O.J.: Made In America - Part 4

[Tara Ariano]

Quote

Part 4 of 5. O.J. Simpson's 1995 "trial of the century" unfolds in downtown Los Angeles, riveting the country for months and reshaping the media and cultural landscape. Directed by Ezra Edelman.

[Decider]

A heads up to people watching Part 4: the uncensored crime scene photos of Nicole and Ron are shown, about one hour in, during a segment where Bill Hodgman gives his account of the timeline on how the murders happened.  I knew the killings were brutal, of course, from the censored photos but seeing actual wounds that were inflicted was an unexpected punch to the gut.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Decider

[RemoteControlFreak]

Just a small point from Part 4:  Simpson's agents claim that Simpson couldn't bend his fingers during the glove try-on doesn't hold water.  When you watch the footage, he has absolutely no trouble bending all of his fingers of both when they are not inside the gloves.  They may have been swollen, but they were very mobile.  In any case, it's a ridiculous theory.  Why would Simpson's lawyer depend on the effect of arthritis medicine withdrawal when Simpson could just play act that they didn't fit?  A three-year-old has no trouble stiff-footing his feet to avoid putting on shoes.  Certainly a somewhat-trained movie actor has at least the same skills.

[RCharter]

I've always found the gloves a little curious, in that I never quite understood how they just naturally fell off.  They seemed to be fitted Isotoner type gloves, and how did they fall off?  Even in a scuffle, you may try to pull the knife, but you don't aim to pull the glove and you would need to pull hard and directly on that type of glove to get it off.  Now if he had worn the gloves because he was pre-meditating the murder, he should have realized that he left a glove at the house.  And wearing the gloves for pre-meditation makes sense, it was June in southern California and its not so cold at night that you need gloves.  At the same time, the crime looks like an unorganized crime of "passion."  I guess its possible he was at home, got mad, and figured he would put on his gloves and kill her, so he was enraged and premeditating.  

But either way, the gloves are still a bit of a mystery to me.  Because even if you accidentally left a glove at the murder scene, why would you let the other one drop on your property?  Outside....in plain view on your property?  And again, these are fitted, isotoner style gloves and there would have been no struggle when the second glove came off.  A fitted style glove would have to be taken off, so he took off the glove at his house and dropped it outside?  Why?  Why not cut it up and flush it down the toilet?  Why not burn it?  Why not throw it out a window?  Why not put it in a trash can?  Why not put it in a dumpster on the street?  Why would you purposefully remove this glove and throw it down in your backyard where it can easily be found?

And even if the glove naturally fell off behind his house....you KNOW you just left the companion glove at the scene of a bloody murder.....wouldn't you go and backtrack to find the second glove and destroy it?

[RemoteControlFreak]

3 hours ago, RCharter said:

I've always found the gloves a little curious, in that I never quite understood how they just naturally fell off.  They seemed to be fitted Isotoner type gloves, and how did they fall off?  Even in a scuffle, you may try to pull the knife, but you don't aim to pull the glove and you would need to pull hard and directly on that type of glove to get it off.  Now if he had worn the gloves because he was pre-meditating the murder, he should have realized that he left a glove at the house.  And wearing the gloves for pre-meditation makes sense, it was June in southern California and its not so cold at night that you need gloves.  At the same time, the crime looks like an unorganized crime of "passion."  I guess its possible he was at home, got mad, and figured he would put on his gloves and kill her, so he was enraged and premeditating.  

But either way, the gloves are still a bit of a mystery to me.  Because even if you accidentally left a glove at the murder scene, why would you let the other one drop on your property?  Outside....in plain view on your property?  And again, these are fitted, isotoner style gloves and there would have been no struggle when the second glove came off.  A fitted style glove would have to be taken off, so he took off the glove at his house and dropped it outside?  Why?  Why not cut it up and flush it down the toilet?  Why not burn it?  Why not throw it out a window?  Why not put it in a trash can?  Why not put it in a dumpster on the street?  Why would you purposefully remove this glove and throw it down in your backyard where it can easily be found?

And even if the glove naturally fell off behind his house....you KNOW you just left the companion glove at the scene of a bloody murder.....wouldn't you go and backtrack to find the second glove and destroy it?

The theories are:

1. The first glove fell off during the struggle with Ron Goldman. Anyone who has worn tight gloves can attest that they are easier to take off than to put on.  Bill Hodgman explains what probably happened in good detail during this episode.

2.  He was carrying the second glove and dropped it by accident when he bumped into the air conditioner in back of Kaelin's room. He did not drop the glove on purpose.  It could have been in his pocket and fallen out when he bumped into the air conditioner.  It's unlikely he was wearing the glove when he drove back from Bundy to Rockingham or there would have been a lot more blood inside the Bronco.

And with regard to going back to pick up the dropped glove, he'd have to be aware in his panicked state that he even dropped the glove and then know where he dropped it. And he would have had  to have time to go back in the dark and search for it without Kaelin finding him and still have time to shower and meet the limo driver for his trip to the airport.

Edited June 17, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[RCharter]

1 hour ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

The theories are:

1. The first glove fell off during the struggle with Ron Goldman. Anyone who has worn tight gloves can attest that they are easier to take off than to put on.  Bill Hodgman explains what probably happened in good detail during this episode.

2.  He was carrying the second glove and dropped it by accident when he bumped into the air conditioner in back of Kaelin's room. He did not drop the glove on purpose.  It could have been in his pocket and fallen out when he bumped into the air conditioner.  It's unlikely he was wearing the glove when he drove back from Bundy to Rockingham or there would have been a lot more blood inside the Bronco.

