O.J.: Made In America - Part 5

[Simon Boccanegra]

An older column by Howard (Game of Shadows) Bryant, who is a boss. 

"There is hell on Fred Goldman's face. It is the hell of losing a child. Even the words are weak, unfair. "Losing a child" sounds like an item innocuously misplaced, like losing your car keys. Fred Goldman's son was murdered, taken from him and the world for no reason. He wears it sometimes like a deep scar, visible to the eye, easily traced by the touch, and at other times like a water balloon, quivering, tenuous, at any instant ready to spontaneously burst."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?id=3748000&columnist=bryant_howard

[ridethemaverick]

On 6/19/2016 at 11:58 PM, KBrownie said:

Nope.  

There will just continue to be more deflection.  For example, Carrie Bess as proof positive that it was payback, but completely ignore Juror #2 and how she came to her perfectly reasonable conclusion for acquittal.  Bess's 90% of the jury felt the same as her comment taken as gospel and as reason to condemn the entire group, but everything else out of her mouth largely taken as bullshit.  Cochran, Sheck, et. al are evil, immoral, liars as if the prosecution presented a slam-dunk case.  Darden insulting the jury w/ his n-word BS, Clark not vetting Furhman and thinking he was a good guy, and all their other missteps.  But nope.  NO reasonable doubt in this case at all, just payback.  "OJ didn't care about the black community, so why do they care about him!" is another one.  So what.  He may have not seen himself as black, but the black community knew what he was even if he didn't.  They knew and continue to know that "transcending race" is bullshit.  It wasn't about him individually.  Most blacks at the time, although many were lousy at articulating it, weren't cheering because OJ Simpson the man was acquitted, they were cheering that a black man accused of killing two white people, a crime which historically meant certain death no matter if the person actually did it or not, beat the case.  There's no escaping the historical context.  Two wrongs don't make a right is another popular deflection, except for the over sentencing in the Nevada case.  That's okay for most people.  It's mostly unbelievable to think that anyone would have cared as much or still be so outraged 20+ years later if OJ had gotten away with killing his black wife and black acquaintance. It would have been news for a little while back in 1994 because of the celebrity, but no way would it still be a thing.  No way.

I believe he did it.  It's absolutely wrong that he was never punished for that crime, but he was acquitted fair and square.  I just wish people would be consistent in their outrage so maybe the system could start to actually work for everyone or at least own up to why this case is different.   Own up to the fact that no, most people don't get this outraged and upset at every murder where the killer gets off in this country.  Yeah there have been other high-profile cases, but none where it's 22 years and there's still such outrage and debate.  No matter how horrific and brutal and awful these deaths were, and they absolutely were, they weren't anything thousands of other victims and their families have had to endure.  At least people still care about them and their deaths.  A lot of other families don't even get that.  But I'm not going to change any minds and no one is going to change mine, so round and round we go.  Such is America.  Nothing ever gets done to make anything better.  Heads just get stuck in the sand or people deny what the real issue even is.  

OJ Simpson was a special case.  Everything fell perfectly into place for the system to work in his favor.  He had the money to hire the best lawyers to defend him.  He ended up with prosecutors who fumbled the ball over the place.  He had Furhman the racist liar lie about being a racist be the one to find the glove which cast doubt on his word, etc.  Investigators and a forensic team that opened the door for doubt.  The system as designed worked.

White America has never been introspective about race, it's brutality against POC, and it's hypocritical selective outrage about injustice. This documentary brilliantly shined a light on some of it but like you, I'm not hopeful it will ever change.

[Hanahope]

Quote

There was one hint of what was to come. Bill Hodgman had spent much of the previous month working on an elaborate chart entitled "Unrefuted Evidence," a summary of all the non-DNA, non-Fuhrman-related evidence in the case. It was arranged in the form of a big pyramid, and Clark saved it for her conclusion. The chart was extremely impressive, and it listed things like Nicole's purchase of the gloves, Park's fruitless buzzing for Simpson, the blood to the left of the shoe prints and the cut on Simpson's left hand.

The problem is that all this "good evidence" got overshadowed by the "bad evidence" and mistakes of the prosecution (glove try one, Fuhrman credibility, obviously not a very good job on jury voir dire if one guy was a former black panther and another only read the racing card), Vannatter mistakes, Fung mistakes, etc. and that created the reasonable doubt.

The civil case not only got to sift through the evidence and select the best ones, they got to avoid the mistakes of the prosecution, plus they got to put Simpson himself up on the stand and destroy his credibility.

Its not that difficult to understand the criminal jury's decision.  As the one juror said, every night they got to think about the evidence presented that day and begin making evaluations of it.  That's pretty much all they had available to do many nights.  So yes at the end, the jury spent a very short time, but we have to remember they lived with the case for over 250 day, a huge amount of time, and got to do a lot of 'pre-deliberations.'

