O.J.: Made In America - Part 3

[RemoteControlFreak]

44 minutes ago, RCharter said:

because, then, who knows, maybe it was some girlfriend of Ron Goldman's, or maybe it was some enemy of Ron Goldman, etc, etc.  And if the police didn't investigate these "theories" were they just always unfairly gunning for OJ all along?  If you bought into that, then you could more easily buy into the LAPD planting a glove, and just looking to bring a rich black celebrity down.   I was pretty young and I remember alternate theories.  You're right in that they were never very specific, but they were out there.  I'm not saying that the theories were right or that they had much merit.....but its more interesting in the effect they had on people and how they muddied the water of what should have been a very straightforward case with a lot of evidence.

Actually this would backfire.  If the defense were to throw out crazy preprosterous theories that have no basis in fact, the theories would be shot down as quickly as Johnnie Cochran's "Colombian Necklace" notion.  The defense had all they needed to raise doubt just by confusing the not-too-bright jury about blood evidence and DNA.  The did't need to make up a crazy story about an unknown ex-girlfriend of Ron Goldman who might have the motive, opportunity and means to kill both Ron and Nicole and leave no blood, fingerprints or evidence.

But, what do I know?  There are people stupid enough to believe that Elvis is still alive, Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and the US government blew up the World Trade Center.  So maybe there are some idiots who would fall for this.

[RCharter]

Just now, RemoteControlFreak said:

Actually this would backfire.  If the defense were to throw out crazy preprosterous theories that have no basis in fact, the theories would be shot down as quickly as Johnnie Cochran's "Colombian Necklace" notion.  The defense had all they needed to raise doubt just by confusing the not-too-bright jury about blood evidence and DNA.  The did't need to make up a crazy story about an unknown ex-girlfriend of Ron Goldman who might have the motive, opportunity and means to kill both Ron and Nicole and leave no blood, fingerprints or evidence.

But, what do I know?  There are people stupid enough to believe that Elvis is still alive, Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and the US government blew up the World Trade Center.  So maybe there are some idiots who would fall for this.

But would it?  Did it?  "Reasonable doubt" is something that can't really be defined by even the best and brightest legal minds. The defense seemed to be to put the LAPD on trial -- but doesn't that naturally play better if your jury has heard about all these other theories that no one has investigated?  If these theories are just sitting out there....can't they undermine the prosecutions case?  I think so.  And the genius of the defense was that they never really had to come up with any specific alternative theories....just vague suggestions were enough, especially when coupled with the fact that from the defense POV it is the job of the police to investigate these "leads" and if the police didn't, its because the police are corrupt which fits neatly into the narrative that the police simply wanted to find OJ guilty no matter what and manipulated the evidence to do so.  And unfortunately, I think this approach worked primarily because the police had such a long and storied history of creating distrust in those communities.

Blood/DNA evidence in the days before CSI was pretty confusing, and I think the prosecution probably got too technical for the average person, be they dim or bright.   Today, DNA evidence is something we all understand, but I don't think it was the same back in the early 90's.  And I don't even think the defense really attacked the validity of DNA, they attacked how it was collected and processed.  Which is a much easier story to tell than the technicality of DNA.  

[RemoteControlFreak]

There is nothing reasonable about pulling absurd theories out of the air, like:

What if Ron Goldman had an ex-girlfriend? And what is she was mad at him? And what if she were so mad that she could kill Ron and a woman she didn't know?  And what if she were living in LA and knew where Ron would be and when?  And what if she had the ability to stab both Ron and Nicole to death (the access to a weapon, the physical strength and skill, the ability to walk away so unscathed that nobody would know) or to hire a hitman (the money, the connections, the evil intent) ?  Even the OJ Simpson defense knew that tossing out crazy ideas like this would not fly.  The only place they fly is among the crowd trolls online chat rooms comparing notes about how the Sandy Hook School shootings were a hoax.  Don't laugh. Google it.  These nut cases exist.

Edited June 17, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[DangerousMinds]

41 minutes ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

Actually this would backfire.  If the defense were to throw out crazy preprosterous theories that have no basis in fact, the theories would be shot down as quickly as Johnnie Cochran's "Colombian Necklace" notion.  The defense had all they needed to raise doubt just by confusing the not-too-bright jury about blood evidence and DNA.  The did't need to make up a crazy story about an unknown ex-girlfriend of Ron Goldman who might have the motive, opportunity and means to kill both Ron and Nicole and leave no blood, fingerprints or evidence.

But, what do I know?  There are people stupid enough to believe that Elvis is still alive, Barack Obama was born in Kenya, and the US government blew up the World Trade Center.  So maybe there are some idiots who would fall for this.

Clearly. SMDH.

28 minutes ago, RCharter said:

But would it?  Did it?  "Reasonable doubt" is something that can't really be defined by even the best and brightest legal minds. The defense seemed to be to put the LAPD on trial -- but doesn't that naturally play better if your jury has heard about all these other theories that no one has investigated?  If these theories are just sitting out there....can't they undermine the prosecutions case?  I think so.  And the genius of the defense was that they never really had to come up with any specific alternative theories....just vague suggestions were enough, especially when coupled with the fact that from the defense POV it is the job of the police to investigate these "leads" and if the police didn't, its because the police are corrupt which fits neatly into the narrative that the police simply wanted to find OJ guilty no matter what and manipulated the evidence to do so.  And unfortunately, I think this approach worked primarily because the police had such a long and storied history of creating distrust in those communities.

