S01.E10: The Verdict

[psychoticstate]

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.  

 

Back when the juries were all male and all white, who was going to complain?  Nobody cared what the POC or women thought.  So there may have been people who believed it was totally unfair but they had no forum to air their grievances (and the people in charge wouldn't have listened anyhow.)

 

I still believe that our legal system is basically good.  It does work the majority of the time.  Nothing can be 100% fair 100% of the time.  But for those times it doesn't . . . ack, it pains me.

 

I think the procedural shows (like CSI, Law & Order, etc.) have made the general public believe that there must be a smoking gun and 100% proof in order to have a case and/or convict.  Most cases don't have a smoking gun.  And it's possible for someone to kill a person the way I believe Simpson killed Nicole and not be soaked in blood (despite what some of the jurors seemed to think, that Simpson would be covered in blood, his vehicle should have been drowning in blood, etc.)

 

Simi Valley was one of the worst blights and miscarriages in our judicial system.  It sickens me 

[Jel]

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.

 

 

Thank you, psychoticstate, much appreciated!

 

I do think OJ Simpson murdered Ron and Nicole; there's really no doubt in my mind about that. And it seems unlikely that MF did plant the glove, but I was wondering if anyone ever said, "Even if he did plant the glove, if he planted ten gloves, there's still plenty of evidence to convict OJ".  Even with a corrupt detective, the murderer is still the murderer. And I couldn't remember if anyone ever addressed the jury's doubts in that way.  

[Neurochick]

Here is the issue with the evidence.  As I have stated before, not everybody sees the world the same way.  That's why our judicial system isn't perfect.  Some may say, if Fuhrman was racist and he made it to detective, then the entire system that allowed him to make it to detective must also be racist, otherwise why wasn't he fired?  Meaning, one rotten apple spoils the whole bunch.  

 

Clark was about vengeance because of what happened to her.   When she said, "I thought the jury would care about the victims," I was like, "They did, just not the SAME victims you're talking about."  

[Umbelina]

Marcia Clark (the real one) said she never said "vengeance" or even thought in those terms.  She said she fought for and thought in terms of justice.

[Jel]

Here is the issue with the evidence.  As I have stated before, not everybody sees the world the same way.  That's why our judicial system isn't perfect.  Some may say, if Fuhrman was racist and he made it to detective, then the entire system that allowed him to make it to detective must also be racist, otherwise why wasn't he fired?  Meaning, one rotten apple spoils the whole bunch.  

 

Clark was about vengeance because of what happened to her.   When she said, "I thought the jury would care about the victims," I was like, "They did, just not the SAME victims you're talking about."  

I think that's pretty much the trial, in a nutshell.

 

I watched the trial and I tried to be an armchair juror-- that is, waiting to hear it all before I made up my mind.

 

Everyone I knew was pretty convinced OJ had done it very early on. I think they were right, but the amount of incredulity (verging on shaming) I got over not immediately agreeing that he did it surprised me.  That also made me question the jury system.

[Kromm]

Marcia Clark (the real one) said she never said "vengeance" or even thought in those terms.  She said she fought for and thought in terms of justice.

Damn good point. While Clark has been gracious and complimentary about the show and it's portrayal of her (maybe even greatful, because they didn't show some of her worst moments, like that cursefest of hers at the reporter after the news of the verdict came in), that doesn't mean we can inherently trust most of what the show has put on her character. Unless she put a very similar thought into one of her books, or in an interview, then really that's such a loaded statement by default I wouldn't be assuming she said anything even approximating that to Garcetti and Darden.

[SFoster21]

Many wealthy defendants who could afford fancy lawyers and expensive experts have been acquitted. Only a wealthy person could send lawyers across the country to argue for those Fuhrman tapes.

Michael Jackson was acquitted, for example. Subpoenas cost money. Experts cost money. Many wealthy people experience a hung jury and when their expensive lawyer won't return for the retrial, they are convicted.

This jury is pretty standard for juries where wealthy defendants are concerned. It is not an especially ignorant or predjudiced jury. ("prejudiced" in the generic sense; the Broderick jury had elements that were argued beyond the evidence; as did the Mendendez jury.)

Edited April 9, 2016 by SFoster21

[Kromm]

Many wealthy defendants who could afford fancy lawyers and expensive experts have been acquitted. Only a wealthy person could send lawyers across the country to argue for those Fuhrman tapes.

Michael Jackson was acquitted, for example. Subpoenas cost money. Experts cost money. Many wealthy people experience a hung jury and when their expensive lawyer won't return for the retrial, they are convicted.

This jury is pretty standard for juries where wealthy defendants are concerned. It is not an especially ignorant or predjudiced jury.

Michael Jackson is back into that sacred cow territory again (after years off it) where I doubt anyone's ever going to do a project that analyzes that part of his life.

 

Of course this show doesn't have to just be about trials, which is why a few years down the pike if it's still on I'd respect the hell out of it if they actually did Bill Cosby. But I really don't think they won't. Even if the Sacred Cow has been outright killed on that now and can't be brought back to life, it's got too many barriers. Oh, we will see some shitty movies about it--I think at least one or two are already in production--but something watercooler and widely watched like ACS?  I bet not.

In another topic someone brought up The Central Park Five as the perfect topic after Katrina. I kind of agree. It's got all those hallmarks of being about race relations, police misconduct, political corruption, press and public insanity, and even has bloviating assholes involved (Trump was part of that story).

Edited April 9, 2016 by Kromm

[Apprentice79]

Many wealthy defendants who could afford fancy lawyers and expensive experts have been acquitted. Only a wealthy person could send lawyers across the country to argue for those Fuhrman tapes.

Michael Jackson was acquitted, for example. Subpoenas cost money. Experts cost money. Many wealthy people experience a hung jury and when their expensive lawyer won't return for the retrial, they are convicted.

This jury is pretty standard for juries where wealthy defendants are concerned. It is not an especially ignorant or predjudiced jury. ("prejudiced" in the generic sense; the Broderick jury had elements that were argued beyond the evidence; as did the Mendendez jury.)

I remember the Menendez Brothers both had separate juries that were both hung and both juries were divided along gender lines with the men wanting to convict and the women wanting to acquit them of murder due to the allegations of abuse that were introduced by the defense...I don't remember the pundits insinuating that women should not serve on juries, like they did about black people being on juries after the OJ acquittal..The first trial was a mistrial and both brothers were convicted in their second trials..

[jumper sage]

When OJ realized his whole world changed, by not having one single "friend" at his party and not being able to make reservations, was a great moment.  Too bad Cuba had to act it.

[Kromm]

When OJ realized his whole world changed, by not having one single "friend" at his party and not being able to make reservations, was a great moment.  Too bad Cuba had to act it.

I wonder how realistic that scene was though. Thematically it makes sense in a storytelling way, and in fact could literally be true (that he retained hanger-oners and not true friends), but one wonders if he even had the capability to realize that was the case. He was, maybe even still is, a narcissist and often they're incapable of that.

[7isBlue]

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?

One cannot cherry-pick the questions to which to plead the fifth. If you plead to one, you have to plead to all. The defense attorneys asked the question about planting evidence KNOWING THIS. It was a strategic play.