And with regard to going back to pick up the dropped glove, he'd have to be aware in his panicked state that he even dropped the glove and then know where he dropped it. And he would have had  to have time to go back in the dark and search for it without Kaelin finding him and still have time to shower and meet the limo driver for his trip to the airport.

If you're RG and you're struggling to get at the knife and not the glove you're still going to have to give pretty direct force in the right direction to pull the glove off.  Trying to pull at the knife is not going to automatically equate to pulling at the glove.  The way Hodgeman described it, RG was reaching behind him when he would have pulled off the glove.  To pull off that sort of glove would require direct force in the right direction.  So, it still doesn't really quite ring true.

As for the second glove -- that theory also doesn't make much sense to me.  Once you get upstairs and you realize that you had two gloves and now you have zero, and one of those gloves must be on your property, you go back and look for it.  If you had the presence of mind to put the bloody glove in your pocket to avoid detection, you're not so panicked that you can't remember that one glove is floating around somewhere and you need to find and destroy it.  I don't think its something you just leave in the dark, out in the open.   OJ was calm enough to get in a limo, get on a plane and head to Chicago, but he was so panicked that he just left the glove outside for the police to find?  He was able to enact this perfectly timed crime, but was just dropping evidence everywhere.  One piece conveniently at the crime scene and the companion glove outside at the house?  And it doesn't seem like he was super concerned about waking up Kateo Kalin since he had already done whatever had caused three loud knocks.  So he wasn't concerned about causing that noise, but he was concerned about creeping around because it might wake him up?

  It just doesn't make any sense, and while I think OJ is evil a man who killed two people, I don't expect a person who had any level of premeditation to just shrug away a bloody glove and hope for the best.  And what was he doing stumbling around an air conditioning unit?  The place where that glove was looked like a narrow...almost alleyway.

[RemoteControlFreak]

On 6/17/2016 at 9:04 AM, RCharter said:

As for the second glove -- that theory also doesn't make much sense to me.  Once you get upstairs and you realize that you had two gloves and now you have zero, and one of those gloves must be on your property, you go back and look for it.  If you had the presence of mind to put the bloody glove in your pocket to avoid detection, you're not so panicked that you can't remember that one glove is floating around somewhere and you need to find and destroy it.  I don't think its something you just leave in the dark, out in the open.   OJ was calm enough to get in a limo, get on a plane and head to Chicago, but he was so panicked that he just left the glove outside for the police to find?  He was able to enact this perfectly timed crime, but was just dropping evidence everywhere.  One piece conveniently at the crime scene and the companion glove outside at the house?  And it doesn't seem like he was super concerned about waking up Kateo Kalin since he had already done whatever had caused three loud knocks.  So he wasn't concerned about causing that noise, but he was concerned about creeping around because it might wake him up?

No.

The guy was frantic. He had just brutally murdered two people, raced back to his house through the streets of LA, with headlights off, running a red light, nearly hitting another motorist (Jill Shively), parked erratically at the curb outside his house, ran (maybe walked) through the dark behind the guest houses and into his house, leaving drops of blood along the way and a pair of bloody socks in the middle of his bedroom.  Took a shower, changed his clothes and was ready to answer the door bell when Allan Park buzzed it. 

Even if he realized that he dropped a glove, he likely didn't know where.  If he did, he would have picked it up right away.  Even if he had a sense that he dropped it somewhere in back of Kato's room, he doesn't have time to go out and search for it.  The last thing he wants is for Kato or the the limo driver or even the police to find him rooting around in the dirt looking for something.  Kato was already awake.  That's not an issue. But Kato could, and indeed did, go out with a flashlight to see what the source of the loud noises were and then he greeted the limo driver.  So Kato was outside walking around. 

My educated guess is that he didn't even realize that he had dropped the glove, anymore than he realized that he dropped or had pulled off the other glove at the crime scene, or that he left a trail from his footprints and blood at Bundy to a pair of socks containing his blood, the blood of Nicole, and the blood of Ron on the floor of his bedroom.

And, yes, he was calm enough to get in a limo and fly to Chicago .... though reports are he was sweating profusely in the Limo and gulping down water on the plane.  

Edited June 18, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[Guest]

I can't remember which Simpson associate said this, but he retold a story about the impossibility of the glove being planted because Furhrman would have had to have known that Simpson had no alibi during the murders. Furhman had no such knowledge. I can't believe, well, actually I can believe, the prosecution never raised the question.

The other thing that fried me was, here we go, Furhman again. He could have -- and should have -- answered the question, "Did you plant the glove?" when he returned to the stand and would only plead the Fifth. Not that I think in the grand scheme of things his answer would have made any difference whatsoever to the jury but certainly his non-answer damned him for sure.

The way Ron Shipp was treated by the defense was appalling. So...he's an alcoholic and a cheater and a race traitor for marrying a white woman. And...so what about any of that? How was that relevant to his testimony? And yet, crickets from the prosecution who never bothered to object to any of those questions.

[RCharter]

Just now, RemoteControlFreak said:

No.

The guy was frantic. He had just brutally murdered two people, raced back to his house through the streets of LA, with headlights off, running a red light, nearly hitting another motorist (Jill Shively), parked erratically at the curb outside his house, ran (maybe walked) through the dark behind the guest houses and into his house, leaving drops of blood along the way and a pair of bloody socks in the middle of his bedroom.  Took a shower, changed his clothes and was ready to answer the door bell when Alan Park buzzed it. 

