man? *shrug* Yeah, they might pull that shit." Doesn't mean I think they framed OJ, but it wasn't like a crazy thought.

All that to say, I think this show did a great job of really analyzing the not guilty verdict and showing the factors that went into it. There was just a lot that collided in this case from all ends. You can't make this shit up.

[BW Manilowe]

A few late observations.

1.) Did Cochrane REALLY accept help from Louis Farrakahn's kooks or was that just another "out of public view" bit of fudgery the show did?

2.) I was kind of pissed that one TRUE story from this day, 100% undeniably true because it was all on tape, wasn't included. Go watch the Investigative Discovery OJ documentary. One of the most fascinating things in it is the real footage shot of Marcia Clark abruptly leaving home after she got the call about the early verdict. She's got blood in her eye in it--so much so that she curses a blue streak at the paparazzi stalking her house to get that footage. It's amazing... and they didn't do a version of it here.

3.) I realize some "afterwards" were necessary, but there were about 50% too many of those. As often happens with this kind of thing, each one that went over that point where it got tiresome hurt the total product a bit more, on a sliding scale. By the actual end it was agonizing.

4.) The real Oprah footage was interesting though.

As I remember, yes, Cochran did have bodyguards/security people from Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam, at least for part of the trial.

[BooBear]

2.) I was kind of pissed that one TRUE story from this day, 100% undeniably true because it was all on tape, wasn't included. Go watch the Investigative Discovery OJ documentary. One of the most fascinating things in it is the real footage shot of Marcia Clark abruptly leaving home after she got the call about the early verdict. She's got blood in her eye in it--so much so that she curses a blue streak at the paparazzi stalking her house to get that footage. It's amazing... and they didn't do a version of it here.

 

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

 

Weighing in late... still another excellent entry in an excellent mini series. I loved the way they summarized the closings to their essence. Enjoyed that we got some glimpses of the jury but still wish I could understand why those folks who voted guilty folded. Did a juror really pump his fist at OJ... god? I did enjoy one of the jurors wincing when Kim Goldman cried out.

 

I did feel the last 30 minutes were important and compelling. From the Goldman's walking to their car to the prison that OJ got released to, in a way it was more helpful to have the commentary from the show on the ultimate meaning of the events that were portrayed.  Giving sort of each of them a tragic rest of the story.  Darden telling Jonnie that he changed nothing and only got a rich murder off, not sure if it happened but, definitely was the legacy spelled out.  I don't hate Jonnie because I do believe he truly thought he was doing good for a larger cause.  At one point Marcia is disappointed that the jurors didn't want justice for the victims. I wanted to smack her because she still couldn't see it, the jurors DID want justice for the victims. The victims of police corruption which they saw as the real case they were watching.

 

Finally, nothing made me tear up too much but the final photos of Nicole and Ron made me burst into tears. It just strikes me that they are forever infamous, and did and will always be the subject of debate and endless documentary and movies and there is really nothing that can be done about it.

 

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

[Neurochick]

Done better by what standards? After Johnnie got OJ off, he was "that dude" that all black celebrities called up when they got in trouble (Snoop---may have been before OJ, Michael Jackson, Puff Daddy etc.).  Johnnie Cochran wasn't thinking about the tender feelings of Susie from Peoria when Michael Jackson had him on retainer.

 

Johnnie Cochran is still "that dude" today in the black community, 11 years after his death.  Johnnie wasn't here for the adulation and attention from white people so how could have "done better?"

 

Again, Johnnie Cochran didn't incite racial tension.  It's not like black people were singing a song of joy while sweeping their stoops and then Johnnie Cochran came along and whipped them up into a frenzy.  Black people were already mad at a system that failed them time and time again.  The anger white people feel/felt over the OJ verdict does not nearly come near the anger black people have felt at a system that has failed them over and over and over for decades.

 

The Marcia Clark character spoke at the press conference and told DV victims not to let this verdict deter them, to trust in the system.  Ironic because the jury was mostly made up of people who had been let down by the system repeatedly, and thus did not trust it, and the prosecution witnesses testifying to mishandling evidence, harboring racial bias and refusing to admit whether evidence had been planted or not only proved to them they were right in not trusting it.

 

The only way the prosecution would've gotten a conviction is if there was an all white jury in Brentwood.  Once it got moved to downtown and blacks were put on the jury, it was lost.

 

Very true, this post.

 

As for Cochran inciting racial tensions, well as I said, they were already there.

 

What I see is that some white people NOT all, feel that they are the default, their stories, their feelings, their lives are the default and everybody else is just an "other."  Natalie Holloway went missing and that story was the lead story on the Today show for months.  When I watched the TV One show, "Find Our Missing" I was stunned at how many black people go missing and the national media doesn't give a shit.  See, it's little things like that, that make black people and other POC feel that the system, the media, etc isn't fair, that it favors white people, white stories, white lives.  When you read the story of the Central Park Five, which happened in 1989, you see just what happens when the state determines that someone is guilty and the media writes the narrative.