Blood/DNA evidence in the days before CSI was pretty confusing, and I think the prosecution probably got too technical for the average person, be they dim or bright.   Today, DNA evidence is something we all understand, but I don't think it was the same back in the early 90's.  And I don't even think the defense really attacked the validity of DNA, they attacked how it was collected and processed.  Which is a much easier story to tell than the technicality of DNA.  

mid-90's.:) Doesn't a judge get to decide whether absurd theories can even be presented to a jury? I'm not sure how this works.

[teddysmom]

Not a lawyer but I think the defense can throw out any crazy theory they want,  as long as it isn't "aliens did it" or something along that line and it's up to the prosecution to have the evidence to prove the defendant is guilty. 

This "Ron Goldman girlfriend" bullshit could be shot down by stating "And did this mysterious girlfriend also have a key to OJ Simpson Bronco and home, because how else did the blood of Nicole and Ron end up inside both those?" 

Interesting that Barry Scheck was there to disprove the DNA evidence on this one, and now he's running the Innocence Project which relies on DNA to get people off. 

 

 

That is one magic bullet. 

[RCharter]

10 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

Clearly. SMDH.

mid-90's.:) Doesn't a judge get to decide whether absurd theories can even be presented to a jury? I'm not sure how this works.

Not particularly, especially if you are presenting your theories in closing.  During the trial you're examining, cross examining witnesses to establish these theories, but you are only asking them about facts, or things that they have personally experienced that are relevant and not excluded by the rules of evidence.  Relevance is very, very, very broad.  

I remember watching a news story on this one case, and I can't remember the name of it......but in essence the defense hadn't really put on a case, but then presented an alternate theory ONLY in closing arguments.  And it ended up working.  

[RCharter]

4 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

Not a lawyer but I think the defense can throw out any crazy theory they want,  as long as it isn't "aliens did it" or something along that line and it's up to the prosecution to have the evidence to prove the defendant is guilty. 

This "Ron Goldman girlfriend" bullshit could be shot down by stating "And did this mysterious girlfriend also have a key to OJ Simpson Bronco and home, because how else did the blood of Nicole and Ron end up inside both those?" 

Interesting that Barry Scheck was there to disprove the DNA evidence on this one, and now he's running the Innocence Project which relies on DNA to get people off. 

 

 

That is one magic bullet. 

Devils advocate (or, as Tracey Morgan said in 30 Rock "Devils Avocado")....but if you're putting out the Ron Goldman angle, you're probably also putting it out there that the police somehow planted the blood evidence in the Bronco.  Or you're hoping thats what the jury infers.

[Decider]

1 hour ago, RCharter said:

the judge who decided that the woman who shot Latasha Harris (?) should only get probation for shooting a woman in the back of the head

Latasha Harlins.

[teddysmom]

And that can be shot down by asking how the police got the blood inside the Bronco? Wouldn't it have been locked? 

And why was OJ's blood at the crime scene? 

The defense was able to completely overwhelm the jury with bullshit theories, and the prosecution overwhelmed them with two weeks of DNA evidence explanations and science. 

Marcia Clarke went thru the timeline and the witnesses to him driving away from the area, the blood evidence, the history of beating Nicole, etc. The jury chose to believe the bullshit. 

[RCharter]

Just now, teddysmom said:

And that can be shot down by asking how the police got the blood inside the Bronco? Wouldn't it have been locked? 

And why was OJ's blood at the crime scene? 

The defense was able to completely overwhelm the jury with bullshit theories, and the prosecution overwhelmed them with two weeks of DNA evidence explanations and science. 

Marcia Clarke went thru the timeline and the witnesses to him driving away from the area, the blood evidence, the history of beating Nicole, etc. The jury chose to believe the bullshit. 

They would have processed the blood away from the scene, in fact I believe they towed the Bronco to get the blood evidence.  If it was in police custody it could have been tampered with.  OJ's blood at the crime scene can be explained by tampering.  I can't remember if his blood was mixed with NS/RG.

I think its more complex than people choosing to believe bullshit.  

If there was a choice here, it was to believe that the LAPD is corrupt enough to have tampered with evidence... a belief that was bolstered by the LAPD's actions within the community.

Although -- I think its maybe even more basic than that.....the verdict wasn't much a matter of belief at all, it was just a way to stick it to the system, that the people felt had been sticking it to them for years.

I believe that OJ did it, period, point, blank.....but I also think this case and the verdict is more complex than people make it out to be.

[teddysmom]

Quote

If there was a choice here, it was to believe that the LAPD is corrupt enough to have tampered with evidence... a belief that was bolstered by the LAPD's actions within the community.

Except the LAPD treated the AA community of LA badly, not OJ. OJ wasn't white, he was OJ.  He had tons of friends on the force, hence the reason why he got away with beating Nicole for years. He would call someone and explain that they got into a little tiff and that was all it was. 