Even if he realized that he dropped a glove, he likely didn't know where.  If he did, he would have picked it up right away.  Even if he had a sense that he dropped it somewhere in back of Kato's room, he doesn't have time to go out and search for it.  The last thing he wants is for Kato or the the limo driver or even the police to find him rooting around in the dirt looking for something.  Kato was already awake.  That's not an issue. But Kato could, and indeed did, go out with a flashlight to see what the source of the loud noises were and then he greeted the limo driver.  So Kato was outside walking around. 

My educated guess is that he didn't even realize that he had dropped the glove, anymore than he realized that he dropped or had pulled off the other glove at the crime scene, or that he left a trail from his footprints and blood at Bundy to a pair of socks containing his blood, the blood of Nicole, and the blood of Ron on the floor of his bedroom.

And, yes, he was calm enough to get in a limo and fly to Chicago .... though reports are he was sweating profusely in the Limo and gulping down water on the plane.  

A pair of bloody socks in a bedroom makes sense to me, because at least the socks are in the house, and maybe you didn't realize the socks had blood on them because you were wearing shoes, but you know those gloves have blood all over them, and you know the other glove is at the crime scene.  So leaving one glove at a crime scene and another outside his house doesn't make any sort of sense to me.

A near accident doesn't prove that someone was frantic.  I live in So. Cal., and there are many near misses and if he was driving with lights off it was probably more of an issue that she didn't see him, not that he was driving crazy, you just can't see someone who doesn't have their lights on, and I'm not sure what "erratic parking" is since no one saw how he parked in front of his own house.  It sounds like he parked poorly, but there are people who park poorly on a daily basis and its not erratic at all.  They are just not good at parking.  Driving around with the headlights off, to me, shows presence of mind.  The same presence of mind that would not allow you to just leave the most perfect piece of evidence lying around outside your house.  The perfect evidence that absolutely links you to the crime scene.  You've thought through everything, you drove home with the lights off, you wore the gloves to the crime scene, you brought a knife with you, you made sure to time it perfectly so you could make it home in time for the car to pick you up.  But then you just left a glove at the scene of the crime, and left another one outside your house?  

That just doesn't make sense.  And he just left it out there.  He didn't walk 5 miles to his house from where he was parked, so it shouldn't have taken him much time for him to backtrack.  Especially for such an important piece of evidence....because he would have known that the other glove was at the crime scene.

And why would anyone wear gloves to a crime scene and then pull them off?  And just pull off one glove and then drop the other in the perfect place.

[RCharter]

15 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

I can't remember which Simpson associate said this, but he retold a story about the impossibility of the glove being planted because Furhrman would have had to have known that Simpson had no alibi during the murders. Furhman had no such knowledge. I can't believe, well, actually I can believe, the prosecution never raised the question.

The other thing that fried me was, here we go, Furhman again. He could have -- and should have -- answered the question, "Did you plant the glove?" when he returned to the stand and would only plead the Fifth. Not that I think in the grand scheme of things his answer would have made any difference whatsoever to the jury but certainly his non-answer damned him for sure.

The way Ron Shipp was treated by the defense was appalling. So...he's an alcoholic and a cheater and a race traitor for marrying a white woman. And...so what about any of that? How was that relevant to his testimony? And yet, crickets from the prosecution who never bothered to object to any of those questions.

I don't think that makes it impossible per se.  Murder timelines and time of death isn't always clear cut.  What the glove would do is undermine any alibi OJ might have had.  And I think its possible that sometimes the lapd wants a slam dunk case.  As the investigator said....framing the guilty.  You have a good feeling that OJ did it.  Fuhrman had answered another DV call with OJ/Nicole, so I think he had a good idea who committed the crime.

If you have a good feeling that OJ did it, you can bet on the fact that he doesn't have a good alibi and may feel more comfortable framing him because he is guilty.

Now, why Marcia Clarke didn't bring out the fact that it would have been, in her words, impossible for Fuhrman to plant the glove because everyone else saw it before he got there is another matter, IMO.

Edited June 17, 2016 by RCharter

[RemoteControlFreak]

16 minutes ago, Giant Misfit said:

I can't remember which Simpson associate said this, but he retold a story about the impossibility of the glove being planted because Furhrman would have had to have known that Simpson had no alibi during the murders. Furhman had no such knowledge. I can't believe, well, actually I can believe, the prosecution never raised the question.

The other thing that fried me was, here we go, Furhman again. He could have -- and should have -- answered the question, "Did you plant the glove?" when he returned to the stand and would only plead the Fifth. Not that I think in the grand scheme of things his answer would have made any difference whatsoever to the jury but certainly his non-answer damned him for sure.

The way Ron Shipp was treated by the defense was appalling. So...he's an alcoholic and a cheater and a race traitor for marrying a white woman. And...so what about any of that? How was that relevant to his testimony? And yet, crickets from the prosecution who never bothered to object to any of those questions.

It was probably multiple people who brought this up. It's grade school logic.  At the time Fuhrman reported finding the glove, nobody knew where OJ Simpson was and whether or not he had an air-tight alibi.  So it makes no sense to try to frame Simpson unless Fuhrman knew he was a possible suspect. And this was impossible to know at that time.

Look. Simpson's defense lawyers all knew he did it.  They were being paid, and paid a lot, to do whatever they could to distract and confuse the jurors into thinking he didn't do it.  The jurors weren't savvy enough to understand the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "a shadow of a doubt" and Judge Ito didn't help matters by catering to the defense team whims with things like the unnecessary tour of the inside of Simpson's black-ified house and allowing the trial to drag out for 9 months with a sequestered jury that just wanted it all to be over.  It also didn't help that Chris Darden was a lightweight who not only had Simpson try on the gloves in open court but then acknowledged that they didn't fit, rather than challenging the way Simpson appeared to try to put them on.