Edited April 9, 2016 by 7isBlue

[psychoticstate]

Here is the issue with the evidence.  As I have stated before, not everybody sees the world the same way.  That's why our judicial system isn't perfect.  Some may say, if Fuhrman was racist and he made it to detective, then the entire system that allowed him to make it to detective must also be racist, otherwise why wasn't he fired?  Meaning, one rotten apple spoils the whole bunch.  

 

Clark was about vengeance because of what happened to her.   When she said, "I thought the jury would care about the victims," I was like, "They did, just not the SAME victims you're talking about."  

 

True - - not everyone sees the world in the same way and evidence can certainly be interpreted in different ways by different people.  But I don't think it's fair to assume that one bad cop makes the entire department bad.  There are racists and POS in every profession.  I've encountered a few attorneys that were despicable, less than ethical individuals but that doesn't mean all attorneys are like that and shouldn't be trusted.  I think the jury could have elected not to believe Fuhrman but believe Lange and Vannatter and other members of the LAPD.  Or they could have chosen to accept portions of his testimony but discount others. 

 

That said, however, the LAPD clearly should have taken action with regards to Fuhrman years earlier.  And Margaret York should have disclosed her past association with Furhman to her husband.  All these seemingly "minor" things contributed to the acquittal. 

Marcia Clark (the real one) said she never said "vengeance" or even thought in those terms.  She said she fought for and thought in terms of justice.

 

I agree with this.  I don't think MC was about vengeance, regardless of what happened to her.  I think she felt she spoke for the victims; she was essentially their voice and representing their interests. 

 

I remember the Menendez Brothers both had separate juries that were both hung and both juries were divided along gender lines with the men wanting to convict and the women wanting to acquit them of murder due to the allegations of abuse that were introduced by the defense...I don't remember the pundits insinuating that women should not serve on juries, like they did about black people being on juries after the OJ acquittal..The first trial was a mistrial and both brothers were convicted in their second trials..

 

This happened in the Broderick trial as well - - a hung jury with the first trial and a conviction with the second.  Second trials are usually a boon for the defense - - by that time they know what case the state is going to put on and can adjust accordingly.  Basically no surprises in the second trial. 

I wonder how realistic that scene was though. Thematically it makes sense in a storytelling way, and in fact could literally be true (that he retained hanger-oners and not true friends), but one wonders if he even had the capability to realize that was the case. He was, maybe even still is, a narcissist and often they're incapable of that.

 

I don't know that it happened the night of the "victory" party - - as I recall a tabloid reporter or photographer was there.  But I think it became very clear to Simpson very quickly.  He knew that his golfing/country club buddies stopped visiting him at the jail and stopped coming to court after the DNA testimony.  The writing was on the wall.  I think he assumed he could replace them with new country club/golfing friends and had to have been shocked when the country club turned him away and people began to refer to him as the Butcher of Brentwood, with residents wanting him out.  

[Kromm]

One cannot cherry-pick the questions to which to plead the fifth. If you plead to one, you have to plead to all. The defense attorneys asked the question about planting evidence KNOWING THIS. It was a strategic play.

We've gone over this in other threads/topics. That's a bit of misinformation most people are confused about. That rule only applies to people on trial, not to witnesses. Witnesses can, like people on trial, plead the fifth, but unlike them they can answer or not on an individual basis, question by question.

Fuhrman himself would likely not have been confused about this either, but even if he was, unlike on the show he apparently had an attorney right there next to him when he actually testified.

[txhorns79]

We've gone over this in other threads/topics. That's a bit of misinformation most people are confused about. That rule only applies to people on trial, not to witnesses. Witnesses can, like people on trial, plead the fifth, but unlike them they can answer or not on an individual basis, question by question.

 

Once someone starts pleading the fifth, it's likely that is all you are going to get.  It's rarely a good idea to switch back and forth, even if allowed, because you can easily end up in a bad place.  I have no idea what Furhman was or was not told by his attorney, but I doubt it would have been to answer some questions, but plead the fifth as to others. 

[Coffeecup]

We can watch a marathon of all 10 episodes tomorrow, April 9th starting at 2 p.m.

 

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/04/06/the-people-v-oj-simpson-marathon-fx

[psychoticstate]

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.

 

The Tate homicides weren't totally random.  Manson chose that property for a very specific reason - - Terry Melcher used to live there and he wanted to send a message.  He didn't know the current tenants on Cielo but they were representations to him - - the industry that turned its back on him, the privileged, "beautiful" people that he wanted to be a part of. 

 

In that way, the killings were personal, in a sense.  I also think the Manson Family wanted the "pleasure" of killing their victims up close and personal as stabbing allowed them to do.  They reveled in their victims' pleas, pain and bloodshed.  The extreme overkill inflicted on them would indicate to me  that the perps knew the victims or they got great joy out of destroying them. 

 

In the Simpson case it's been said that Nicole was afraid of being cut.  Surely Simpson would have known that.  I think that was one of three reasons he chose to kill her via knife - - first, her great fear.  Secondly, he was able to pick up tips while filming Frogman.  And thirdly, most killers don't get attached to a knife the same way they do with a gun.  They are usually discarded/disposed after the crime.  They are also much easier to acquire than a gun.   Nicole was killed very expeditiously - - she wasn't tortured with superficial cuts, she wasn't stabbed repeatedly; she was apparently unconscious when the horrific death cut was made.  She wasn't sexually assaulted or robbed.  To me that says her killer knew her and the killing was very personal.  JMO.

[Dev F]

We've gone over this in other threads/topics. That's a bit of misinformation most people are confused about. That rule only applies to people on trial, not to witnesses. Witnesses can, like people on trial, plead the fifth, but unlike them they can answer or not on an individual basis, question by question.

 

I'm still not totally sure that's true. For instance, the L.A. Times indicated in their initial report on Fuhrman's testimony:

 

"Legal analysts said Fuhrman was compelled to take the 5th Amendment, even in response to the provocative question about planting evidence, because breaking his silence would leave him vulnerable to wide-ranging questions. The 5th Amendment offers blanket protection against self-incrimination; witnesses cannot invoke its shield on some questions and then answer others, UCLA professor Peter Arenella said."

 

But more significantly, Fuhrman's refusal to testify did not take place in front of the jury, and unless I'm missing some later development after this one, I don't believe they were allowed to be informed of his decision even in vague terms. Obviously, they may still have found out about it, but if the question is whether the jury made the right and proper decision according to their legal responsibilities, weighing a factor that was not allowed into evidence would've been inherently improper.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Dev F

[ganesh]

When OJ realized his whole world changed, by not having one single "friend" at his party and not being able to make reservations, was a great moment.  Too bad Cuba had to act it.

 

This is erroneously applying a depth to real-life Simpson that I don't think exists.

 

I wonder how realistic that scene was though. Thematically it makes sense in a storytelling way, and in fact could literally be true (that he retained hanger-oners and not true friends), but one wonders if he even had the capability to realize that was the case. He was, maybe even still is, a narcissist and often they're incapable of that.

 

Given the quasi-illiteracy of his "suicide note" and effective confession during the Bronco chase, I doubt he had the capability to realize this.

 

Not for nothing, if I literally got away with murder? I certainly wouldn't *write a book called If I Did It*, nor would I commit *armed robbery*. Depth? Not really.