Quote

Although -- I think its maybe even more basic than that.....the verdict wasn't much a matter of belief at all, it was just a way to stick it to the system, that the people felt had been sticking it to them for years.

Except they ended up sticking it to two dead people and their families.  Yeah the prosecution was humiliated, but their lives went on.  

[teddysmom]

Quote

the judge who decided that the woman who shot Latasha Harris (?) should only get probation for shooting a woman in the back of the head

What exactly caused that situation? I was watching this last night but couldn't really tell from the security footage what happened that caused the woman to shoot Latasha.  I thought the kids who were scuffling with her had left.  

[RCharter]

4 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

Except the LAPD treated the AA community of LA badly, not OJ. OJ wasn't white, he was OJ.  He had tons of friends on the force, hence the reason why he got away with beating Nicole for years. He would call someone and explain that they got into a little tiff and that was all it was. 

Except they ended up sticking it to two dead people and their families.  Yeah the prosecution was humiliated, but their lives went on.  

True, the LAPD treated AA's badly, and this was the first opportunity they had to stick it to anyone.  Unfortunately it benefited OJ....but OJ has always benefited off the backs of other black people and refused to even acknowledge being black.  In part 1 they went over how other black athletes stood up for civil rights...which ultimately benefited OJ...but even years later.  But I think for more people, it wasn't necessarily helping about OJ as much as it was about the LAPD.  That OJ was a beneficiary of the message is truly, truly unfortunate and ironic.

Also true, but I think that the point was made that when you allow an entire police force to treat people poorly there won't be any trust in that force, and it results in these miscarriages of justice because people don't have any faith or confidence in the system or the police.  And I think that, for better or for worse that has had an effect on a lot of the changes that the LAPD made.  With the riots and with video of police misconduct, you could always just say "well, it only affects those people, over there," so there is little impetus to make any change......but when you see that the effects of police misconduct to poor minorities can affect the lives of rich white people.....I think its a whole different kettle of fish.

I think its really unfortunate, and I wish there had been a better case to make these points because OJ is the worst.  It sort of reminds me of the civil rights movement....unbeknownst to me, there had actually been another woman that had refused to go to the back of the bus.....but the civil rights leaders actually picked Rosa Parks to do the same thing and become the figurehead because she was a much more "respectable" woman.  And of course Rosa Parks, and the first lady are absolute heroes.  Sometimes though, there isn't a choice.

[RCharter]

8 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

What exactly caused that situation? I was watching this last night but couldn't really tell from the security footage what happened that caused the woman to shoot Latasha.  I thought the kids who were scuffling with her had left.  

Latasha Harlins had put a bottle of orange juice into her backpack, Du (the store owner) did not see the money that Latasha was holding in her hand to pay for the juice and assumed that Latasha was stealing the juice.  Du grabbed Harlins and Harlins hit her back.  Harlins backed away, and Du threw a stool at her.  Harlins picked up the orange juice, placed it on the counter and as she left Du shot her in the back of the head.

A 15 year old girl....and her killer got 5 months probation....oh and a $500 fine for good measure.

[Bama]

Quote

Did coming upon Nicole's seduction scene make OJ snap?

He could have walked up on Ron and Nicole mid coitus and there would still be no excuse.

And so what if some lit candles did "make OJ snap"?  So, he just happened to have a big ass knife in his pocket?

OJ went to Nicole's house that night with one thing in mind - Nicole needed killing.

[RemoteControlFreak]

4 hours ago, teddysmom said:

Interesting that Barry Scheck was there to disprove the DNA evidence on this one, and now he's running the Innocence Project which relies on DNA to get people off. 

Scheck founded the Innocence Project in 1992. So he was running it for three years before he stepped foot in the Simpson trial courtroom.  I lost most of what respect I had for him when he took on this case. He had to know Simpson was the murderer but used his DNA expertise and credentials to confuse the jury and let a murderer go free.

[jaync]

Quote

Carl Douglas is an entertaining guy but I found myself getting pretty pissed at some of the things he said. I still can't believe he admitted flat out that they staged OJ's house to make him look more black.

He's so damn theatrical. In another interview from a few months back, he also flat out admitted that O.J. was totally acting when trying on the gloves, so apparently Carl no longer has any shits to give.

Quote

I was shocked when OJ asked what were all those n______ doing in Brentwood when leaving his estate after the chase.

Me, too. If only Linda Jay had known what O.J. really thought of her.

Quote

agreed, but I think whats more shocking is OJ's distaste for people of his own race and the level of self-hatred it evidences.  He clearly doesn't see himself as a black person or as an "n...a" but all these people who gathered to support him....he doesn't even identify with them.

True, and I think it's of significance that when he made the comment, it was to a car full of white cops.

Quote

Casual friend, acquaintance, whatever. Hardly relevant to this series.

Exactly, just as the defense didn't find it pertinent enough to explore.

The older female juror relaying her and her kids' reactions when she was chosen for the jury was pretty funny.

"Wow" moment for me: When Ron Shipp said that O.J. killed Nicole, so he wanted no part of the "team".

Edited June 17, 2016 by jaync

[AimingforYoko]

I had forgotten all about the n-word brouhaha between Darden and Cochran. It was an incredibly stupid thing for Darden to say, but I still felt bad for him when Cochran (justifiably) eviscerated him in open court.