 

And a lot of black celebrities did have Cochran on retainer and a lot of black people didn't vilify him.  Just because white people vilify someone and turn their backs on someone doesn't mean everybody else will follow suit.  Also, after the trial, a lot of white people I knew would say, "shit, if I'm in trouble I'd want HIM as my lawyer." 

[LennieBriscoe]

Judge Ito WAS a fame-whore. He ran his courtroom differently from the Manson Trial judge.

 

(Source of quotations: The book upon which this series is based: "The Run of His Life: The People VS. O. J. Simpson." Toobin, Jeffrey. Ch. 12, pp. 226---241)

 

1. Re: Statement outside the jury's presence: Nobody knew who Manson was; that is, he was just another defendant who would be expected to proclaim his innocence. OJ, on the other hand, well, "on Wednesdays and week-ends" his words might just find their way to the "sequestered" jurors---what Clark feared and why she objected.

 

2. Ito controversially allowed cameras in the courtroom. "At his core, Ito loved the attention that the cameras brought...."

 

3. He "beamed" when he showed author Toobin the autographed Arsenio Hall photo.

 

4. But most egregiously, not only did Ito hold up the trial while meeting in chambers with Larry King (who came with an entourage); he revealed to King PRIOR TO the court his decision NOT to allow a call to a battered-woman shelter made by Nicole five days before her murder (Side-note: Compare that decision to his about the "Fuhrman tapes.") (a decision concurred with by the book's author, for what it's worth). Larry. King.

 

5. "Frequently during the trial, Ito behaved like just another celebrity-crazed resident of Los Angeles,...."

Edited April 7, 2016 by LennieBriscoe

[txhorns79]

As for Cochran inciting racial tensions, well as I said, they were already there.

 

I don't follow this.  Are you saying that because racial tensions already existed there was no real issue with Cochran inciting those tensions? 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Apologies in advance if what I have to say has already been addressed.  I quickly wanted to post my thoughts on the finale; then I'll go back and read everyone's comments!

 

First, again, I know I'm nitpicking, but even though we were SHOWN that OJ was shaving when the verdict came out, when Cuba showed up in that scene, he still looked like he hadn't shaved at all. Like in at least a day! And when they showed/juxtapositioned his face with the real OJ at the end, at least I could see that the real OJ looked clean shaven.  That he had that smug half smile on his face, while Cuba continued to look morose, stressed and haggard. Just what was the director thinking when he gave him the directive to do this? Or what did Cuba think he was doing if this was his own acting choice?

 

I also wish that Vance's Cochran had been more...musical? when he said those famous words: "If it doesn't fit, you MUST acquit."  Vance said it most somberly, and Cochran wasn't somber when he said it; and the emphasis was on "must."

 

I am peeved that the show didn't give us the scene of Fred Goldman saying that the verdict was the "second worst day of his life." I really, really wanted to see that press conference.  And they could have cut out a minute of the scene at OJ's party at his house to give me that.

 

I did enjoy hearing the real Dan Rather's voice, seeing Oprah, President Clinton! (I don't care! I LOVE that man!) and all the other real people watching and waiting for the verdict.  Loved how the show's clerk stumbled over OJ's name, just like the real clerk did.

 

Now I want to know who the second juror who originally said she or he thought OJ was guilty.  The woman who kept saying "where was all that blood?" Well, the juror who showed up on Oprah, repeating that mantra wasn't HER. She was a very young woman. Huh.

 

I don't mind Juror No. 6 in real life, though I rolled my eyes at his reasons for acquitting. But his portrayer? LOATHED him. What a jackass. And refusing to understand or thinking that beyond a reasonable doubt and "all doubt" is the same fucking thing.

 

My opinion of the jury has not changed. Idiots.

 

GOD. I am SO exhausted. And contrary to my original opinion when I first heard about this mini-series, it ended up hooking me in and keeping my attention and they did a great job. Well, except for the casting of Cuba as OJ. Sorry! Y'all knew I had to throw that in there again!

 

I'm sure there's more, but I have to read everyone's comments and then maybe I'll have more.

[lovinbob]

First, again, I know I'm nitpicking, but even though we were SHOWN that OJ was shaving when the verdict came out, when Cuba showed up in that scene, he still looked like he hadn't shaved at all. Like in at least a day! And when they showed/juxtapositioned his face with the real OJ at the end, at least I could see that the real OJ looked clean shaven.  That he had that smug half smile on his face, while Cuba continued to look morose, stressed and haggard. Just what was the director thinking when he gave him the directive to do this? Or what did Cuba think he was doing if this was his own acting choice?