This is another reason why Ito was such a poor judge.  He let the defense put on such a dog and pony show and wasted that jury's time.  A week spent on whether the housekeeper would testify out of turn?  That's ridiculous.  The civil case lasted 90 days, less than half the days of the criminal case.

Its a shame that many people think that OJ got "white justice".  No, OJ got "rich man's justice."  

Of course, after the criminal trial, OJ believed he was teflon, nothing could hurt him.  Even the civil case meant nothing to him because he was able to hide his income through "shell" corporations.  He resumed a life of he could do anything.  He could even rob someone.  That, I believe, is why the Nevada judge threw the book at him.  OJ didn't have remorse, he was acting yet again.  The videos showed he didn't give a damn about stealing.  

And considering that OJ's attempt to 'retrieve property stolen from him', well, it was property that was supposed to have gone to the Goldman family or up for sale in the first place, but was "hidden" away.  So no, I have absolutely no sympathy for OJ, and don't care if his former agent or the memorabilia dealer 'set him up' or not. OJ still choose to go into that room, with a friend with a gun, to "intimidate" a guy, and took stuff that didn't belong to him.  Yeah, the kidnapping is a bit technical, but all the elements were still there (preventing someone from leaving a room via force for an illegal purpose).  If Simpson chose not to take the plea bargain for a much lower term, that was his choice.  I'm sure he thought he could teflon out of that one too.  But this time, there were many actual witnesses to the crime and they weren't going to take the fall for OJ.

And in sentencing, the judge can look at more than just the criminal's prior record.  They can look at character and other factors.  Just like that Stanford judge can look at the rapist's student record and swimming accomplishments, the Nevada judge can look at OJ's civil trial result, his book, his lifestyle, and consider all that against him.

[DangerousMinds]

The chart included all of the non-DNA, non-Furhman related evidence. Any thoughts on why NOt ONE member of the jury took notes?

[psychoticstate]

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

Of course, after the criminal trial, OJ believed he was teflon, nothing could hurt him.  Even the civil case meant nothing to him because he was able to hide his income through "shell" corporations.  He resumed a life of he could do anything.  He could even rob someone.  That, I believe, is why the Nevada judge threw the book at him.  OJ didn't have remorse, he was acting yet again.  The videos showed he didn't give a damn about stealing.

I posted this in the thread on American Crime Story but I'll repeat here because it goes in line with what you said.  I have a friend who knows a Hollywood executive and his wife.  This couple invited my friend to dinner after the civil trial.  She was told that another friend would be joining them.  She was going to go until she learned that "friend" was none other than O.J. Simpson.  Believing him to be a killer, she refused.  Later on, she spoke to this executive and he told her that Simpson had shown up, the three of them had eaten dinner and then sat down for some after dinner conversation.  Simpson told them, almost proudly, that he had gotten away with murdering two people.  When they expressed shock, his reply was "the bitch deserved it."   That was the last time this couple saw Simpson.  They terminated their friendship with him immediately.

So yes, he did feel as though he could do whatever he wanted because he had obliterated two people and even with just about every kind of evidence short of video against him, he had walked.

1 hour ago, Hanahope said:

ts a shame that many people think that OJ got "white justice".  No, OJ got "rich man's justice."

Very well put.  I like to call it the Celebrity Exception Rule.  The rules didn't apply to him.

14 hours ago, LadyHam said:

See, I just don't understand how someone can think OJ was guilty, but think the justice system worked in this case. I'm not jumping on you. I've heard it a lot where people have said that they feel deep down in their bones that OJ was guilty, but the state just didn't prove it. 

How?  Do people feel the glove or other evidence was planted?  Do people feel the evidence was so contaminated it was unreliable?

Even if the glove was planted at Rockingham by Fuhrman (which I don't believe for a second) it still would have come from the Bundy crime scene. It still had OJ's, Nicole's and Ron's blood on it.  Plus, the gloves were a very rare glove, and only about 200 pair were sold. There was a receipt that shows Nicole bought those gloves for OJ. There were numerous pictures of OJ wearing those gloves. OJ could not produce the gloves. He said they were given away. I say they were in the custody of the LAPD because they were part of a murder investigation. 

Do people feel OJ's blood was planted at Rockingham because Vannatter brought OJ's vial of blood over there to give directly to the criminologist?  Vanatter brought the blood over there in a sealed envelope and handed it off to Fung (the lead criminologist) within 3 minutes of his arrival. The envelope was ever opened. All the evidence (including the blood evidence) was already collected by the time Vannatter arrived there with the vial of blood.  If Vannatter had wanted to plant any blood in this case, wouldn't it have made more sense for him to plant it at Bundy, where the murders had occurred?

Do people feel the evidence was collected in such a way that all of it should have just been disregarded and deemed utterly useless?  As much as Barry Scheck attacked the collection techniques and spouted off left and right about how contaminated everything was, he is now basically making his living off of how reliable DNA is and how it's virtually impossible to contaminate it.