[attica]

It struck me that still after 20 years and allllll the publicity, SWAT-dude Albanese (the bald guy with the Oakley tan lines) kept mispronouncing Cowlings's name. Is it a mental quirk, like people who say 'nuc-ul-ar', or is it symptomatic of a disdain that makes learning humanizing details of perp-adjacent people not worth bothering with?

I loved Marcia's contempt for the Lange-Vannatter interview. Dude, I could have done better, and all I know about interrogation I learned from Lennie Briscoe.

And at least in this ep, we got friends who admitted they believed OJ when he told them he didn't do it.

Advice to the lovelorn: when a person moans about 'the problem is I love you too much', this is what we in the flag business call RED. However tempting it is to be swept up in the notion of Such Grand Passion, the true meaning is always far, far darker.

[RCharter]

12 hours ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

There is nothing reasonable about pulling absurd theories out of the air, like:

What if Ron Goldman had an ex-girlfriend? And what is she was mad at him? And what if she were so mad that she could kill Ron and a woman she didn't know?  And what if she were living in LA and knew where Ron would be and when?  And what if she had the ability to stab both Ron and Nicole to death (the access to a weapon, the physical strength and skill, the ability to walk away so unscathed that nobody would know) or to hire a hitman (the money, the connections, the evil intent) ?  Even the OJ Simpson defense knew that tossing out crazy ideas like this would not fly.  The only place they fly is among the crowd trolls online chat rooms comparing notes about how the Sandy Hook School shootings were a hoax.  Don't laugh. Google it.  These nut cases exist.

But they didn't have to "throw these theories out" in trial, they simply had to put them into the general consciousness for them to gain traction.  If you're simply looking for a way to find OJ not guilty any of these stories along with the allegation of police misconduct would work.  So yes, these theories are reasonable to put out there, even though truly the defense team had no duty to put out an alternate theory at all.  Its just somewhat helpful to a jury, but the defense is under no obligation to prove a defendant didn't do it.

[RCharter]

9 hours ago, Bama said:

He could have walked up on Ron and Nicole mid coitus and there would still be no excuse.

And so what if some lit candles did "make OJ snap"?  So, he just happened to have a big ass knife in his pocket?

OJ went to Nicole's house that night with one thing in mind - Nicole needed killing.

There is no excuse, but I think a lot of people expected the defense team to go for manslaughter instead of full acquittal based on provocation.  Finding your spouse mid-coitus with another person is textbook voluntary manslaughter.  I suspect the defense team might have gone for that had they not gotten such a favorable jury.  I'm not sure how big the knife was, but a lot of people just carry knives (I personally don't, but I know people who just carry knives).

I'm not sure how long the jury questionnaire was, and you were certainly going to have to have black people on the panel -- but there are some people that should have been dismissed for cause...juror number 9 who thinks that women who take a beating don't deserve any sympathy......you can't tell me you couldn't design a jury questionnaire that could have sussed that out.

[attica]

19 hours ago, smiley13 said:

Did coming upon Nicole's seduction scene make OJ snap?

Research shows that IP abusers like OJ don't 'snap.' The pouncing, snarling rage is performance, meant to destabilize and terrorize the victim. Underneath the performance, their blood pressure is steady, their heart rate often drops. And the precipitating event to deadly violence is nearly always the victim taking steps to throw off the abusers control, to get free. Cozying up to somebody else? Handy excuse. The Mezzaluna dude's story about him yelling at Nicole in another room and coming out to smile and shake his hand was really a textbook example of the phenomenon. And last but not least, he didn't 'come upon' her. He stalked her and spied on her.

[poeticlicensed]

3 hours ago, RCharter said:

There is no excuse, but I think a lot of people expected the defense team to go for manslaughter instead of full acquittal based on provocation.  Finding your spouse mid-coitus with another person is textbook voluntary manslaughter.  I suspect the defense team might have gone for that had they not gotten such a favorable jury.  I'm not sure how big the knife was, but a lot of people just carry knives (I personally don't, but I know people who just carry knives).

I'm not sure how long the jury questionnaire was, and you were certainly going to have to have black people on the panel -- but there are some people that should have been dismissed for cause...juror number 9 who thinks that women who take a beating don't deserve any sympathy......you can't tell me you couldn't design a jury questionnaire that could have sussed that out.

Yes, I think there was a lot "men are gonna do what they do" attitude among the jury. I also think that they chose AA women over men because there is some resentment among the female AA community against white women, particularly blondes, that  marry successful black men. Not against the men, but against the women who "stole" them. As many lawyers say, cases are won and lost during jury selection. 

[RCharter]

1 hour ago, poeticlicensed said:

Yes, I think there was a lot "men are gonna do what they do" attitude among the jury. I also think that they chose AA women over men because there is some resentment among the female AA community against white women, particularly blondes, that  marry successful black men. Not against the men, but against the women who "stole" them. As many lawyers say, cases are won and lost during jury selection. 