 

I tend to think the only reason CGJ is being trashed so much is because 90% of the cast are an uncanny resemblance of their real life counter parts. Simpson was a bit player to his own trial. This wasn't a character study in what makes a successful, popular sports figure/tv personality turn into a murderer. He's supposed to be an afterthought in his own trial, and frankly, he's just too stupid to grasp the implications of the aftermath. So having an actor portray that depth is disingenuous. 

 

You have got to be the rarest combination of stupid, borderline mentally deficient, and the highest form of arrogance in human history, to *literally get away with murder* and still end up in jail. 

Edited April 9, 2016 by ganesh

[Milburn Stone]

I tend to think the only reason CGJ is being trashed so much is because 90% of the cast are an uncanny resemblance of their real life counter parts. 

 

You could be right. I grew to accept him in the part.

[ketose]

It's one thing to argue that the prosecution could not prove their case because there were holes in the evidence created by the defense. However, when people argue that OJ wasn't guilty because the entire LAPD and the White community at large were covering up for Faye Resnick's Colombian drug dealers headquartered at Mezzaluna, that's the stop where I have to get off.

 

I keep thinking of the Chris Rock routine about how White people were too mad about the verdict and Black people were too happy. There was no OJ "prize." The LAPD put more money into DNA collection and analysis, so they could prove chain of custody with a technology that is pretty bulletproof.

 

The trial had no major legal precedents in it. It was simply a big deal because it was a big deal. Ito allowed cameras in the courtroom and the Dream Team took advantage of that. It also seem to me that Black and White people had biased views of the trial. Black people thought the police were much more prone to lying and falsifying evidence than in reality. White people were too likely to believe there was no significant police corruption.

 

I also remember something Bill Maher said. The murder of Nicole and Ron wouldn't have even made a good "Murder, She Wrote" because everyone would know the old football player did it in the first 5 minutes of the episode.

[Neurochick]

True - - not everyone sees the world in the same way and evidence can certainly be interpreted in different ways by different people.  But I don't think it's fair to assume that one bad cop makes the entire department bad.

 

 

Yes, but that is how YOU see things, not everybody sees them the same way as you.  Sure, one bad apple doesn't tarnish the entire bunch but I know that not everybody feels that way.  That's the issue with juries, not everybody is going to feel the same way I do or you do, period.  

[deerstalker]

Yes, but that is how YOU see things, not everybody sees them the same way as you.  Sure, one bad apple doesn't tarnish the entire bunch but I know that not everybody feels that way.  That's the issue with juries, not everybody is going to feel the same way I do or you do, period.  

 

There is a reason why the saying is, "One bad apple spoils the bunch", and not "One bad apple, just ignore it."  I don't think there are many actively malevolent cops out there.  But I do think there are some, and there are many, many more cops who know that the malevolent cop is out there, and either ignore his misdeeds, or actively help cover it up.  Look at the Laquan McDonald shooting, where the one officer shot the boy, then stood over him, emptying out his clip, when he did not pose a threat.  And did anyone of his fellow officers turn him in? No.  In fact, they went into a nearby fast food place and confiscated it's surveillance tapes that showed the shooting.  And the officer's superiors had to have viewed the footage from the several cars at the scene, and did they do anything? No.  And the prosecutors eventually got wind of it, but they also failed to act.

 

It was much the same in South Carolina, with Walter Scott.  Other officers at the scene did not stop the officer who shot Scott from retrieving a taser from some distance away, and dropping it near Scott's body to bolster his false story that Scott was trying to grab his Taser and the officer was therefore in fear of his life.

 

One bad apple does ruin the bunch, unless the bad apple is forcefully repudiated and cast out.  But given the "blue wall of silence" (the original stop snitching movement), anyone who actually speaks out against corruption is instead cast out and repudiated (and in several instances, committed to a mental institution.)  It was obvious that Fuhrman was a bad apple.  The fact that he was not only retained by the LAPD, but actually promoted after he insisted that he was a virulent racist who could not be trusted around minority suspects does not speak well of the LA police department.

[Apprentice79]

There is a reason why the saying is, "One bad apple spoils the bunch", and not "One bad apple, just ignore it."  I don't think there are many actively malevolent cops out there.  But I do think there are some, and there are many, many more cops who know that the malevolent cop is out there, and either ignore his misdeeds, or actively help cover it up.  Look at the Laquan McDonald shooting, where the one officer shot the boy, then stood over him, emptying out his clip, when he did not pose a threat.  And did anyone of his fellow officers turn him in? No.  In fact, they went into a nearby fast food place and confiscated it's surveillance tapes that showed the shooting.  And the officer's superiors had to have viewed the footage from the several cars at the scene, and did they do anything? No.  And the prosecutors eventually got wind of it, but they also failed to act.

 

It was much the same in South Carolina, with Walter Scott.  Other officers at the scene did not stop the officer who shot Scott from retrieving a taser from some distance away, and dropping it near Scott's body to bolster his false story that Scott was trying to grab his Taser and the officer was therefore in fear of his life.

 

One bad apple does ruin the bunch, unless the bad apple is forcefully repudiated and cast out.  But given the "blue wall of silence" (the original stop snitching movement), anyone who actually speaks out against corruption is instead cast out and repudiated (and in several instances, committed to a mental institution.)  It was obvious that Fuhrman was a bad apple.  The fact that he was not only retained by the LAPD, but actually promoted after he insisted that he was a virulent racist who could not be trusted around minority suspects does not speak well of the LA police department.

Perfect post! and that is why we are suspicious of the police in the Black community.We have witnessed this time and time again; nothing ever changes...Noone cares because it is preferable for a white person to assume that the Black person must have done something wrong, to provoke the ire of the police man..That is why the Simi valley jurors acquitted the police officers who beat Rodney King like a slave..I will not even say that they beat Rodney like a dog, because a dog would never have received a beating like that....A dog's life has more value than a black man in this country...

Edited April 9, 2016 by Apprentice79

[Kromm]

Perfect post! and that is why we are suspicious of the police in the Black community.We have witnessed this time and time again; nothing ever changes...Noone cares because it is preferable for a white person to assume that the Black person must have done something wrong, to provoke the ire of the police man..That is why the Simi valley jurors acquitted the police officers who beat Rodney King like a slave..I will not even say that they beat Rodney like a dog, because a dog would never have received a beating like that....A dog's life has more value than a black man in this country...

The issue here is the phrase "noone cares" (and similar ones). This may be why a lot of knee-jerk counter-reactions happen from white observers perhaps, even from afar. They see rhetoric that batches all of white society and their potential reactions into a single basket and rather than being disinterested, at worst, like many of them may have been, instead it grows a seed of resentment, of hostility. This is a core part of the divide, and why the conduct of some questionable spokespeople has always mattered almost as much as the actual incidents: miscommunication starts incredibly easily and just mushrooms even from casual statements and defensiveness on both sides.

 

The core mode with white America is apathy. Heck that's true of all America. The problem resolves itself over how you shatter that apathy. Too many people fail to recognize that attack tactics backfire more often than work. It breaks the apathy but can push the reaction in the wrong direction. People don't want to think of themselves as racist--even passively so--and if you tell them to their faces, as a whole group that they are, that lights a match. That's always been one of the biggest stumbling blocks.