[DangerousMinds]

4 hours ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

The theories are:

1. The first glove fell off during the struggle with Ron Goldman. Anyone who has worn tight gloves can attest that they are easier to take off than to put on.  Bill Hodgman explains what probably happened in good detail during this episode.

2.  He was carrying the second glove and dropped it by accident when he bumped into the air conditioner in back of Kaelin's room. He did not drop the glove on purpose.  It could have been in his pocket and fallen out when he bumped into the air conditioner.  It's unlikely he was wearing the glove when he drove back from Bundy to Rockingham or there would have been a lot more blood inside the Bronco.

And with regard to going back to pick up the dropped glove, he'd have to be aware in his panicked state that he even dropped the glove and then know where he dropped it. And he would have had  to have time to go back in the dark and search for it without Kaelin finding him and still have time to shower and meet the limo driver for his trip to the airport.

And he barely made it in time to shower and get in the limo as it was. No time at all to go back and get the other glove.

[Sarah D. Bunting]

Quote

You've thought through everything, you drove home with the lights off, you wore the gloves to the crime scene, you brought a knife with you, you made sure to time it perfectly so you could make it home in time for the car to pick you up.  But then you just left a glove at the scene of the crime, and left another one outside your house?

If you watch enough true crime, you come to understand that this is how it is with murderers a lot of the time, to wit: they're usually not masterminds. Asking questions that start with "but who would be dumb enough to [X]" will usually get you an answer along the lines of "most killers," because most people are not the 190-IQ serial killers of primetime TV. They are enraged, and probably not very bright. Would a novelist write a crime like this? No. Do people give themselves away like this all the time? Sure do.

[RCharter]

2 minutes ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

It was probably multiple people who brought this up. It's grade school logic.  At the time Fuhrman reported finding the glove, nobody knew where OJ Simpson was and whether or not he had an air-tight alibi.  So it makes no sense to try to frame Simpson unless Fuhrman knew he was a possible suspect. And this was impossible to know at that time.

Look. Simpson's defense lawyers all knew he did it.  They were being paid, and paid a lot, to do whatever they could to distract and confuse the jurors into thinking he didn't do it.  The jurors weren't savvy enough to understand the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "a shadow of a doubt" and Judge Ito didn't help matters by catering to the defense team whims with things like the unnecessary tour of the inside of Simpson's black-ified house and allowing the trial to drag out for 9 months with a sequestered jury that just wanted it all to be over.  It also didn't help that Chris Darden was a lightweight who not only had Simpson try on the gloves in open court but then acknowledged that they didn't fit, rather than challenging the way Simpson appeared to try to put them on.

What I heard from the jurors wasn't that he didn't do it, but rather that they didn't feel the prosecution proved he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Or in the case of juror number 9, she never indicated that he didn't do it, but rather that she gave the not guilty verdict as payback for Rodney King.  

"Reasonable doubt" has rarely been given a clear definition by anyone, and there is no single definition agreed upon in the legal community as a whole.

[RCharter]

1 minute ago, Sarah D. Bunting said:

If you watch enough true crime, you come to understand that this is how it is with murderers a lot of the time, to wit: they're usually not masterminds. Asking questions that start with "but who would be dumb enough to [X]" will usually get you an answer along the lines of "most killers," because most people are not the 190-IQ serial killers of primetime TV. They are enraged, and probably not very bright. Would a novelist write a crime like this? No. Do people give themselves away like this all the time? Sure do.

But he thought through enough of the crime to do things that made sense for a murderer to do.  He thought through things enough to drive with the lights off.  He thought through things enough to wear gloves.  He thought through things enough to bring his own weapon.  He thought through things enough to kill her with enough time to get home and shower.  So, he wasn't just some random frantic guy.  He thought through a lot of things. 

But he didn't think through the fact that he left one glove at a crime scene and was going to leave another bloody glove outside?  And he didn't have enough time to backtrack a short distance because the risk of leaving a HUGE piece of evidence that could connect you to the murder outside wasn't worth the small risk of running into Kato, or keeping the limo driver waiting for 5 additional minutes?  I mean this was the most perfect evidence against him....leaving one glove at a crime scene and the second glove at his residence...outside too and in plain view.

OJ is evil, but I don't think he is an idiot.

[poeticlicensed]

Isn't it true they never found the clothes he was wearing (sans socks) or the murder weapon?  Yet the next day we see Robert Kardashian leaving OJs house with a suitcase. I have always been suspicious that OJ either put the knife and his clothes in a bag and dumped them somewhere between LA and Chicago or that the stuff was in the suitcase Kardashian carried out. 

Did Fuhrman plant evidence? I'm not sure. Did the lab screw things up? Oh yes. 

As far as the jury not understanding scientific evidence, I wonder if today in light of CSI, the DNA evidence would have been better received. But now, the pendulum has swung the other way and I think juries actually have evolved to the point where they almost demand slam dunk forensics. When Casey Anthony was acquitted, the jury when polled afterward said that the lack of a DNA link from the accused to the victim gave them reasonable doubt. So unless there is DNA or a video showing the crime being committed, juries may be reluctant to convict. 

But I also think it takes an engaging witness with scientific knowledge to really lay it out for a jury ijn a way that makes sense an doesn't put them to sleep. And so many scientists are not engaging in that way.