I've actually heard that in a lot of violence against women cases the prosecution prefer men on the jury, because some women have a tendency to blame the victim for having somehow brought the violence on themselves

[psychoticstate]

I have to admit that I was surprised that even before the criminal trial, bystanders were suggesting that Simpson was framed and "reacting" the way he was because of that.

Total b.s. because an innocent man, especially one with Simpson's connections and wealth, would never put a gun to his head and go on a slow speed chase in Orange County.  Never.  Much less make a statement to Tom Lange that he (Simpson) was the only one who deserved to get hurt.  Those actions said nothing but guilt, guilt, guilt.  If Simpson was innocent, he should have been outraged (at that initial point) to be charged, then willing to do whatever because he had nothing to hide.  And he would have wanted to find the person responsible for taking his children's mother away.  Simpson showed and did none of that.

[Pallas]

8 hours ago, RCharter said:

There is no excuse, but I think a lot of people expected the defense team to go for manslaughter instead of full acquittal based on provocation.  Finding your spouse mid-coitus with another person is textbook voluntary manslaughter.  I suspect the defense team might have gone for that had they not gotten such a favorable jury.  I'm not sure how big the knife was, but a lot of people just carry knives (I personally don't, but I know people who just carry knives).

But from inside the publicity cauldron, could the prosecution accept this deal, when they were knee-deep in evidence to refute it? In this scenario, OJ saw: a couple mid-coitus fully clothed, outdoors, and untouched by the other? OJ had on him: a hunting knife, knit hat and leather gloves in L.A., in June? OJ decided to leave his house and call on Nicole: within the same hour he knew he had to be picked up for his (alibi) flight to Chicago?

Meanwhile, wouldn't the proscution fear that if they took the deal and denied themselves the chance to present the evidence, many people -- across all classes -- would suspect that the LAPD and prosecutor's office had railroaded the B-list, jovial-but-black ex-husband? In order to wrap the case and calm fears of random killers on the loose in wealthy neighborhoods?  I would have.

8 hours ago, RCharter said:

I'm not sure how long the jury questionnaire was

75 pages, with space for answers. 20 questions (#162 - 181) dealt directly with domestic violence. 

[Court]

As far as the celebrity/athlete aspect in why people decided he was innocent, that still happens today. 

Everyone assumes their hero couldn't do something awful and if they did well it still isn't their fault. 

[psychoticstate]

9 hours ago, RCharter said:

Finding your spouse mid-coitus with another person is textbook voluntary manslaughter.

Nicole was his ex-wife.  So it didn't matter what she did or who she did it with.  This was not a manslaughter case, no way at all.  Simpson sent up his alibi (or attempted to), carried a knife to her home, was dressed head to toe in dark clothing.  Nicole's death was first degree murder.  Ron's was second degree because I don't think Simpson went there with the intent to harm anyone but Nicole. 

 

27 minutes ago, Court said:

Everyone assumes their hero couldn't do something awful and if they did well it still isn't their fault. 

I remember before jury selection, I was listening to a morning radio show here in LA.  The topic was whether or not you could be a fair and impartial juror if you were chosen.  I was floored by two calls in particular - - both were men.  One said that Simpson had done so much for the world of football that we should just overlook this one little "mistake" he made.  (Because nearly decapitating your ex-wife is a mistake along the lines of forgetting to pay your electricity bill.)  The other caller said that if he was seated, they could show him a video of Simpson committing the murders and Simpson could admit he had done it and this man still would not convict.  Because it was O.J. Simpson.

It was sad, it was disheartening and it was mindboggling. 

[DangerousMinds]

Wow. If jurors know they cannot be impartial, they should recuse themselves. Disgusting.

[Court]

12 minutes ago, psychoticstate said:

 

 

I remember before jury selection, I was listening to a morning radio show here in LA.  The topic was whether or not you could be a fair and impartial juror if you were chosen.  I was floored by two calls in particular - - both were men.  One said that Simpson had done so much for the world of football that we should just overlook this one little "mistake" he made.  (Because nearly decapitating your ex-wife is a mistake along the lines of forgetting to pay your electricity bill.)  The other caller said that if he was seated, they could show him a video of Simpson committing the murders and Simpson could admit he had done it and this man still would not convict.  Because it was O.J. Simpson.

It was sad, it was disheartening and it was mindboggling. 

Wow. Since I was 11 when this happened, I didn't know a lot of this at the time. I do remember the "chase" and watching it. 

I do remember the verdict being cheered on in my town. However, there was so much I didn't know or couldn't grasp.

 

Like alleged everyone knew he routinely beat the hell out of Nicole but didn't think he would murder her?

I do think there was/is a lot of victim blaming in cases of domestic violence. I think that gets overshadowed by all the other facets of this case. 

Edited June 17, 2016 by Court

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

O.J.: Made In America Cuts To The Chase

As the film moves into the trial, we're obliged to consider what we think we know.

[Court]

Has Darden done interviews in the past? 

[teddysmom]

  22 HOURS AGO, TEDDYSMOM SAID:

Quote

 

True, the LAPD treated AA's badly, and this was the first opportunity they had to stick it to anyone.  Unfortunately it benefited OJ....but OJ has always benefited off the backs of other black people and refused to even acknowledge being black.  In part 1 they went over how other black athletes stood up for civil rights...which ultimately benefited OJ...but even years later.  But I think for more people, it wasn't necessarily helping about OJ as much as it was about the LAPD.  That OJ was a beneficiary of the message is truly, truly unfortunate and ironic.