Even if you disregard the evidence that people thought was planted (the glove, the blood drops at Rockingham, the socks in OJ's bedroom, the blood on the back gate at Bundy), that still leaves the blood drops at Bundy that were left next to the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints and the fact that the limo driver saw OJ walk up the driveway (or at least a six foot tall, 200 pound African American man) and into his home at around 11 pm the night of the murders.  That right there would have been more than enough to convict him.  Defedants have been convicted of just one drop of their blood at the crime scene.

OJ's blood at Bundy and the limo driver's testimony are the 2 pieces of evidence that the defense team did not dispute.  They never even tried.  Does  the defense want people to believe that since Mark Fuhrman said some terrible things on tape to a screen writer, that people should now believe that the lab personnel running the tests on all the evidence collected in this murder are now willing to falsify their lab results so they can be a part of his vast conspiracy to frame OJ?

The defense team did what all defense teams do .  You poke at the evidence and create holes in it.  If the defense created enough reasonable doubt in OJ's case to acquit him, then every single conviction that used the same collection techniques should have been thrown out.  Every conviction that had Fuhrman or Vannatter on it should have been thrown out.  The very first thing Johnnie Cochran should have done immediately after OJ's acquittal was go file a civil lawsuit on his behalf suing the LAPD for violating his civil rights.  Johnnie Cochran was one of the best, most successful civil rights attorneys of his time.  He made his living off of suing the LAPD for civil rights violations.  Why did he drop the ball and not pursue anything in this case?  He sure put enough pressure on the jury to do the right thing, but then he drops the ball and does not pursue a civil suit for the great "legal injustice" done to OJ?   Let's face it, he didn't do anything because he knew the defense team got lucky by bamboozling the jury with their smoke and mirrors and underhanded tactics.  I will never, ever agree with this verdict.

I love your post.  If I could marry it, I would.  So well put and expressed.  

I very much agree with your assertion that if Simpson was framed, Johnnie Cochran would have been all over that.  As well as where are all the other persons who were incarcerated claiming that Furhman set them up?  Furhman had been a cop for 20 years by 1994; if he was such a flaming racist as to plant evidence and go after a "big gun" like O.J. Simpson, why weren't average Joes crawling out of the woodwork to claim they had been framed by Fuhrman?   Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor in the Manson case, made a statement back in 1997 or 1998 that Mark Fuhrman had fought to get a man released from prison whom he felt was innocent and wrongfully incarcerated, fighting on his behalf, gathering evidence and interviews.  The man was/is an African American.  That hardly sounds like something a flaming racist cop would do, much less a person that would be willing to risk their career, pension and reputation to frame Simpson.

1 hour ago, ridethemaverick said:

White America has never been introspective about race, it's brutality against POC, and it's hypocritical selective outrage about injustice. This documentary brilliantly shined a light on some of it but like you, I'm not hopeful it will ever change.

That's a blanket statement about White America and pretty offensive.  Not all of White America has turned a blind eye toward racism and the unfair treatment of POC or any minority.  Just like not all young African American males are thugs who deserve to be killed.

The only way things will change, or even begin to change, will be if people start seeing all of us as human beings with the same red blood that runs through our veins. 

41 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

The chart included all of the non-DNA, non-Furhman related evidence. Any thoughts on why NOt ONE member of the jury took notes?

I can only speculate that by that point, the jury did not want to hear anything of substance that suggested that Simpson was guilty and neither the LAPD nor anyone else framed him in any way.   If Clark had shown that chart at the start of the trial, maybe people would have taken notes or perhaps the chart would have had more of an impact but by the end, after Ito's weak control of the case, the disastrous glove demonstration and the general weariness of the jury, it really didn't matter.   

[Willowsmom]

1. If you're going to exclude people with prejudice from police work you are not going to field a force.

2. The trial was moved for security reasons. And to get a larger jury pool.

3. I'm not so sure the police work was that far out of the norm

5. The gloves fit. Where they went wrong was not making sure he was taking his arthritis meds. Wouldn't the defence telling him not to take his meds be suborning perjury ? After all they caused him to present false evidence.

[psychoticstate]

As I understand it, the trial was moved due to the damage from the Northridge earthquake that  was still evident at the Santa Monica courthouse.  I also think they believed the LA courthouse would be better equipped for the media and larger groups of people.  That was a mistake.  Santa Monica was more a jury of Simpson's peers than downtown LA.  As Vince Bugliosi said, Simpson couldn't have found his way to South Central or downtown with a map.

I don't think the defense attorneys told Simpson to stop taking his arthritis meds.  Mike Gilbert, Simpson's agent, suggested it to him.  Even if the defense attorneys had suggested it, it's akin to staging Simpson's home to make it appear that he was involved in the African American community.  Morally wrong but not legally wrong. 