Edited June 17, 2016 by poeticlicensed

[Isabella11]

Forget how OJ did it--I don't know how Ezra Edelman did it!  He created a fascinating documentary that I couldn't stop watching, and I'd thought I was sick of OJ stuff.  One highlight for me, was the interview with Barry Scheck.  We hear the director pin Scheck down regarding evidence planting:  'Just so we're clear:  does Scheck believe the blood and the glove was planted?'  And Scheck stammers, he pulls his collar, he brushes his shoulder-- and he never answers that question directly!  In itself that's not surprising, but his emotional reactions reveal his inner conflict about what the defense did. 

Good job, Mr. Edelman.  I just finished watching all 5 segments, and there are very difficult, graphic images included, both historic events and crime scene photos.  But that's the story this director wanted to tell, and it's important and relevant.  Excellent work. 

[DangerousMinds]

If the lab had truly screwed up and contaminated the samples, the DNA would NOT have matched Simpson, Nicole, and Ron.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, poeticlicensed said:

Yet the next day we see Robert Kardashian leaving OJs house with a suitcase. I have always been suspicious that OJ either put the knife and his clothes in a bag and dumped them somewhere between LA and Chicago or that the stuff was in the suitcase Kardashian carried out. 

Fred Goldman is convinced that Kardashian removed all the bloody clothes -- and whatever else evidence --  in that garment bag. I don't disagree with him. We've seen how bizarrely loyal OJ's sycophantic friends were to him - Kardashian no exception. He could always plead "attorney-client privilege" and never have to answer a single question in court even though, for all intent and purpose, he never legally represented Simpson.

Kardashian claimed that he "tried" to give the police the bag but they "refused" to take it. The bag were never recovered.

It's pretty clear that there's a lot of shit in that bag Kardashian took out that day:

 

[smiley13]

According to the FX series, I thought there was nothing incriminating in the bag.

[Court]

Those crime scene photos are horrific. I started crying. 

 

It's so sad that this was never about the victims in this case. Ron and Nicole. It was about everything else. Absolutely tragic.

[Bama]

2 hours ago, Isabella11 said:

And Scheck stammers, he pulls his collar, he brushes his shoulder-- and he never answers that question directly! 

OMG that Scheck interview was something else!  He strung 25 words together that had no relation to each other or the question.  That was something to see and hear from someone that is usually so silvered tongued. He appeared very uncomfortable and seemed to know his answer was bullshit.

[RemoteControlFreak]

5 hours ago, RCharter said:

I don't think that makes it impossible per se.  Murder timelines and time of death isn't always clear cut.  What the glove would do is undermine any alibi OJ might have had.  And I think its possible that sometimes the lapd wants a slam dunk case.  As the investigator said....framing the guilty.  You have a good feeling that OJ did it.  Fuhrman had answered another DV call with OJ/Nicole, so I think he had a good idea who committed the crime.

If you have a good feeling that OJ did it, you can bet on the fact that he doesn't have a good alibi and may feel more comfortable framing him because he is guilty.

Now, why Marcia Clarke didn't bring out the fact that it would have been, in her words, impossible for Fuhrman to plant the glove because everyone else saw it before he got there is another matter, IMO.

1. Simpson could have easily had a airtight alibi that could not be undermined. He could have been out of town, at a golf outing on the east coast, or in a public place like a restaurant where everyone saw him.  If this were the case,  Fuhrman just threw his job away by obviously framing someone who could not possible have committed the crime.

2. No one else saw the glove at Rockingham before Mark Fuhrman. People saw the other glove at Bundy before Fuhrman arrived there. He wasn't there until 2 hours after the first cops arrived.

1 hour ago, smiley13 said:

According to the FX series, I thought there was nothing incriminating in the bag.

If I recall the Fx series correctly, it was stated that by the time the bag made it into evidence at the trial, it was empty. But it was out of possession of the cops and in the hands of Robert Kardashian and OJ's loyal secretary Kathy Randa, so it's completely possible that the bag the clothes he wore during the murder or the knife, or both.  It's also possible that he disposed of these items elsewhere. Maybe on his way form Bundy to Rockingham or in Chicago.

[RemoteControlFreak]

4 hours ago, RCharter said:

But he thought through enough of the crime to do things that made sense for a murderer to do.  He thought through things enough to drive with the lights off.  He thought through things enough to wear gloves.  He thought through things enough to bring his own weapon.  He thought through things enough to kill her with enough time to get home and shower.  So, he wasn't just some random frantic guy.  He thought through a lot of things. 

But he didn't think through the fact that he left one glove at a crime scene and was going to leave another bloody glove outside?  And he didn't have enough time to backtrack a short distance because the risk of leaving a HUGE piece of evidence that could connect you to the murder outside wasn't worth the small risk of running into Kato, or keeping the limo driver waiting for 5 additional minutes?  I mean this was the most perfect evidence against him....leaving one glove at a crime scene and the second glove at his residence...outside too and in plain view.

OJ is evil, but I don't think he is an idiot.

Speeding away from a crime scene with the car lights off and racing through a red light is not an intelligent pre-meditated strategy.  It's an invitation to be pulled over by the cops.  And again, he neither planned nor was likely aware that he lost his gloves along the way.

[RCharter]

17 minutes ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

1. Simpson could have easily had a airtight alibi that could not be undermined. He could have been out of town, at a golf outing on the east coast, or in a public place like a restaurant where everyone saw him.  If this were the case,  Fuhrman just threw his job away by obviously framing someone who could not possible have committed the crime.

2. No one else saw the glove at Rockingham before Mark Fuhrman. People saw the other glove at Bundy before Fuhrman arrived there. He wasn't there until 2 hours after the first cops arrived.