 

There are almost uncrossable divides, it's true. Few if any white people are going to understand on any gut level what it feels like to always fear certain situations, and with good reason assume racist responses even in many casual incidents. And looking back at the racial divide in reactions to the OJ verdict is probably a real exercise in futility. But there's always been a segment of the non-black community (lets be honest... in large part the Jews, even if later incidents like the Crown Heights situation walked that back a lot) who at least tried. The civil rights movement was in part based on that. As for the Rodney King thing in particular? I remember a decent amount of non-black outrage over the incident itself, and almost as much over that verdict. It wasn't gut-felt by white people in any meaningful way that corresponds to how it affected black people, but it's just unfair and unproductive, IMO, to say noone cared. That kind of approach just polarizes people even more. It's a not-so-subtle "fuck you" to anyone who ever tried to understand (even if they failed to). 

Edited April 9, 2016 by Kromm

[FozzyBear]

The Tate homicides weren't totally random. Manson chose that property for a very specific reason - - Terry Melcher used to live there and he wanted to send a message. He didn't know the current tenants on Cielo but they were representations to him - - the industry that turned its back on him, the privileged, "beautiful" people that he wanted to be a part of.

In that way, the killings were personal, in a sense. I also think the Manson Family wanted the "pleasure" of killing their victims up close and personal as stabbing allowed them to do. They reveled in their victims' pleas, pain and bloodshed. The extreme overkill inflicted on them would indicate to me that the perps knew the victims or they got great joy out of destroying them.

In the Simpson case it's been said that Nicole was afraid of being cut. Surely Simpson would have known that. I think that was one of three reasons he chose to kill her via knife - - first, her great fear. Secondly, he was able to pick up tips while filming Frogman. And thirdly, most killers don't get attached to a knife the same way they do with a gun. They are usually discarded/disposed after the crime. They are also much easier to acquire than a gun. Nicole was killed very expeditiously - - she wasn't tortured with superficial cuts, she wasn't stabbed repeatedly; she was apparently unconscious when the horrific death cut was made. She wasn't sexually assaulted or robbed. To me that says her killer knew her and the killing was very personal. JMO.

Oh totally true. I was speaking more of the LaBiancas who were chosen because the family got lost looking for a house they had go to a party at once. Or something like that.

And hey, I think OJ is guilty. I was only making the point that sometimes crimes that look very personal can turn out to be random or have connections that really only exist in the mind of the killer.

[FozzyBear]

This is erroneously applying a depth to real-life Simpson that I don't think exists.

Given the quasi-illiteracy of his "suicide note" and effective confession during the Bronco chase, I doubt he had the capability to realize this.

Not for nothing, if I literally got away with murder? I certainly wouldn't *write a book called If I Did It*, nor would I commit *armed robbery*. Depth? Not really.

I tend to think the only reason CGJ is being trashed so much is because 90% of the cast are an uncanny resemblance of their real life counter parts. Simpson was a bit player to his own trial. This wasn't a character study in what makes a successful, popular sports figure/tv personality turn into a murderer. He's supposed to be an afterthought in his own trial, and frankly, he's just too stupid to grasp the implications of the aftermath. So having an actor portray that depth is disingenuous.

You have got to be the rarest combination of stupid, borderline mentally deficient, and the highest form of arrogance in human history, to *literally get away with murder* and still end up in jail.

I'm with you in liking CGJ. I think he did a pretty good job of portraying a particular combination of selfish, insecure, and shallow that had been allowed to ferment for years in a sea of yes men and over acknowledgement of accomplishment(not that OJ wasn't every bit as good at football as people said, but when you think of the level of praise that entertainers and athletes and a few others get for being good at their jobs it's kind of insane. No one is going to get their ass kissed to that level for being a really good plumber.) that lead to someone who felt as entitled as OJ. And I think OJ was always going to be that hardest part to work out. He's just so unknowable. Everybody else being portrayed on the show wrote books and most are available today to explain their part. OJ wrote that horrible book, but what do you do with that? Is it true? Did he just need the money? Would anyone really write that book if they were guilty? Would anyone write it if they were innocent? We just have no way of knowing what really happened that night and OJ isn't going to give an interview. I think OJ's behavior post trial showed the world we never really knew him, but we still have no idea who he is or what exactly happened or why. Is he evil? Crazy? Innocent? He's not saying and no one really knows.

[Milburn Stone]

As I've said before, they defense did not have to prove the police planted evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  They merely had to show that it was plausible that it could have happened. 

 

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

 

In their jury instructions, some judges do a better job of explaining the difference than others. Not sure how well Ito did in that department. (Also not sure whether any amount of explanation would have made a difference in the verdict in this case, but that's a different question.)

Edited April 9, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[FormerMod-a1]

One bad apple may spoil the bunch, but not the whole orchard.  I think of it this way...  Think of any job you've had, you usually know of at least one idiot and work with them directly - someone who either cheats or steals or lies or is just plain bad at their job. There is probably more than one person like this at that job.  How would you  like to be judged for their poor behavior?  Would you want some stranger to assume you steal because they know of someone else that steals at the company?  Especially if that company has upwards of 10,000 employees?  Even if 20% of the people there are not good for some reason or other, that doesn't mean I should assume you are an idiot too.

[whiporee]

 

The law requires the jury to find reasonable doubt, not doubt. Because there is a difference.

 

I think everyone understands that at this point. But the questions of what is reasonable isn't as clear cut as it seems. Because some of the definitions I've read say if you have a real, small doubt, then that's enough. It doesn't have to be a large one, just a real one. 

 

I know I've said this before and I sound repetitive, but while a lot of us watched the trail when it happened a lot of people here didn't. So they're reflecting on what's been shown on the show (which makes sense on a message board about the show) and a lot of us are dealing with memories that are 20 years old, and even 20 years ago, we were flooded by pundits and commentators and the general consensus that was spread at the time, not to mention the results of the civil trial. We know a LOT more about this case than the jury ever did at the time.

 

If you are going off what Murphy has shown, it's easy to think reasonable doubt is a stretch (even if I believe what the jury saw about the glove and Furhman would be enough). Murphy -- probably because of time but mostly because of the source material and personal preconceptions -- created a show that reflected the idea that OJ was guilty and the defense team won only because of smoke and mirrors. That's what -- and all -- they showed. They showed scheming -- though talented -- defense attorneys and noble prosecution ones. They showed Simpson's best pal on the team wavering, even though there was nothing -- NOTHING -- at the time to suggest that. They showed Simpson small, unshaven, nervous and skittish during the trail, when in fact he was huge, well kept and confident during the trial. They showed Cochran's arguments as being purely histrionics, when in fact they were usually much more substantive. They showed his closing as "send a message" when it fact it was a lot of attacking the actual evidence. They showed nothing of the real problems with the way evidence was collected, and there were real, actual problems with the way evidence was collected. There was nothing in the show at all about the defense's "rush to judgement" argument, and no acknowledgment that the police never actually looked at the possibility Simpson might not have been the killer (not saying they should have, but it was areal element of the defense's strategy that was not shown at all, except for portraying it as just another bit of razzle dazzle). The show showed the black jurors bullying the white ones, even though there's NO evidence of that, and there's even statements disputing it. 