It's unfortunate that the prosecution did not know that Simpson had stopped taking his arthritis meds.  They could have brought this point up after the glove demonstration, and then maybe had someone else put the gloves on Simpson and show that they did indeed fit, excusing the latex gloves he had on underneath and the shrinkage of the leather from the blood. 

[AuntiePam]

2 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Its not that difficult to understand the criminal jury's decision.  As the one juror said, every night they got to think about the evidence presented that day and begin making evaluations of it.  That's pretty much all they had available to do many nights.  So yes at the end, the jury spent a very short time, but we have to remember they lived with the case for over 250 day, a huge amount of time, and got to do a lot of 'pre-deliberations.'

That's not my understanding.  Didn't each juror go back to his or her hotel room after dinner?  They were told not to talk about the case.  Any evaluations were made without benefit of hearing what the other jurors were thinking. 

[formerlyfreedom]

Posts have been removed - let's remember the site rule, "Be Civil;" the discussion needs to be respectful of each others' opinions. If you absolutely can't handle another poster's view, that's what the "Ignore user" option is for - if you can't be civil to other posters, there could be warnings and/or suspensions handed out. 

[Willowsmom]

2 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

That's not my understanding.  Didn't each juror go back to his or her hotel room after dinner?  They were told not to talk about the case.  Any evaluations were made without benefit of hearing what the other jurors were thinking. 

As I remember movie nights were arranged as were Tv nights.I think there were other outings as well. I think it is common for jurors to be told not to discuss the case until deliberations. I do agree that the jury did not do it's job by not throughly discussing the case, it is possible more discussion would have triggered memories of more evidence.

[Simon Boccanegra]

 Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor in the Manson case, made a statement back in 1997 or 1998 that Mark Fuhrman had fought to get a man released from prison whom he felt was innocent and wrongfully incarcerated, fighting on his behalf, gathering evidence and interviews.  The man was/is an African American.

The story is in VB's book, Outrage, published 1996 (pages 128-135). It is verifiable. At least one African-American man, a murder suspect, does owe his freedom to Mark Fuhrman. Evidence Fuhrman collected, pursuant to a tip, exonerated 30-year-old Arrick Harris of the murder of Shawn Stewart (who was white, it bears mentioning). The DA's office then had the case dismissed before the preliminary hearing. 

[BooBear]

6 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

t's unfortunate that the prosecution did not know that Simpson had stopped taking his arthritis meds.  They could have brought this point up after the glove demonstration, and then maybe had someone else put the gloves on Simpson and show that they did indeed fit, excusing the latex gloves he had on underneath and the shrinkage of the leather from the blood. 

Not sure that would have worked explaining to the jury why they didn't fit.  Something horrible that is happening in criminal justice systems is that everyone is looking for the "perry mason" moment and if you give them the moment, they really have a hard time breaking from it. No matter how much bull it is.  Darden never should have asked him to put the gloves on. As every lawyer knows... be conservative... a version of, if you don't know the answer to the question, don't ask it.  I personally think some juries make mountains out of mole hills so they can have their moment and something they can hang their hat on to decide the way the want to.  I never thought that the gloves looked even a little like they didn't fit. They were supposed to be tight.

[Asp Burger]

OJ was clearly high out of his mind in a lot of that Miami footage they showed. I guess the answer to Nicole's death lay in the world of OJ Simpson? 

[MaggieG]

I just binge watched this entire show. Very compelling. I definitely feel for the Goldman and Brown families but I'm saddest for Sydney and Justin. Their mother was brutally murdered by their father. And then they had to live with him. During all the Florida footage with him drinking, golfing and partying, I thought to myself "where are his kids? Who is taking care of them?" They were young when the trial was going and I'm sure they were kept sheltered from all the gritty details but what about in their teens and now as adults? What do they know? What do they think? What has OJ told them? Do they believe him when he tells them he's innocent? I'm really intrigued about what they think about all of this but I'm glad that they are living their lives out of the public eye. They had a crazy childhood so hopefully their adult life is calm and drama free. 

I cracked up and applauded at the "Fuck him" comment. I also laughed at OJ's comment that the Kardashian show would only last two weeks. If only he was right about that!

It was in episode 4 but those pictures. Wow. I still can't believe how much rage went into it. Poor Ron and poor Nicole. 

[DangerousMinds]

I know, I used to worry about the kids in the years following the verdict. I doubt they think their father is innocent, but I'm glad they have been living quiet lives, hopefully in peace.

[Court]

I read once that Sydney believed he did it but has come to forgive him over the years.

 

Who knows how true that is.