If I recall the Fx series correctly, it was stated that by the time the bag made it into evidence at the trial, it was empty. But it was out of possession of the cops and in the hands of Robert Kardashian and OJ's loyal secretary Kathy Randa, so it's completely possible that the bag the clothes he wore during the murder or the knife, or both.  It's also possible that he disposed of these items elsewhere. Maybe on his way form Bundy to Rockingham or in Chicago.

Sure, there is a slight risk that OJ was out of town, but when you're pretty sure you know who did it based on your previous interactions with him, I think its a risk that is easy to take in light of the reward.  Especially if you're pretty sure he doesn't have an alibi because he did it.  As for being in a restaurant, since the time of death is more often a window and not an exact time I think it would have been pretty easy to argue that the time of death was in line with whatever "alibi" Simpson would have had.

as the investigator said....if Furhman thought he was framing a guilty man, it means he still thought the man was guilty, he was just trying to make sure he was handing over a slam dunk case.  And if Furhman really thought he was guilty, than he would have really thought that OJ wouldn't have had an alibi at all. 

[RCharter]

13 minutes ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

Speeding away from a crime scene with the car lights off and racing through a red light is not an intelligent pre-meditated strategy.  It's an invitation to be pulled over by the cops.  And again, he neither planned nor was likely aware that he lost his gloves along the way.

But, it is a strategy to not be identified leaving the scene of a crime and to simply get home as swiftly as possible while avoiding detection.  As for the small risk of being pulled over in that neighborhood at that time of the night when you're in a nice car....I don't know.....seems pretty remote unless the car had been reported stolen.

So, if you're doing any amount of planning...the type of planning that makes you bring gloves to the scene of a crime, I think you're enough of a planner to make sure you have your gloves.  Or that if you left one glove at the scene, that you make sure you have the other one to destroy it....not that you just drop it outside....and leave it outside for the police to find.

OJ planned for this murder by: wearing dark clothing, driving away from the scene of the crime without any headlights, wearing a knit cap, wearing gloves, bringing a knife, making sure to be done in time to get home and shower to catch a flight.  

So, he did all this planning....but he leaves one glove at the crime scene and another one laying around outside?  The one perfect piece of evidence that can tie him to the crime and to the crime scene?  But, he thinks that the one glove, the one thing that perfectly ties him to the crime, is less important than not making the limo driver wait a few minutes while he backtracks?  

He didn't realize that the gloves he purposefully wore to the crime scene to conceal being there were missing?  That doesn't make sense to me either.  He made it a point to wear the gloves, but didn't realize that they were gone?  He didn't realize when he put one glove into his pocket that the other glove wasn't there?

[LadyHam]

56 minutes ago, RCharter said:

But, it is a strategy to not be identified leaving the scene of a crime and to simply get home as swiftly as possible while avoiding detection.  As for the small risk of being pulled over in that neighborhood at that time of the night when you're in a nice car....I don't know.....seems pretty remote unless the car had been reported stolen.

So, if you're doing any amount of planning...the type of planning that makes you bring gloves to the scene of a crime, I think you're enough of a planner to make sure you have your gloves.  Or that if you left one glove at the scene, that you make sure you have the other one to destroy it....not that you just drop it outside....and leave it outside for the police to find.

OJ planned for this murder by: wearing dark clothing, driving away from the scene of the crime without any headlights, wearing a knit cap, wearing gloves, bringing a knife, making sure to be done in time to get home and shower to catch a flight.  

So, he did all this planning....but he leaves one glove at the crime scene and another one laying around outside?  The one perfect piece of evidence that can tie him to the crime and to the crime scene?  But, he thinks that the one glove, the one thing that perfectly ties him to the crime, is less important than not making the limo driver wait a few minutes while he backtracks?  

He didn't realize that the gloves he purposefully wore to the crime scene to conceal being there were missing?  That doesn't make sense to me either.  He made it a point to wear the gloves, but didn't realize that they were gone?  He didn't realize when he put one glove into his pocket that the other glove wasn't there?

What you're forgetting is that OJ's perfectly planned premeditated murder had 2 major wrenches thrown into it. First, when OJ was planning his alibi by asking for change from Kato Kaelin, he wasn't expecting Kato to invite himself along for a burger. That most likely made OJ get to Nicole's condo later than he wanted. Also, I don't think OJ was planning for Ron Goldman or anyone else to be there when he was murdering Nicole. Plus, even if everything had gone perfectly, OJ would have been pumped up on adrenalin and since this was the first murder he committed, he wouldn't have just been calm, cool and collected. It's not too hard to believe he dropped one glove at Bundy. He also dropped the cap there. He lost them in the struggle with Ron most likely and probably didn't retrieve them because it was too dark to see where they were, and perhaps he heard a noise and knew he just needed to get out of there. With the glove at Rockingham, he scaled the neighbor's fence and dropped 6 feet or so onto his property, and in the process bumped into the air conditioner 3 times. He probably didn't realize he dropped the glove there. How was he supposed to go look for it with Kato and the limo driver right there?

 

I just don't see anything mysterious with the gloves. I think OJ used them during the murder and then lost both of them where he did. We will ever know how exactly unless OJ plans on telling us. Sometimes we don't know how or why evidence is where it happens to be found and how it got there. I don't believe that the gloves were planted. They were there because OJ lost them while he was committing this crime. 