 

But there were issues with the prosecutions case that were never shown. They showed Furhman and the gloves, sure. But they didn't show anything about the evidence collection being sloppy and contaminated (whether you believe they were or not, the trail certainly showed the possibility that they were). Clark may have disproved the planting glove in the bar, but she never really did that in court, did she? Did she ever address why the gloves didn't fit? (I don't remember her close that well). Based on Ito's instructions, they were allowed to throw out EVERYTHING dealing with Mark Furhman -- that meant the glove, the blood in the Bronco, all of itAnd if you went into the case neutrally -- you hadn't formed an opinion based on anything but what was presented -- I don't think a small doubt was hard to find in this case. 

 

When we're talking about our perceptions of reasonable doubt in this case, we can think whatever we want. But if you're just watching the show, you're seeing a distorted version of the reality of what actually happened. And even if the show is showing us things we saw before, we're seeing them through a lens that was shaped by a lot of things that were never shown in the trial. At the time, I thought there was doubt, and that's been my perception during the show. And if you've beleived that he's guilty, then that filters your perception, too.  

[ketose]

I actually saw the show as being more favorable to members of the OJ side. Robert K got the most sympathetic edit, given that all the evidence at the time was that he was a loyal OJ supporter, up until OJ no longer had any money or home left in LA. Johnnie Cochran was portrayed as using the trial to address larger issues in the Black community with the police, but he also liked money, liked showing off and was kind of a bad guy (wife beating and all). But then, they're both dead and had no way to defend themselves.

 

I think OJ got less of a sympathetic edit as much as a guilty one. To this day, I think OJ looks at it in football terms. He killed Nicole, but the referee saw it differently and he should get to continue the game as if nothing happened. He probably hates the Goldmans the most because they stole his stuff and ruined his life after he got away with it.

[Crs97]

One bad apple may spoil the bunch, but not the whole orchard. I think of it this way... Think of any job you've had, you usually know of at least one idiot and work with them directly - someone who either cheats or steals or lies or is just plain bad at their job. There is probably more than one person like this at that job. How would you like to be judged for their poor behavior? Would you want some stranger to assume you steal because they know of someone else that steals at the company? Especially if that company has upwards of 10,000 employees? Even if 20% of the people there are not good for some reason or other, that doesn't mean I should assume you are an idiot too.

Actually, when I was a lawyer I heard all the jokes and comments. Some professions you just expect the generalization.

Also, my job was not paid for by the public and did not require me to carry a gun and have the authority to detain/arrest people. I know many wonderful police officers and love the viral stories of their going out of their way to help the public they have sworn to serve, but when a bad police officer is caught being bad and the others say nothing, they should expect to be tarnished with that brush.

[whiporee]

I actually saw the show as being more favorable to members of the OJ side. Robert K got the most sympathetic edit, given that all the evidence at the time was that he was a loyal OJ supporter, up until OJ no longer had any money or home left in LA. Johnnie Cochran was portrayed as using the trial to address larger issues in the Black community with the police, but he also liked money, liked showing off and was kind of a bad guy (wife beating and all). But then, they're both dead and had no way to defend themselves.

 

I think OJ got less of a sympathetic edit as much as a guilty one. To this day, I think OJ looks at it in football terms. He killed Nicole, but the referee saw it differently and he should get to continue the game as if nothing happened. He probably hates the Goldmans the most because they stole his stuff and ruined his life after he got away with it.

 

I don't mean to generalize, but I think the only way you see OJ as sympathetic in this show is if you think he's guilty and got off. That he wasn't shown as a monster throughout, if you think he is one, is by default depicting him sympathetically. Maybe -- maybe you could say the last shot was sympathetic of everything he'd lost. But then again, the last shot of him was fat and beaten, and then a quick fade to Goldman and Brown-Simpson. 

[psychoticstate]

I think everyone understands that at this point. But the questions of what is reasonable isn't as clear cut as it seems. Because some of the definitions I've read say if you have a real, small doubt, then that's enough. It doesn't have to be a large one, just a real one. 

 

I know I've said this before and I sound repetitive, but while a lot of us watched the trail when it happened a lot of people here didn't. So they're reflecting on what's been shown on the show (which makes sense on a message board about the show) and a lot of us are dealing with memories that are 20 years old, and even 20 years ago, we were flooded by pundits and commentators and the general consensus that was spread at the time, not to mention the results of the civil trial. We know a LOT more about this case than the jury ever did at the time.

 

If you are going off what Murphy has shown, it's easy to think reasonable doubt is a stretch (even if I believe what the jury saw about the glove and Furhman would be enough). Murphy -- probably because of time but mostly because of the source material and personal preconceptions -- created a show that reflected the idea that OJ was guilty and the defense team won only because of smoke and mirrors. That's what -- and all -- they showed. They showed scheming -- though talented -- defense attorneys and noble prosecution ones. They showed Simpson's best pal on the team wavering, even though there was nothing -- NOTHING -- at the time to suggest that. They showed Simpson small, unshaven, nervous and skittish during the trail, when in fact he was huge, well kept and confident during the trial. They showed Cochran's arguments as being purely histrionics, when in fact they were usually much more substantive. They showed his closing as "send a message" when it fact it was a lot of attacking the actual evidence. They showed nothing of the real problems with the way evidence was collected, and there were real, actual problems with the way evidence was collected. There was nothing in the show at all about the defense's "rush to judgement" argument, and no acknowledgment that the police never actually looked at the possibility Simpson might not have been the killer (not saying they should have, but it was areal element of the defense's strategy that was not shown at all, except for portraying it as just another bit of razzle dazzle). The show showed the black jurors bullying the white ones, even though there's NO evidence of that, and there's even statements disputing it. 

 

But there were issues with the prosecutions case that were never shown. They showed Furhman and the gloves, sure. But they didn't show anything about the evidence collection being sloppy and contaminated (whether you believe they were or not, the trail certainly showed the possibility that they were). Clark may have disproved the planting glove in the bar, but she never really did that in court, did she? Did she ever address why the gloves didn't fit? (I don't remember her close that well). Based on Ito's instructions, they were allowed to throw out EVERYTHING dealing with Mark Furhman -- that meant the glove, the blood in the Bronco, all of itAnd if you went into the case neutrally -- you hadn't formed an opinion based on anything but what was presented -- I don't think a small doubt was hard to find in this case. 

 

When we're talking about our perceptions of reasonable doubt in this case, we can think whatever we want. But if you're just watching the show, you're seeing a distorted version of the reality of what actually happened. And even if the show is showing us things we saw before, we're seeing them through a lens that was shaped by a lot of things that were never shown in the trial. At the time, I thought there was doubt, and that's been my perception during the show. And if you've beleived that he's guilty, then that filters your perception, too.  