[SinInTheCamp]

On 6/22/2016 at 9:09 AM, psychoticstate said:

I very much agree with your assertion that if Simpson was framed, Johnnie Cochran would have been all over that.  As well as where are all the other persons who were incarcerated claiming that Furhman set them up?  Furhman had been a cop for 20 years by 1994; if he was such a flaming racist as to plant evidence and go after a "big gun" like O.J. Simpson, why weren't average Joes crawling out of the woodwork to claim they had been framed by Fuhrman?   Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecutor in the Manson case, made a statement back in 1997 or 1998 that Mark Fuhrman had fought to get a man released from prison whom he felt was innocent and wrongfully incarcerated, fighting on his behalf, gathering evidence and interviews.  The man was/is an African American.  That hardly sounds like something a flaming racist cop would do, much less a person that would be willing to risk their career, pension and reputation to frame Simpson.

You do know that people can be racist or prejudiced without hating every single person from that race, right? 

When I was in law enforcement, I knew a number of racist cops. I used to study the way they acted toward POC in the department. They were totally cool with them--treated them like "brothers"--because, in their minds, they were completely different from "those people." They were exceptions. They played by the rules of the mostly-white department, so they were "good guys."

A different type of example is the way my mom regards Mexicans. She thinks that, as a whole, we're lazy, dirty, unattractive, and "illegal"--even those of us who were born here (I'm half Latina myself). And yet she once loved my father. Furthermore, she has several Latinx friends who she's known for decades, and I know for a fact she loves them deeply. Again, those are exceptions to her overall prejudice against Latinxs. Doesn't mean she's not racist.

You can be a racist and still defend a particular person from that group to the death. And if you're not seeing all the nuances present in such situations, I strongly suggest you bone up on some critical race theory.

[Willowsmom]

I was watching Blue Bloods tonight when this line came up, " The only reason OJ was aquitted was because Marcia Clark didn't know how to squeeze the Juice". I thought it was so on point.

[riffraff]

So one last thing that stood out to me was how they showed the reaction of the people when OJ got off. My heart honestly goes out to people of color. OJ was in that court to win for himself. The whole documentary highlighted how he never stood up for his people. We see it time and time again these days unfortunately, still and I can't comprehend how 4 white guys on video can be shown beating a fellow human being and get off free. And a young black girl willing to pay for orange juice is shot in the back like nothing and that woman got off. If that was a white girl you know that Korean woman would have gone to jail. It amazes me over and over how we allow this to happen. I think all races need to stand together and decide that discrimination is not going to be tolerated. Who cares if someone is Transgender or whatever. Think if that was someone you loved. In this day it is so easy to focus on material things and not think about each other. 

Ok. Sorry I just had to get that out. It bothers me that we are in 2016 and we are still dealing with these issues. 

[psychoticstate]

On 6/24/2016 at 10:10 PM, SinInTheCamp said:

You do know that people can be racist or prejudiced without hating every single person from that race, right? 

When I was in law enforcement, I knew a number of racist cops. I used to study the way they acted toward POC in the department. They were totally cool with them--treated them like "brothers"--because, in their minds, they were completely different from "those people." They were exceptions. They played by the rules of the mostly-white department, so they were "good guys."

A different type of example is the way my mom regards Mexicans. She thinks that, as a whole, we're lazy, dirty, unattractive, and "illegal"--even those of us who were born here (I'm half Latina myself). And yet she once loved my father. Furthermore, she has several Latinx friends who she's known for decades, and I know for a fact she loves them deeply. Again, those are exceptions to her overall prejudice against Latinxs. Doesn't mean she's not racist.

You can be a racist and still defend a particular person from that group to the death. And if you're not seeing all the nuances present in such situations, I strongly suggest you bone up on some critical race theory.

Yes, I do know and totally understand that someone can be selectively racist/prejudiced.  The defense team went after Fuhrman, stating that he was a racist and was gunning for Simpson and suggested that this was just another day at the office for the LAPD and the LAPD not only condoned such behavior but actively went after POC.  My opinion and my opinion only was that if that was true, Johnnie Cochran would have had a suit and would not have hesitated to represent Simpson.  The fact that there was no resulting suit, with either Cochran or anyone else representing Simpson or any other party, would suggest to me at least that there was no violation of civil rights.

I don't know whether Furhman was/is a racist or selective racist.  I don't know him nor do I know anyone who knows him.  But it doesn't make sense to me that if Fuhrman was a racist and did plant evidence in a case of this magnitude (and with as many unknowns as there were during the initial investigation) that it wouldn't come out that he'd done so in others.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Quote

If the robbery episode ever gets made into a movie, Don Cheadle has to play Michael McClinton. Loved the "Fuck him."

Yes, please. That was the highlight of the episode for me.

Quote

empty-headed, borderline offensive platitudes of Cecil Murray, quoting Martin Luther King's "Free at last" words

Nothing borderline about it, IMO. I think it was totally offensive to equate a wealthy man who'd long led a charmed, elite life largely shielded from racial injustice with the hundreds of years of legalized suffering, abuse, and murder MLK was referring to. I still cannot comprehend how people see that "not guilty" verdict as some kind of civil rights victory or vindication. AFAIC, no one won except OJ and the people he paid millions of dollars to to get him off.