[RCharter]

8 minutes ago, LadyHam said:

What you're forgetting is that OJ's perfectly planned premeditated murder had 2 major wrenches thrown into it. First, when OJ was planning his alibi by asking for change from Kato Kaelin, he wasn't expecting Kato to invite himself along for a burger. That most likely made OJ get to Nicole's condo later than he wanted. Also, I don't think OJ was planning for Ron Goldman or anyone else to be there when he was murdering Nicole. Plus, even if everything had gone perfectly, OJ would have been pumped up on adrenalin and since this was the first murder he committed, he wouldn't have just been calm, cool and collected. It's not too hard to believe he dropped one glove at Bundy. He also dropped the cap there. He lost them in the struggle with Ron most likely and probably didn't retrieve them because it was too dark to see where they were, and perhaps he heard a noise and knew he just needed to get out of there. With the glove at Rockingham, he scaled the neighbor's fence and dropped 6 feet or so onto his property, and in the process bumped into the air conditioner 3 times. He probably didn't realize he dropped the glove there. How was he supposed to go look for it with Kato and the limo driver right there?

 

I just don't see anything mysterious with the gloves. I think OJ used them during the murder and then lost both of them where he did. We will ever know how exactly unless OJ plans on telling us. Sometimes we don't know how or why evidence is where it happens to be found and how it got there. I don't believe that the gloves were planted. They were there because OJ lost them while he was committing this crime. 

These are pretty fitted gloves, so the idea of him "dropping" one at a crime scene doesn't make much sense to me.  Nor does the idea of losing the glove in a struggle.  As they are fitted you would have to pull directly on the glove to get it off, not on the side of the glove, but at least on a finger of the glove, and with a good amount of force.  That RG reached behind him and somehow pulled off the glove doesn't seem to fit.  But even if one were to accept that argument....which I think is a little shaky....glove #2 makes even less sense.

Even if he was hopped up on adrenaline, the excitement should have abated somewhat by the time he got home.  To the point where he would know that he left glove #1 at a crime scene and therefore destroying glove #2 would be especially important.  Important enough to risk bumping into Kato or having a limo driver waiting.  A limo driver with a pickup in a ritzy area like Brentwood is probably not going to just take off if you're not out there in time. So, the idea that he absolutely had to shower to get out there to meet the limo driver and therefore couldn't make the 5 minute backtract to look for the glove doesn't seem to make much sense.  Knowing that glove #1 is covered in blood at a crime scene makes glove #2 the most important thing.  The reward of being able to destroy such a pivotal piece of evidence would be well worth the risk of Kato/limo driver.

But for such perfect evidence to be left in two such perfect places by a man who made it a point to do such planning is very curious to me.  On the one hand we have a man premeditating murder....and then on the other hand being so sloppy and so lackadaisical as to undo all that planning by leaving one glove at a crime scene and the other at his house.   

Evidence should make sense....and I think the rest of it does.  The rest of it makes sense, you could honestly believe that you wore shoes and your socks don't have blood on them and therefore think it was fine to just leave them around.  Driving around with the lights off (after the fact) also shows presence of mind that makes sense for someone who is thinking about avoiding detection.  For someone with that presence of mind to leave such pivotal evidence in two perfect places for detection just doesn't make much sense.  

I still think he did it -- but the gloves are hinky.

[Bastet]

Quote

A heads up to people watching Part 4: the uncensored crime scene photos of Nicole and Ron are shown, about one hour in, during a segment where Bill Hodgman gives his account of the timeline on how the murders happened. 

I was just reading about this today.  When the documentary was screened at Sundance, there were - quite naturally - a lot of audible gasps from the audience when the previously-unreleased crime scene photos, close-ups of the neck wounds, were shown.  At the time, it was unknown whether ESPN would air them, uncensored, because they are so graphic. 

Particularly the one of Nicole's slit throat.  We've seen her hair soaked in blood, we've seen all the blood on the ground, we've heard she was nearly decapitated.  But actually seeing into (and damn near through) her body that way -- it's an intense experience.

I'm not sure about the rest of the photos, but those two will only be shown uncensored on the Watch ESPN app and on tonight's original airing on ESPN; in all re-airings on ESPN, they will be blurred.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Bastet

[LadyHam]

2 hours ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

 

If I recall the Fx series correctly, it was stated that by the time the bag made it into evidence at the trial, it was empty. But it was out of possession of the cops and in the hands of Robert Kardashian and OJ's loyal secretary Kathy Randa, so it's completely possible that the bag the clothes he wore during the murder or the knife, or both.  It's also possible that he disposed of these items elsewhere. Maybe on his way form Bundy to Rockingham or in Chicago.

In one of the books I read, the small bag that the defense team brought to court (pretending it was the actual small bag from the night of the murders) was not actually the bag. It apparently even still had the tag on it, and they were not allowed to submit it as evidence.  Just another example of the underhanded tactics of the defense team, IMO.

i don't know what happened and why my quote cut out the part of your post about the gloves, but I wholeheartedly agree with you about everything. 

[LadyHam]

25 minutes ago, RCharter said:

These are pretty fitted gloves, so the idea of him "dropping" one at a crime scene doesn't make much sense to me.  Nor does the idea of losing the glove in a struggle.  As they are fitted you would have to pull directly on the glove to get it off, not on the side of the glove, but at least on a finger of the glove, and with a good amount of force.  That RG reached behind him and somehow pulled off the glove doesn't seem to fit.  But even if one were to accept that argument....which I think is a little shaky....glove #2 makes even less sense.

Even if he was hopped up on adrenaline, the excitement should have abated somewhat by the time he got home.  To the point where he would know that he left glove #1 at a crime scene and therefore destroying glove #2 would be especially important.  Important enough to risk bumping into Kato or having a limo driver waiting.  A limo driver with a pickup in a ritzy area like Brentwood is probably not going to just take off if you're not out there in time. So, the idea that he absolutely had to shower to get out there to meet the limo driver and therefore couldn't make the 5 minute backtract to look for the glove doesn't seem to make much sense.  Knowing that glove #1 is covered in blood at a crime scene makes glove #2 the most important thing.  The reward of being able to destroy such a pivotal piece of evidence would be well worth the risk of Kato/limo driver.