 

Reasonable doubt basically means would a reasonable person believe that this happened or did not.  Anything, really, is possible so the defense could have thrown nearly any theory out there and someone could argue it was possible.  However, I think many posters here, on either side, have shown that reasonable doubt can be problematic because clearly the jury believed it was reasonable to buy into the conspiracy/framing angle while others did not.  I don't personally find it reasonable to think that a conspiracy happened in this particular case.  Do I think it's reasonable to suggest that the LAPD has been corrupt in the past (or is currently corrupt)?  Absolutely.  Do I think it's reasonable to suggest that the LAPD has framed persons, innocent or guilty?  Absolutely.  But based on things I have posted upthread and others have posted, I don't think it's reasonable in this particular case. 

 

I watched the criminal trial as I was in school at the time and it was a great learning tool (and we were all obsessed with the case.)  I had no notions of guilt or innocence at the start.  Honestly, I really didn't know anything about O.J. Simpson.  To me, the most damaging witness against Simpson was Alan Park.  His times were absolute based on when he called his supervisor/dispatcher and he had absolutely no cause or reason to embellish or lie.  He was a regular guy doing his job that just happened to be the driver that night.  I think the jury thought they could dismiss his entire testimony because he referenced two cars in the driveway instead of one (or vice versa?)  Either they weren't instructed and didn't understand they could choose not to believe one part of someone's testimony without throwing it all out or this understandable mistake was a gift to them, giving them an excuse to discount Park entirely.   

 

Regardless, I think the show did a relatively good job of coming down as much in the middle as possible.  With only 10 episodes, there was no way to account for every detail of the investigation and trial.  Heck, Gerald Uelman was cut entirely from the program.   This was based off Toobin's book and Toobin had access to the defense so I think RK wavering was entirely accurate even if publicly there was nothing to demonstrate that.  And we know that was true based on RK's estrangement from Simpson and from what Kris Jenner has said about it.    As far as the jury goes, no one but the actual jurors knows what actually went down but my guess would be that Murphy was trying the demonstrate the obvious tensions within that jury.  Toobin wrote about the potential misconduct and the racial divide so the show was following that.   I'd have to look up Cochran's closing argument to remember all of it but what was constantly repeated at that time, besides the infamous "if it doesn't fit" quote was that the jury needed to send a message.  Clearly both the prosecution's and defense's closing arguments were much longer than what was shown.  Again, many things had to be cut in order to fit this into 10 episodes (and also not make the audience weary.)   So it's going to be distorted to a certain level.

 

As far as the detectives having tunnel vision, remember that Lange had called Simpson in Chicago within hours of the murders.  When informed that Nicole had been killed, Simpson never asked how or what happened.  That was a red flag to Lange.  Simpson had seen Nicole less than 24 hours earlier at the dance recital, Nicole wasn't sick so wouldn't a normal response be to ask what happened?   That was immediately suspicious and would cause any detective to begin to probe into Simpson's whereabouts and background.  (Never mind that as the former spouse he would be the first suspect regardless.)   In checking out Simpson's alibi and during that brief interview with him, all roads pointed toward guilt.  There was no reason to try and prove that anyone else committed the murders because everything pointed to Simpson that early on and from each step forward.  If the former husband didn't ask how his ex-wife was killed, has a cut or cuts on his hand that he can't explain, can't account for his whereabouts at the time of the murder, can't even say specifically what time he returned home from the recital ("6, 7, 8, 9 . . somewhere in there.") AND has had domestic violence issues with the victim, no person in their right mind would then say "Yeah, that's pretty solid but let's see if we can find anyone else who did this."  The proper investigation would have been for them to clear Simpson first and then branch out from there.  Simpson made it impossible for them to look elsewhere by his own actions and statements. 

[psychoticstate]

I actually saw the show as being more favorable to members of the OJ side. Robert K got the most sympathetic edit, given that all the evidence at the time was that he was a loyal OJ supporter, up until OJ no longer had any money or home left in LA. Johnnie Cochran was portrayed as using the trial to address larger issues in the Black community with the police, but he also liked money, liked showing off and was kind of a bad guy (wife beating and all). But then, they're both dead and had no way to defend themselves.

 

I think OJ got less of a sympathetic edit as much as a guilty one. To this day, I think OJ looks at it in football terms. He killed Nicole, but the referee saw it differently and he should get to continue the game as if nothing happened. He probably hates the Goldmans the most because they stole his stuff and ruined his life after he got away with it.

Interesting analogy about football.  You could be right.  I do think that Simpson blamed Nicole for everything.  He may even not understand why the Goldmans hate him instead of Nicole (because all was her fault.) 

 

I do agree that he believed he should be able to continue the "game" as if nothing happened and was probably floored it didn't work out that way.  He was also clearly out of touch with . . well, everything.  I posted this is another thread but a friend of mine is friends with a studio exec who knew Simpson.  He admitted to this exec and his wife that "I killed two people and got away with it. "  Seeing their stunned expressions, he said "The bitch deserved it."  And he said this in casual after-dinner conversation.   Truly out of touch and with no idea or care as to the extreme damage he'd done.

 

I don't mean to generalize, but I think the only way you see OJ as sympathetic in this show is if you think he's guilty and got off. That he wasn't shown as a monster throughout, if you think he is one, is by default depicting him sympathetically. Maybe -- maybe you could say the last shot was sympathetic of everything he'd lost. But then again, the last shot of him was fat and beaten, and then a quick fade to Goldman and Brown-Simpson. 

 

I think he's guilty and got off and I have zero sympathy for him.  He's a cold blooded murderer.  He nearly took off his ex-wife's head, he stabbed to death a young man who was unfortunate enough to arrive at that time and he left both their bodies where his children could have found them. 

 

CGJ came off somewhat sympathetically.  That could have been his choice, the director's choice or the fact that I like CGJ and that affected my perception of his performance. 

 

That last shot of Simpson was Simpson today - - and accurate.  I'm glad the show ended with photos of Ron and Nicole, the ultimate victims.  I do wish they had used the photo of Ron that was taken on the afternoon of June 12, 1994.  He was playing a baseball or softball game and it's a casual shot of him, with a big smile and his baseball cap turned around backwards.  I always felt that was the "true" Ron Goldman, one that showed him with a genuine smile and zest for life.  The Goldman family used that picture on the cover of their book "His Name Was Ron." 

[Apprentice79]

One bad apple may spoil the bunch, but not the whole orchard.  I think of it this way...  Think of any job you've had, you usually know of at least one idiot and work with them directly - someone who either cheats or steals or lies or is just plain bad at their job. There is probably more than one person like this at that job.  How would you  like to be judged for their poor behavior?  Would you want some stranger to assume you steal because they know of someone else that steals at the company?  Especially if that company has upwards of 10,000 employees?  Even if 20% of the people there are not good for some reason or other, that doesn't mean I should assume you are an idiot too.

When it comes to the police officers and the Black community, your analogy is  not comparable....You have  different generations of people having the same type of awful experiences with them...This problem has existed for years. There is a reason why the rap song "fuck the police" by the rap group NWA was so popular and resonated with the black community, especially young black men....Being Black, we not only have to worry about criminals potentially harming us out on the streets, we also know that we have to worry about the police as well and that is our reality. 

Edited April 9, 2016 by Apprentice79

[Finnegan]

One bad apple may spoil the bunch, but not the whole orchard. I think of it this way... Think of any job you've had, you usually know of at least one idiot and work with them directly - someone who either cheats or steals or lies or is just plain bad at their job. There is probably more than one person like this at that job. How would you like to be judged for their poor behavior? Would you want some stranger to assume you steal because they know of someone else that steals at the company? Especially if that company has upwards of 10,000 employees? Even if 20% of the people there are not good for some reason or other, that doesn't mean I should assume you are an idiot too.