Edited June 28, 2016 by Joimiaroxeu

[PetuniaP]

I think it's downright shameful for so many white Americans to continue to express so much outrage over the O.J. case and are nearly mute/don't care about the more recent murders of innocent black children in this country. I honestly don't know how people sleep at night. 

Ezra Edelman is to be applauded for this documentary...what a powerful, moving, eye-opening piece of art about the abysmal state of race relations in this country and what happens when that comes into contact with crime, fame and socio-economic status. Staggering work.

[DangerousMinds]

This is a forum designed for discussion (including outrage) about this case. Please don't ever assume that diminishes my disgust and outrage about current cases.

[formerlyfreedom]

Discuss the documentary please.

[ketose]

I think the documentary added context to the trial by showing how big of a deal OJ used to be, especially to those of us who barely knew who OJ was at the time. Also, you saw how he was able to charm others and was generally a good guy. That good guy thing ended up being narcissism and the belief that any good deed is just a means to getting others to love you more.

What the City of Los Angeles did wrong was not be able to beat the Dream Team. In a trial that big, it was going to be difficult, if not impossible to get everything right in that investigation. Yes, the LAPD used bad protocols for data collection and didn't follow their own procedures. Did that magically mutate the DNA into OJ Simpson's? No, and Scheck basically hemmed and hawed his way into admitting that. This was about people wanting to believe OJ was innocent (rather than Not Guilty) and any branch the defense could offer was taken by the jury.

Part Five dealt with what the defense lawyer called "the fifth quarter." OJ committed enough of a criminal act to get arrested and the court threw the book at him. Could it have been a lighter sentence? Maybe, but he wasn't OJ enough anymore. I've theorized that if Shapiro were able to get a deal (which Garcetti probably would have jumped at) to give Simpson maybe 10-15 years, he would have been out by 2009 with his money and his signature for memorabilia. He could have done the whole contrition thing and been grudgingly brought back into society. Then again, hedonism and immature girls in the decade after Nicole's death seemed to be more his speed anyway.

[Spartan Girl]

This was a compelling documentary. Not much to add that hasn't already been said. Plenty of things disgusted me, particularly from the hangers-on and Fuhrman Bess, but I'll save the lion's share of contempt for OJ.

I did get a chuckle out of Marcia Clark coicincidentally covering the Vegas trial and her brief encounter with OJ: " Ms. Clark." "Mr. Simpson." Man, I would have LOVED that as a postscript for ACS!

[GreatKazu]

On 6/24/2016 at 11:21 PM, riffraff said:

So one last thing that stood out to me was how they showed the reaction of the people when OJ got off. My heart honestly goes out to people of color. OJ was in that court to win for himself.

 

Exactly. Simpson does not give a damn about anyone but himself. In the second episode, one of the police officers mentioned how Simpson uttered in the police car after he was being taken to the police station after the Bronco chase, "What are all these n****s doing in Brentwood"? Clearly this murderer has no fucks to give about the black community. In his mind, he is so above the black community. People of different races were cheering him on and supporting him and his response is to ask, using a derogatory term, why a particular group was in his neighborhood?

[Steph619]

I just finished watching this documentary and it grabbed my attention from beginning to end. I wouldn't be surprised if it got nominated and won many awards. The link shown between the racial tension going on in the nation and O.J. Simpson's life was compelling.

I would never feel bad for O.J. for how he ended up, but it's sad to me how someone who achieved so much in his early years, just threw it all away. It was amazing how someone like him who loves fame and worked hard to build an image, just didn't care at all how people perceived him in the end, but yet I think he was convinced that he'd be able to get away with the whole situation in Las Vegas because of who he was. I'm not happy that he ended up in prison for a long time because I think it's bad to celebrate other people's struggles in life, but karma caught up to him and justice was served. To this day, I still believe that O.J. murdered Ron and Nicole and he did not show even the least bit of remorse. Those crime photos will haunt me forever. How someone can be that heartless is beyond me. The defense is no better because yes, it can be argued that they were just doing their job in defending their client, but they crossed the line many times and did not care what it took to win. 

I would've liked to have heard Christopher Darden's take on all this but seeing how badly this case affected his life, I knew we wouldn't be seeing him in this documentary.

[hypnotoad]

Quote

I think the documentary added context to the trial by showing how big of a deal OJ used to be, especially to those of us who barely knew who OJ was at the time.

I'm a little too young to have seen him play football or at least to really pay attention but old enough to remember all those commercials of him running through the airport and of course the Naked Gun movies. I was in basic training when the murders happened. We didn't get to watch the news or anything so we were pretty much out of touch. I remember when my mom mentioned OJ Simpsons wife had been murdered during one of our Sunday calls and then a bit later she said the police suspected him. I couldn't believe it! That guy? Then one day our drill sergeant said OJ was on the run in a bronco. We all weren't sure if we should believe him!