Also true, but I think that the point was made that when you allow an entire police force to treat people poorly there won't be any trust in that force, and it results in these miscarriages of justice because people don't have any faith or confidence in the system or the police.  And I think that, for better or for worse that has had an effect on a lot of the changes that the LAPD made.  With the riots and with video of police misconduct, you could always just say "well, it only affects those people, over there," so there is little impetus to make any change......but when you see that the effects of police misconduct to poor minorities can affect the lives of rich white people.....I think its a whole different kettle of fish.

 

I agree, the LAPD has to share a great deal of the blame for this.  They mistreated that community for so long, and like they say "Karma's a bitch". 

The director and Jeffery Toobin were interviewed on Fresh Air on NPR earlier this week. It's a really interesting interview.  

[RCharter]

3 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

Nicole was his ex-wife.  So it didn't matter what she did or who she did it with.  This was not a manslaughter case, no way at all.  Simpson sent up his alibi (or attempted to), carried a knife to her home, was dressed head to toe in dark clothing.  Nicole's death was first degree murder.  Ron's was second degree because I don't think Simpson went there with the intent to harm anyone but Nicole. 

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear, provocation is the standard for voluntary manslaughter.  Finding a spouse coitus with another man is textbook, but certainly along those lines finding an ex-wife that you still have feelings for mid-coitus would also fit right in with voluntary manslaughter.  

If OJ were to maintain, as he did with his friend, that he simply went by the house to "check on Nicole" and not to kill her and that he always carried a knife on him it would have been textbook voluntary manslaughter.  

Its all in the interpretation of the evidence...if you can show a jury that OJ never carries a knife on his person in day to day situations or he didn't have it for another reason.  I do think that there are people that just carry knives or switchblades on them in daily life.  As far as the dark clothing.....I think you'd have a hard time making anything of that, people wear dark clothing all the time.  As far as the alibi, is the argument that he picked a day to kill her when he would have to take a flight and knew in advance of the dance recital that he was going to kill her?  It sounds like what everyone is saying is that he got upset because he wasn't invited out after the dance recital and he couldn't get in touch with his girlfriend.  Which happened that day, so I don't see how it could be an alibi.

Now, do I believe he went there to kill her....absolutely.  But could this have been a voluntary manslaughter case?  Absolutely.  Easily.

And honestly....I think that would have been better for OJ.  I think if he had at least gotten SOME jail time, people may have been willing to move forward. But the fact that he got no time for the murder of two people was upsetting.

[RCharter]

3 hours ago, Pallas said:

But from inside the publicity cauldron, could the prosecution accept this deal, when they were knee-deep in evidence to refute it? In this scenario, OJ saw: a couple mid-coitus fully clothed, outdoors, and untouched by the other? OJ had on him: a hunting knife, knit hat and leather gloves in L.A., in June? OJ decided to leave his house and call on Nicole: within the same hour he knew he had to be picked up for his (alibi) flight to Chicago?

Meanwhile, wouldn't the proscution fear that if they took the deal and denied themselves the chance to present the evidence, many people -- across all classes -- would suspect that the LAPD and prosecutor's office had railroaded the B-list, jovial-but-black ex-husband? In order to wrap the case and calm fears of random killers on the loose in wealthy neighborhoods?  I would have.

75 pages, with space for answers. 20 questions (#162 - 181) dealt directly with domestic violence. 

I think they could have, and ultimately, I think maybe they should have.  Especially if the counts ran consecutively and not concurrent.  As I said, I think its all in the interpretation of the evidence.....people do carry knives on them.  And I don't know that the knife was ever introduced.  In my limited google search the theory seems to be that it was a 6 inch retractable blade knife.....a retractable blade knife does sound like something someone would carry on them so that the blade could retract and not always be out.  

I think the prosecution took a gamble....but more importantly I think that the defense took an even bigger gamble.  I would have thought the defense would push for a voluntary manslaughter instruction or charge.  The gloves in the middle of June....are odd, but there are ways to explain it.  As there are ways to explain the knit hat.  Sometimes when I know I'm going to fly, I dress for where I'm going, not where I am.  

Were I to argue for voluntary manslaughter, I would say that it sounds like OJ just liked to pop up on Nicole, and he may have REALLY wanted to see what was going on since she didn't invite him to Mezzaluna.  Maybe he wanted to berate her for not inviting him to Mezzaluna.

I actually think that the voluntary manslaughter charge, in retrospect, would have benefited both parties.  The prosecution gets a win and an admission -- Simpson would have to elocute in open court and they could make that part of the deal.  OJ serves substantially less time, but serves time, and people aren't nearly as incensed....especially since whatever statement he made about how and why he did it would be self serving.  The Goldmans and the Browns at least get OJ admitting that he did it and getting some punishment instead of him smugly talking about how he is going to find "the real killers."

[RemoteControlFreak]

3 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

Wow. If jurors know they cannot be impartial, they should recuse themselves. Disgusting.