I think the issue is less that there were some bad cops and some good ones in the LAPD than the fact that corrupt and illegal behaviour was tolerated in the organization as a whole, even entrenched. That's why people speak of "racist police culture". Fuhrman being reinstated on the job after he reported his own bigotry to personnel is an example of how problematic that organization was. The black jurors knew first hand that the LAPD was largely biased against minority citizens. The defence attacked the credibility of the investigation and the jurors believed it, because they had first hand knowledge of just how corrupt LA cops were.

Did it need to be a massive conspiracy to frame OJ, or could it have been something as innocuous as a detective instructing the lab: "place him in Bundy"? (Something similar happened in Making A Murderer).

[DangerousMinds]

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

 

In their jury instructions, some judges do a better job of explaining the difference than others. Not sure how well Ito did in that department. (Also not sure whether any amount of explanation would have made a difference in the verdict in this case, but that's a different question.)

I have 0% doubt that OJ committed double murder.

I was thinking - if the theory is that Fuhrman planted the gloves, how exactly did he get a hold of those expensive, limited edition gloves that were sold only in NYC (and that Nicole had the receipts for)? Really?

[Finnegan]

I was thinking - if the theory is that Fuhrman planted the gloves, how exactly did he get a hold of those expensive, limited edition gloves that were sold only in NYC (and that Nicole had the receipts for)? Really?

I *think* the theory is that both gloves were at the crime scene and Furhman brought the second one over to Rockingham. At this point, presumably, they would have zeroed in on OJ as a suspect.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Finnegan

[whiporee]

 

Reasonable doubt basically means would a reasonable person believe that this happened or did not.

 

It absolutely, 100 percent does NOT mean this. Reasonable doubt -- and the standard is "guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt" -- means that a juror has to be damn sure that the prosecution's story is true based on what it was presented. It's not a matter of presenting a case that probably happened, or that a reasonable person would believe what happened. Reasonable doubt means that a juror can look at the evidence presented and say with certainty the defendant is guilty. Not probably guilty, but surely guilty.  Believe doesn't have anything to do with it -- you have to know, to the best of your ability, the defendant is guilty. If you have a doubt that is built on reason, then you MUST vote to acquit. It doesn't have to be a large doubt, or a fundamental doubt. It just has to be a real one. 

 

This jury was presented this evidence: 

1) the crime scene was at best sloppy, and at worst contaminated. Police moved directly from the crime scene to Rockingham, detectives forgot to log in evidence, there were discrepancies in the amount of blood taken from Simpson.

2) the person who found the glove and the blood in the Bronco had a history of racism, and when asked whether he lied on the stand took the Fifth. When asked if he planted evidence, he took the Fifth. 

3) the gloves that were found covered in the victims' blood apparently did not fit the defendant when the prosecution instructed him to put them on. 

4) the limo driver, on whom the prosecution's timeline was built, had at least some of his facts wrong

 

Any of those could produce a small doubt as to his guilt. In retrospect, we can all see ways they were manipulated or misused. but that's what the jury saw. 

[Kromm]

I think everyone understands that at this point. But the questions of what is reasonable isn't as clear cut as it seems. Because some of the definitions I've read say if you have a real, small doubt, then that's enough. It doesn't have to be a large one, just a real one. 

I want to be careful how I say this, because it's a knock against the way you've expressed this and not you. But that's.... well.... nonsense. 

 

Wrangling over the phrase "real" instead of the phrase "reasonable" doesn't change anything--in fact it's an even slippier slope that leads to dangerous places even faster, because it leads to one possible interpretation that if something is even possible, then you have to apply it. 

 

Lets use an extreme example. In theory it's a "real" possibility that then President Bill Clinton secretly took a top secret flight to Los Angeles, as part of a secret affair with Nicole Brown, encountered her with Ron Goldman, thought she was cheating on him, and murdered them both. Then using his vast presidential power, he initiated a police coverup. I mean this is totally ridiculous, but because it's physically possible, you could argue it's a "real" even if microscopically likely possibility. Or, in theory Nicole Brown could have been a spy meeting her handler, Ron Goldman, and they were killed by enemy agents, who then bribed the right people in the LAPD to finger OJ instead. In theory you could come up with any number of outrageous theories, and hang the label on them that there's a real, even if microscopic possibility--because it's just not impossible, just ridiculously unlikely. "Real" would be a trap for a standard, because you either have to interpret it as "proven" (which means you'd only apply it if there's ZERO possibility it's untrue) or you interpret it as "possible" (which leads down this rabbit hole I've just talked about and thus can be applied so that there's ALWAYS doubt). 

So... that's why "reasonable", as slippery as that seems, is far more likely to be how someone would explain it than "real".

[whiporee]

No, i think you're obfuscating the point. 

 

A real doubt is something that has merit: I can't get my head around the fact there's not more blood in the Bronco. This was a bloody crime scene and Mr. Darden said it was a crime of rage, so why isn't there more blood in the Bronco? it doesn't make sense that there isn't more. I mean, we see the defensive cuts on Goldman, but all Simpson has is a small cut on his finger? 

 

A real doubt is: I know this DNA points to the defendant, but God, look at the way it was collected and handled and distributed. And some of it's missing? And some of the blood shows up weeks later? 

 

A real doubt is: This guy who jumped the fence, found the glove and the blood on the Bronco, says he can't testify whether he planted evidence because he's afraid it might incriminate him?

 

A real doubt is: The prosecution said the killer wore these gloves. But they didn't seem to fit. Whenever I've worn gloves, the tend to get looser with time, not tighter.  They said he was the killer and yet the gloves don't seem to fit. That doesn't make sense.

 

A real doubt is: This limo guy told us there were two cars in the driveway, and he was certain of it. But there was only one. If he was so certain but wrong about that, maybe he was wrong about  not seeing the Bronco the first time.

 

No one's suggesting an alien defense, but beyond reasonable doubt does not mean probably. it does not mean in all likelihood. It means with a high degree of certainty. It means that your doubt needs a level of legitimacy, which I think all of those do. 

[txhorns79]

It means that your doubt needs a level of legitimacy, which I think all of those do.

 

They really don't though.  If you are looking for a reason to acquit someone, you can always hang your hat on something.  I would say the fact that jury barely deliberated after a months long trial shows they weren't very interested in considering the evidence. 

[whiporee]

 

They really don't though.  If you are looking for a reason to acquit someone, you can always hang your hat on something.  I would say the fact that jury barely deliberated after a months long trial shows they weren't very interested in considering the evidence.

 

And if you're looking to convict someone, you can overlook any doubt presented by calling it unreasonable and fanciful. 

 

I think the reasons for short deliberations have been spelled out and make sense to anyone who wants to assign this jury and verdict credibility. If someone wants to think they shirked their oath or make a statement, then no amount of explanation will make a difference. Neither would have anything other than a conviction. 

Edited April 9, 2016 by whiporee

[RemoteControlFreak]

No, i think you're obfuscating the point. 