By the time I was stationed in Pennsylvania, the trial had started and unfortunately we had to have CNN on every day (not for the trial - it was just the station that was on in the offices all the time) and it seemed to last for my entire enlistment. Needless to say, I knew he was the killer by then but that trial was just terrible. Everything about it.

I loved this documentary. Really worth the watch.

And even though I guess there is some karma in him being in prison now, I don't think it's right. Whether someone likes the conclusion of the murder trial or not - he got a fair trial. The sentence for this 'robbery' seems outrageous.

[phantom]

Finally finished the last episode last night. I was 17 when the criminal trial happened, so I heard bits and pieces on the evening news, and our school let us watch the verdict live on the TV in the library. Being a white girl at a predominantly white school in a  white neighborhood, all I had heard is of course OJ was guilty. So when the verdict was read and the handful of African-American students were clearly relieved, I couldn't understand it. Not at all. 21 years later I finally do.

Black men had been lynched for whistling at white women within the lifetimes of many adults alive in the 90s. Black men had been beaten and killed for the mere accusation of raping a white woman. I grew up in North Carolina and Jesse Helms was still in the Senate in 1994-95. Jesse made sure his white constituents were reminded that black men wanted to steal your jobs and sleep with your sisters and daughters. In the 1990s. Here was a black guy who had been "given a pass" by the white community and then killed his white wife. Those celebrating the not guilty verdict in L.A. are not offensive to me - celebrating around a lynched human being is offensive. A black man being dragged to death behind a truck 3 years after the OJ verdict is offensive.Two wrongs don't make a right, but a high profile black man being found not guilty of murdering two white people by a flawed justice system in America was undeniably symbolic. And I have no doubt that many of those celebrating genuinely believed that the LAPD were corrupt, institutionally racist and willing to railroad OJ to close a case. Whether OJ was worthy of the support he received is a separate story.

I hope Fred Goldman finds peace before he dies. His son being the perpetual afterthought of the crime of the century must be agony.

I'm still unclear about the Vegas robbery - was any of the stuff taken that night actually personal OJ belongings? I understand that the Pete Rose/Joe Montana stuff was not his, but the victim of the robbery said the OJ memorabilia were items he had personally had OJ sign over the years. Was that true?

In the end, the pendulum swung back against OJ. He was acquitted of murder in part because so many wanted to protect & defend him. By the time of the robbery, he had run out of people willing to take a fall for him.

[kdm07]

After watching this series, having come into it thinking I've seen enough OJ related programming to know how things happened, I have to say it easily surpassed my expectations. I missed a lot of his career as I hadn't been born yet and wasn't old enough to really register the trial either but even after watching things when I did get older, this series helped me fill in a lot of blanks. Job well done by all involved.

[mtlchick]

Quote

 That point was certainly proven by the comments Carrie Bess made in this documentary.  I can't imagine how Ron's family and Nicole's family feel, hearing this.  It's like being told Ron and Nicole have to be sacrificed in order to right the wrong done by the King jury and they aren't important enough on their own merits to get justice for their murders.  It makes me even angrier that Carrie Bess was almost snide or proud about the fact.

That is what bothered me the most, at least for this chapter.  It seemed that she was almost boastful that she felt someone should go free to make up for decades of oppression and the two lives lost was almost an afterthought.  She already had bias going into it as it was but to say it as such made my head hurt.  If I was a Goldman or Brown family member, I would be in agony that this is what that woman thought of their lost one: a corpse standing in the way of letting the Juice loose once more.

Quote

I think the documentary added context to the trial by showing how big of a deal OJ used to be, especially to those of us who barely knew who OJ was at the time. Also, you saw how he was able to charm others and was generally a good guy. That good guy thing ended up being narcissism and the belief that any good deed is just a means to getting others to love you more.

This was a story of a man who knew how to thr0w a ball and did it well, but craved something bigger, and would do anything to get it even in his football prime.  All in the shadow of the struggle of African Americans during that time.  Even after the trial, he was still looking for fame like any star who "hit a rough patch" would do to redeem and rebuild themselves. And he still had the charm to carry him for a while (Wendy Williams fawning over him was cringing and strangely understandable even with a damn tiara.)  But there's a difference between busted for a DUI and (allegedly) killing two people.  Fame is also fleeting.  And there were still two kids growing up without their mother and maybe in the back of their minds, they wonder "Did Dad do it?" Friends who began to have their doubts.  And to the black community, they looked to him as a sign that "we finally won a fight!  No matter how, we won!" even though he had rejected them for ages and only joined them to say he with them the entire time. Only to let his ego take hold once more in a Vegas hotel room and fame finally checked out on him.  He created the American dream for himself.  And he is the master of his own down fall.