Given the requirements for this jury -- willingness to be sequestered, claiming no knowledge or limited knowledge of the crime, etc. -- there would have been no one left.

28 minutes ago, RCharter said:

And honestly....I think that would have been better for OJ.  I think if he had at least gotten SOME jail time, people may have been willing to move forward. But the fact that he got no time for the murder of two people was upsetting.

OJ Simpson did do some jail time -- the 16 months from when he was arrested until he was acquitted.  

[RCharter]

1 hour ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

Given the requirements for this jury -- willingness to be sequestered, claiming no knowledge or limited knowledge of the crime, etc. -- there would have been no one left.

OJ Simpson did do some jail time -- the 16 months from when he was arrested until he was acquitted.  

Again, I should have been more clear, if OJ had done some prison time for the crime of killing Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman I think people may have been willing to move forward.  Especially if he had to admit to the killings in open court.

[formerlyfreedom]

Okay, move on.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Yeah, I really could have done without Linda Jay's memory of how she was all a-tingle at OJ's handsomeness in the courtroom. I may have grimaced.  

There was also a great irony in the pro-OJ crowd in Brentwood shouting "Go home!" at the police officers, followed so quickly by the account of Simpson's private epithet directed at his supporters. Brentwood was even less their home than Simi Valley was. They weren't even welcomed there by the murderer they were supporting.  

Something I found poignant was the narration about the dress in which Nicole was laid out, which went all the way up to her neck, to hide the near-decapitation she had suffered. We don't think of her dressed that way; it isn't a style she favored in photos. In death, for the last time, she had to conceal what was done to her.   

Mezzaluna was a sketchy place with several people associated with it coming to violent ends to their lives.

I mean...that could just as well read "Los Angeles" (a wonderful, diverse city, but surely sketchy and violent in places and times) as "Mezzaluna."

[Negritude]

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Court said:

Has Darden done interviews in the past? 

I remember seeing him on "Where are They Now" on OWN not too long ago and he was pretty candid. He's married with kids and seems happy. I was surprised he didn't participate in this.

[RCharter]

6 hours ago, Negritude said:

I remember seeing him on "Where are They Now" on OWN not too long ago and he was pretty candid. He's married with kids and seems happy. I was surprised he didn't participate in this.

me too, but hot damn has he got to be tired of hearing about that glove.

its gotta be rough when your work fuck up is on TV for the world to see, and it had such an impact.

I found myself, like someone else, saying "don't do it Chris, don't do it!" at the TV.  Cringeworthy.

I'm happy he found happiness....I believe he is teaching somewhere, right?

[nowandlater]

On 6/16/2016 at 10:35 AM, absolutelyido said:

An interesting thing to me in this episode was that some of the people in the interviews had closer ties to the case than originally revealed. One guy was given a tag of "Brentwood resident" in an earlier episode and talked about how unusual it was to have an African American living in Brentwood. This episode we learned he was the pilot in the news helicopter following OJ's low speed chase. There is an African American woman who was first given a tag that was something like "South Central LA resident" who commented on the events that led the African American community to distrust the legal system. This episode we learned she was one of the jurors. These were both surprises to me.

There are a lot of people given vague descriptions, who were famous from my perspective as an Angeleno. Like Mark Ridley-Thomas, whom it took forever to name him as a former City Councilman. But they don't want to, I guess, muddle the narrative.

Like Bernard Parks, the black guy early on who is listed early on as "LAPD 1965-2002," became LAPD chief 2 years after the O.J. verdict. Then he became a City Councilman. But you probably don't want to go into too much detail.

Zoey/Bob Tur was a legendary TV pilot when I was growing up. I was actually shocked that he grew up in Brentwood. I mean, this guy captured the Regindal Denny beating, the first to capture O.J. in the Bronco AND he grew up in Brentwood? Wow. Incidentally, her daughter is Katy Tur, who covers the Donald Trump campaign for NBC News and whom Trump likes to mock. And here's the tangential ESPN connection: Katy Tur used to date the much-older Keith Olbermann.

[Hanahope]

I still can't believe that Ito allowed so much crap by the defense.  Marcia Clark is right that there was absolutely no reason whatsover for the jury to see the inside of Simpson's house.  Where the glove was found, sure (to show how difficult it would have been for Simpson to try and find it again after he dropped it, and its proximity to the "thumps" heard by Kato), but nothing of significance happened inside the house, so why go inside?  And to let the defense restage the area like that is really bad faith.  If Ito was going to allow a visit, he should have insisted that the house look exactly how it was depicted in the crime photos. (minus blood of course).

 Similarly, allowing the use of the N word was a very poor judgment.  There's no evidence that word was ever used in OJ's presence, or even by anyone describing or talking about OJ.  And it was clearly prejudicial, as ultimately proven.  Darden was 100% right.  There was no relevance, and it was more prejudicial than probative.  Ito was a moron for allow that word to be used in the courtroom.

[psychoticstate]

3 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Similarly, allowing the use of the N word was a very poor judgment.  There's no evidence that word was ever used in OJ's presence, or even by anyone describing or talking about OJ.  And it was clearly prejudicial, as ultimately proven.  Darden was 100% right.  There was no relevance, and it was more prejudicial than probative.  Ito was a moron for allow that word to be used in the courtroom.