 

A real doubt is something that has merit: I can't get my head around the fact there's not more blood in the Bronco. This was a bloody crime scene and Mr. Darden said it was a crime of rage, so why isn't there more blood in the Bronco? it doesn't make sense that there isn't more. I mean, we see the defensive cuts on Goldman, but all Simpson has is a small cut on his finger? 

 

A real doubt is: I know this DNA points to the defendant, but God, look at the way it was collected and handled and distributed. And some of it's missing? And some of the blood shows up weeks later? 

 

A real doubt is: This guy who jumped the fence, found the glove and the blood on the Bronco, says he can't testify whether he planted evidence because he's afraid it might incriminate him?

 

A real doubt is: The prosecution said the killer wore these gloves. But they didn't seem to fit. Whenever I've worn gloves, the tend to get looser with time, not tighter.  They said he was the killer and yet the gloves don't seem to fit. That doesn't make sense.

 

A real doubt is: This limo guy told us there were two cars in the driveway, and he was certain of it. But there was only one. If he was so certain but wrong about that, maybe he was wrong about  not seeing the Bronco the first time.

 

No one's suggesting an alien defense, but beyond reasonable doubt does not mean probably. it does not mean in all likelihood. It means with a high degree of certainty. It means that your doubt needs a level of legitimacy, which I think all of those do. 

If he didn't do it, why is there ANY blood in the Bronco?  If it's because Mark Fuhrman or another LAPD office put it there, why did they only put a few drops in there.  If they were intent on framing him, they'd make sure the Bronco was adequately smeared with blood not just dabbled with a few drops.

 

Why didn't Simpson have more cuts on his hand? Because he was holding the knife! And because he was the attacker.  And because he was bigger and stronger than Goldman.  Goldman's defensive cuts were from defending himself against a big knife, not fighting against Simpson's body. They were not engaged in hand-to-hand combat. They were engaged in knife vs. human combat.   

 

As for the gloves fitting, have you ever tried on an old pair of gloves that were soaked in blood and allowed to dry, while you were wearing latex gloves under the leather gloves and knowing that if you can show that the gloves don't fit you might escape going to prison for life?  It's pretty obvious watching the trial video that the gloves were not a small as Simpson pretended they were. He could have gotten his hands into them. He didn't want to.  If I were him, I'd have done the same thing, as would any smart criminal defendant.

 

Fuhrman's pleading of the fifth was only to protect him from perjuring himself for lying about using the n-word.  In the end he was convicted anyway of the perjury felony.

[Eolivet]

I...don't understand why it can't be both.

 

I remember the line from A Few Good Men: "It doesn't matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove." The show had this jury say "Did they prove it?" The jury (on the show) clearly did not think they did, and on the show, I could absolutely see how they came to that conclusion.

 

I think the show very clearly showed why the prosecution lost the case and the defense won. I saw a motivated, resourceful and highly intelligent defense team and a clearly overwhelmed and overly rigid prosecution team. And I liked them both (credit to the actors), but I don't think the show is trying to portray this as a miscarriage of justice. They laid the groundwork very early on for the fact that the prosecution fundamentally misunderstood what would resonate about the case, and they ignored the advice about the jury. They called it "airtight" and it very clearly wasn't. I don't come away from this show blaming the jury, because we saw all of the prosecution's missteps.

 

I just feel like the show is being unfairly maligned here -- I found it extremely even-handed, with virtually no "villain." It wasn't the defense team, it wasn't Simpson -- the closest they came to a villain was Fuhrman. The story was not that the prosecution laid out a strong case and was torpedoed by an incompetent jury. The story was not that the defense used dirty tricks and schemes to bamboozle the prosecution and trick the jury into believing Simpson was innocent. I believe the story was that the prosecution thought they had the facts on their side, but made a ton of mistakes throughout, and ultimately the jury decided (through an actual line in the script) they did not prove their case.

 

I didn't watch to see a reenactment of the actual case -- I watched to see the trial, reimagined through our more (hopefully) enlightened minds today. I thought the show did a great job with that. I certainly didn't come away from this show hating any character except Fuhrman, and I just don't think that was ever the show's intent. We saw too little of the jury to put everything that happened on their shoulders. So, I didn't.

 

Basically, I think the show was designed so you could drop somebody in from Mars, show it to them without any background or prior knowledge, and they would understand the verdict. Maybe they'd agree, maybe they'd disagree, but they'd understand it. The show proved that, at least in my eyes.

[txhorns79]

If someone wants to think they shirked their oath or make a statement, then no amount of explanation will make a difference.

 

You had a juror give what appeared to be a "black power" salute to OJ after the verdict was read.  How is that behavior explained as anything other than showing his vote was about making a statement? 

[whiporee]

 

You had a juror give what appeared to be a "black power" salute to OJ after the verdict was read.  How is that behavior explained as anything other than showing his vote was about making a statement?

 

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

[VanillaBeanne]

I thought the show portrayed most of the characters in a better light than I expected. Except for Furhman and Resnick. I thought after the first five episodes that Shapiro came off horribly, but the scenes with his wife where he worried about the impact of the trial on the city humanized him.

I do think the show didn't do a very good job of showing the defense's argument re: LAPD incompetence. I think the defense had a two part argument - (1) you can't trust the evidence because racist police planted it and (2) you can't trust the evidence because the police bungled the collection of it so much that the results were unreliable. Sometimes points they made bolstered arguments (1) and (2) at the same time, but the jury could believe either (1) or (2) and acquit. (Interestingly, in responding to defenses argument of conspiracy, the prosecution would sometimes have to concede to the defense's incompetence argument - the LAPD didn't conspire, that was just a mistake on its part).

On the LAPD incompetence argument, the actual defense spent more time arguing it than the police conspiracy/racism argument, but the show flipped that around. On the show, Fuhrman got more than one episode even though he wasn't on the stand for more than two days. However, in real life, there were months of testimony about the forensic evidence. I feel like the show told us about the LAPD incompetence angle rather than showed it. They had Scheck state how he was going to attack the blood evidence in three different episodes, but when it came time to show how he actually did this at trial, the show spent like two minutes on the Fung testimony. They did not actually show Scheck decimate Fung (he caught him in many many obvious lies that were contracted by videotape). Rather, they show the after effects by having a shell shocked Fung stupidly shake everybody's hands and by showing Marcia Clark go apeshit on her forensic files back at her office. they also left out Dr Lee, who did have memorable and colorful testimony. They also, oddly, stressed Lange's chain of custody gaffe on non-critical evidence but barely mentioned Vannater's huge breach of custody regarding a crucial piece of evidence - the vial of OJ's blood that was collected at the police station but taken by Vannater to the crime scene. I thought that was the worst mistake made by the LAPD. I was surprised they did not really feature it but understand they had to leave a lot out.

Edited April 10, 2016 by VanillaBeanne

[Apprentice79]

You had a juror give what appeared to be a "black power" salute to OJ after the verdict was read.  How is that behavior explained as anything other than showing his vote was about making a statement? 

Do you even know what the Black power salute means? it seems like some people think it is a racist gesture on the same level as the heil Hitler salute that the Nazis used or the burning cross that the KKK used to intimidate and terrorized people that they viewed as their enemies....