I couldn't agree more. It appears as if it must have been a very deliberate choice, that Cuba's OJ never had a clean shave. But real life trial OJ always did! I can't figure out what this is supposed to be conveying.

[drivethroo]

 

I don't follow this.  Are you saying that because racial tensions already existed there was no real issue with Cochran inciting those tensions?

 

Johnnie Cochran didn't incite the tensions.  If anyone incited tensions, it was the media.

 

 

When you read the story of the Central Park Five, which happened in 1989, you see just what happens when the state determines that someone is guilty and the media writes the narrative.

 

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

 

 

And a lot of black celebrities did have Cochran on retainer and a lot of black people didn't vilify him.

 

Johnnie Cochran was in 1995 and still remains in 2016, "the man" in the black community.  Johnnie Cochran wasn't here to service or appease white people.  That bothers a lot of white people, when a black person demonstrates they just don't a crap how ya feel, they're gonna do what they wanna do and white folks will just have to deal.

 

A note on Christopher Darden: he was villified as a sellout and a c--n during the trial and the aftermath, especially when he doubled over in tears on Fred Goldman's shoulders.  That's why Johnnie Cochran offered to "bring him back home" after the trial.   Johnnie knew & Chris's father knew taking this case, being on this case would mean he would not only be a token & fall guy for the prosecution but persona non grata in the black community.  That's why both of them had warnings for Chris to either be careful on this case & not let the white people use him as a scapegoat or not to jump on the case at all.  I am glad this series humanized Chris Darden.

[Neurochick]

Johnnie Cochran was in 1995 and still remains in 2016, "the man" in the black community.  Johnnie Cochran wasn't here to service or appease white people.  That bothers a lot of white people, when a black person demonstrates they just don't a crap how ya feel, they're gonna do what they wanna do and white folks will just have to deal.

 

Yes, this goes to the fact that some white people really don't see black people as having our own likes and dislikes that are different from theirs.

 

A note on Christopher Darden: he was villified as a sellout and a c--n during the trial and the aftermath, especially when he doubled over in tears on Fred Goldman's shoulders.  That's why Johnnie Cochran offered to "bring him back home" after the trial.   Johnnie knew & Chris's father knew taking this case, being on this case would mean he would not only be a token & fall guy for the prosecution but persona non grata in the black community.  That's why both of them had warnings for Chris to either be careful on this case & not let the white people use him as a scapegoat or not to jump on the case at all.  I am glad this series humanized Chris Darden.

 

 

I knew what Cochran meant too.  He feared that some white people would see Darden as "one of the good ones" and then drop him.  That's something I have seen happen to black folks in my life.  They're friends with white people but when that person needs support and care, it's like "you're not one of us." 

 

And I don't think the jury were idiots the same way the jury was that judged the police officers who beat Rodney King.  I mean if I sit and watch a human being get the shit kicked out of him by the police (who represent the state) and think that's okay, something's wrong.  BTW, when I first saw that video of Rodney King being beaten, I didn't have the sound on my TV and I thought, "Oh shit, look what's going on in South Africa."

Edited April 7, 2016 by Neurochick

[Joimiaroxeu]

Its main competition will probably the too-similarly named American Crime and American Horror Story: Hotel.

I don't know about AHS but I doubt American Crime will put up much competition except perhaps in some acting categories. A lot of people were angry about the nebulous ending and the season was rather uneven.

 

I still have mixed feelings about Marcia Clark but I am planning to read one of her novels. Does she write them herself or is she using a co-writer or ghost writer?

 

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

Edited April 7, 2016 by Joimiaroxeu

[WescottF1]

Yes! It has confirmed my thought that if I am ever charged with a crime I am going before a judge. No jury.

 

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

 

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

[elzin]

While I disagree on the datedness of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt's OJ jokes (Kimmy was cut off from the civilized world in 1999 and a lot of the humor comes from her being a "woman out of time," but I realize mileages vary on that) I was thinking of the episodes with Clark and Darden throughout this miniseries and they make me uncomfortable now. This show really humanized everyone involved for me and I can't see myself enjoying UKS's take on the case anymore.

 

Last weekend I rewatched UKS in preparation for next week's S2 drop and Marcia/Chris stuff was painfully unfunny and awful. It didn't bother me the first time around (I don't even know if I caught the reference because so much time had passed) but this time it was just awkward and cringe-inducing. It wasn't badly written or acted or anything really wrong with it, but with more realistic portrayals so fresh in my mind it was too flippant inadvertently.

 

So I overall really loved ACS, but this episode was my least favorite. Not because of verdict disappointment but I felt it was too long. It didn't work for me as a whole, even if individual parts of it were effective. I could have watched an entire episode devoted to the aftermath, but it felt tacked on and dragged like the end of LOTR.