There was evidence, however, that Simpson himself used that word.  It's too bad that the prosecution couldn't put the SWAT team member on the stand that heard Simpson referring to the persons outside his home as that disgusting word. 

I don't think the N word had a place in this trial and it was not of "public interest" to hear those tapes at the time.  If the defendant in the trial had been the LAPD, then yes, they may have a place.  But not in this case.

I met Chris Darden in Atlanta a few years after the trial.  He was friendly and courteous; he seemed genuinely accepting  when I told him I was appreciative of the work he had done on this case and he shook my hand.  I think he was utterly devastated by the toll this case took on him and his family.  (He received death threats for being on the prosecution team and I believe his daughter was threatened as well.)   I don't blame him for choosing not to participate in this and I'm glad that he's moved forward with his life.

[RemoteControlFreak]

6 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Similarly, allowing the use of the N word was a very poor judgment.  There's no evidence that word was ever used in OJ's presence, or even by anyone describing or talking about OJ.  And it was clearly prejudicial, as ultimately proven.  Darden was 100% right.  There was no relevance, and it was more prejudicial than probative.  Ito was a moron for allow that word to be used in the courtroom.

It's not the word, per se, that's the problem.  The defense was hell bent on using Mark Fuhrman's character as the key to Simpson's acquittal.  If they couldn't do it by cornering him for his use of the n-word, they could use his history with the LAPD, or they'd go after the character of one of the other cops or another key prosecution player .

[Hanahope]

4 minutes ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

 If they couldn't do it by cornering him for his use of the n-word, they could use his history with the LAPD, or they'd go after the character of one of the other cops or another key prosecution player .

That may be, just like they attacked Ron Schipp.  But, the "n" word is much more prejudicial and provocative than accusing a black cop of marrying a white woman, of cheating on their spouse, or drinking.

[Margherita Erdman]

On June 17, 2016 at 10:17 AM, psychoticstate said:

[snip] The topic was whether or not you could be a fair and impartial juror if you were chosen.  I was floored by two calls in particular - - both were men.  One said that Simpson had done so much for the world of football that we should just overlook this one little "mistake" he made.  (Because nearly decapitating your ex-wife is a mistake along the lines of forgetting to pay your electricity bill.)  The other caller said that if he was seated, they could show him a video of Simpson committing the murders and Simpson could admit he had done it and this man still would not convict.  Because it was O.J. Simpson.

It was sad, it was disheartening and it was mindboggling. 

This is what sickened me at the time —could we not find a better way to demonstrate the value of African American lives than to utterly devalue the lives of women?

So many public figures and ordinary people at the time framed it as either/or, support O.J. OR Nicole, equality for black Americans OR justice for women.

Just as there were those callers to the radio show willing to write off Nicole's death as less significant than a speeding ticket, there also were advocates for domestic violence prevention and feminist activists who said and did horrifyingly insensitive things, suggesting that misogyny and abuse were intrinsic to African-American male identity.

[psychoticstate]

6 hours ago, Margherita Erdman said:

This is what sickened me at the time —could we not find a better way to demonstrate the value of African American lives than to utterly devalue the lives of women?

So many public figures and ordinary people at the time framed it as either/or, support O.J. OR Nicole, equality for black Americans OR justice for women.

Just as there were those callers to the radio show willing to write off Nicole's death as less significant than a speeding ticket, there also were advocates for domestic violence prevention and feminist activists who said and did horrifyingly insensitive things, suggesting that misogyny and abuse were intrinsic to African-American male identity.

Totally agree with your post.  I think too it wasn't only a case of "you're on OJ's side or you're on Nicole's side" but it also became "you're on the side of African Americans" or "you're on the side of White America."

It's a shame because everyone should have been on the side of justice (which is supposed to be color blind.)  I was firmly on the side of Ron and Nicole.  Period.

[candle96]

Was I the only one who noticed a big, glaring inconsistency between narrators in this episode? One of the LAPD detectives says he called the Browns after Nicole's body was discovered, and the sister started screaming, "I knew he'd kill her one of these days!" But then later when talking about the wake, when OJ showed up, her sister says she consoled him, because she had "no idea" what was going on. Unless there was more than one sister? But even if there were two sisters, I'd assume information about OJ's abuse would be shared amongst the family.

I don't think this means anything in terms of conspiracy (no doubt in my mind OJ killed her), just a curious inconsistency. 

[formerlyfreedom]

6 minutes ago, candle96 said:

Was I the only one who noticed a big, glaring inconsistency between narrators in this episode? One of the LAPD detectives says he called the Browns after Nicole's body was discovered, and the sister started screaming, "I knew he'd kill her one of these days!" But then later when talking about the wake, when OJ showed up, her sister says she consoled him, because she had "no idea" what was going on. Unless there was more than one sister? But even if there were two sisters, I'd assume information about OJ's abuse would be shared amongst the family.

I don't think this means anything in terms of conspiracy (no doubt in my mind OJ killed her), just a curious inconsistency. 

Nicole had two sisters, Denise and Tanya. Tanya was interviewed for the documentary. I'm assuming it was Denise who was screaming, my understanding is she was not a fan of OJ.