[kathe5133]

I watched all five episodes over the course of two days.  I take away this:  He had everything - and he blew it!  She had everything, but thought she had nothing.....

What was wrong with them?  How could a talented man, a well respected man think it was ok to beat his wife?  She cheated on him?  Dump her!  He could have had any woman he wanted.  I guess he DID have any woman he wanted.  Then why get married?  And how could you beat her?  How?  He had the world by the balls and he threw it all away. 

And Nicole.  She was a beautiful woman.  Friends describe her as caring and fun loving.  Why did she settle for a man who beat her?  What was wrong with her that she thought she didn't deserve better?  If her friends could see her as a beautiful, caring person, why couldn't she see that herself?  What happened to her that she wasn't able to do that?

The saddest of all is poor Ron Goldman.  He didn't beat anybody.  He didn't let anyone beat him.  He just did a favor for a friend and now he's dead in the ground!

It's all horribly sad....

[queenbee9b]

I also just finished watching this series over this weekend.  I don't even like ESPN and I could not turn it off.

For me, Part 1 really gave me an education of the fame and charm of OJ, I was in high school when the murders happened and I am one of the people that knew him best from Naked Gun, so at the time the crime and bronco chase was what I remember and didn't understand the level of untouchable fame he had.

On a weirdly shallow note, I did get a kick out of the picture of Kris and Robert at the wedding, she has a completely different face.  

In the Part 5 when Wendy Williams interviews him and you still see how even though she doesn't like him or trust him she just becomes completely won over is amazing, I can only imagine what that would have been like in the height of his fame and popularity and how it blinded people from the domestic abuse, etc.  it was so illustrative.

I also never realize what a shit show the Vegas robbery was (if you call it a robbery)

For me, when I finish something great and I am disappointed there is no more is the biggest compliment and I am sad I watch so quickly and I have no more to watch! 

[fishcakes]

I saw the first episode of this back in June and have just now binge watched the entire thing. Really fascinating and well-done, but I agree with those who say the first and last episodes were the best in terms of giving the larger context of O.J.'s rise and fall. Even so, I found the details of the Vegas robbery incredibly confusing. I'm still not exactly sure what happened and why O.J. had to take, like, seven guys with him. Or why, in God's name, anyone could be stupid enough to think that a Vegas hotel is a good place to, ahem, "retrieve" one's property. None of those guys seemed overly burdened with intelligence, but even they all had to know that every inch of a Vegas hotel is covered by security cameras with the exception of the hotel rooms themselves and the public bathrooms.

But 33 years? Yeah, that was not proportionate sentencing. Carl Douglas was right that the facts of that case made it "two years, soaking wet." Douglas was one of the fun surprises of the documentary to me. I was in my first year of law school when the verdict came in on the criminal case and although none of us had had much time to pay attention to the trial, one of the things that was evident to me from the little I did see was that Johnnie Cochran was phenomenal. He knew the law inside and out and he knew how to put on a compelling trial. I know there are people in the public who don't respect him because he  defended O.J., but he was a great, great lawyer. Douglas on the other hand was a spitting mess, so it made me laugh when in the documentary he noted that it was O.J. who told him to wipe his mouth. I got a kick out of him in general from his interviews here; I've been reading the episode threads here on PTV and I get that people found him glib to the point of offense, but I practiced criminal law and gallows humor was the norm. Sometimes it seeps over where it shouldn't and this was probably an example of that, but for me, I found his candor refreshing.

I remember the day the verdicts came in. The law school had set up extra TVs in all the open spaces (including a few 13-inch screens with wire coat hangers for antennas) and classes were suspended because they knew we'd all be glued to the sets. Then that morning, someone called in a bomb threat to the school saying it would be set off if "the verdict goes the wrong way." So the campus was shut down while the bomb squad did a sweep (no bombs were found), and we all scrambled to nearby apartments to watch the verdict in groups. We knew that on only three and a half hours deliberation, it was going to be a Not Guilty, but it still didn't stop a couple of my classmates from expressing outrage when that came to pass. Most of us, though, just kind of shrugged and went, "yep, not a surprise." Then a little more than a year later, I was sitting in my Criminal Procedure class when someone came in and said the verdict was in on the civil trial. The professor excused us and we all went over to the student lounge to watch. They announced "liable," and it was pretty much the same reaction: not a surprise and, like the criminal trial, probably the right verdict given what we knew of how the respective trials were conducted.

Edited October 7, 2016 by fishcakes

[mojoween]

Some channel called Viceland showed the entire thing today and I am outraged all over again.  Johnny's closing statement still makes my mouth fall agape.

Also I still love Marcia Clark and again retroactively apologize for anything mean I said about her back then.  My hair was no great shakes in the 90's either.  She's a pretty good fiction writer too which will always get me on your good side.