But for such perfect evidence to be left in two such perfect places by a man who made it a point to do such planning is very curious to me.  On the one hand we have a man premeditating murder....and then on the other hand being so sloppy and so lackadaisical as to undo all that planning by leaving one glove at a crime scene and the other at his house.   

Evidence should make sense....and I think the rest of it does.  The rest of it makes sense, you could honestly believe that you wore shoes and your socks don't have blood on them and therefore think it was fine to just leave them around.  Driving around with the lights off (after the fact) also shows presence of mind that makes sense for someone who is thinking about avoiding detection.  For someone with that presence of mind to leave such pivotal evidence in two perfect places for detection just doesn't make much sense.  

I still think he did it -- but the gloves are hinky.

I don't understand what you think is so hinky about the gloves.  Do you think someone (the police, someone else) put the gloves there and not OJ?  The very first officer on the scene at Bundy (who I believe was a patrol officer) saw the glove as did 16 or so (give or take) other officers who arrived on the scene before Mark Fuhrman.  I don't think there is anything hinky about that glove.  These were very rare gloves and in fact, only about 200 pair were sold in the entire USA.  They were size XL, OJ's size.  They had a receipt from when Nicole bought OJ 2 pairs of these gloves in New York.  One in black and one in brown.  I think the brown pair were the ones used in the murder.  Did someone go over and steal OJ's gloves after they saw the murder scene and plant one glove at Bundy and one at Rockingham?  If OJ was not the murderer and had the gloves in his possession, don't you think the defense team would have produced them?  I don't believe for one second that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove, but for those who did, how did he first find the glove and then second, how did he get it over to Rockingham?  He was the 17th officer or so on the scene at Bundy.  None of the previous officers saw a second glove.  Even if there was, how did Mark Fuhrman get it over to Rockingham?  There were numerous officers roaming around the scene.  Mark Furhman wasn't wearing a coat, so he would have had to put the glove in his sock.  If he tried to put it in his pocket or underwear, there would have been a very prominent bulge.  How did he manage not to get any of his DNA or hair on the glove?  Or any of the blood from the glove on his pants?

 

One would have to believe that every police officer, criminologist, and lab personnel involved in this case were all in on some vast conspiracy to frame OJ.  Isn't the easier conclusion that OJ just made mistakes when committing these murders?  He was not a genius and he simply made the mistake of dropping the gloves and the hat.  He most likely disposed of the shoes and clothes he wore in a neighbor's trash can or at the airport.  He probably knew he lost the gloves and was hoping that they either wouldn't be found or else if found wouldn't be tied to him.  OJ also made the mistake of leaving the socks he wore on the floor in his bedroom.  They were dark socks and the blood droplets were hard to see on them, so OJ probably thought they were clean and safe to keep there.

Also, OJ was in a rush.  IMO, he couldn't just try to tie up his loose ends and make the limo driver wait an extra 5+ minutes.  They were on a tight timeline as it was.  If OJ would have missed his flight, in his mind, his airtight alibi was gone.  He had no extra time to waste.

[Crs97]

I don't think the gloves were planted, but I'm not sure that I completely buy the explanation that the police officer would lose his career if he planted the glove and then it turned out that OJ had an alibi. I would imagine that if the  officer declared that he found a glove on OJ's property and then OJ showed his ticket and receipts that he was 600 miles away at the time of the murders, the officer would just say that the person who murdered Nicole and Ron must have known that she was OJ's ex-wife  and wanted to frame OJ for the crime.   I would think it would be pretty easy to pass the buck. 

[LadyHam]

4 hours ago, Bama said:

OMG that Scheck interview was something else!  He strung 25 words together that had no relation to each other or the question.  That was something to see and hear from someone that is usually so silvered tongued. He appeared very uncomfortable and seemed to know his answer was bullshit.

Scheck looked embarrassed to me.  I don't think even he believed what he was trying to sell.  I read in an article that he regrets getting involved in the OJ case.  He's done a lot of good with DNA, but that still does not excuse to me that he was instrumental in getting a murderer off scot-free.

[Irlandesa]

3 hours ago, RCharter said:

 Nor does the idea of losing the glove in a struggle.  As they are fitted you would have to pull directly on the glove to get it off, not on the side of the glove, but at least on a finger of the glove, and with a good amount of force. 
 

All we have is theories but a struggle is inherently forceful.  Maybe he walked up while OJ was killing Nicole and Ron grabbed his arm/hand and ended up pulling off the glove.

Quote

Even if he was hopped up on adrenaline, the excitement should have abated somewhat by the time he got home.  To the point where he would know that he left glove #1 at a crime scene and therefore destroying glove #2 would be especially important.  Important enough to risk bumping into Kato or having a limo driver waiting.

As has been pointed out, he was on a very tight timeline. It would have been worth going to get it but only if he knew where he had dropped it.  If he didn't have a clue, then it could have taken hours.

Quote

But for such perfect evidence to be left in two such perfect places by a man who made it a point to do such planning is very curious to me.  On the one hand we have a man premeditating murder....and then on the other hand being so sloppy and so lackadaisical as to undo all that planning by leaving one glove at a crime scene and the other at his house.

But there are two different stages to this crime.  There was the premeditation during which he had all the time in the world to fantasize how he'd do it if he were to kill her and then how he was going to actually do it.  Then there was the event and right after the event.  He didn't have all the time in the world to figure out what to do with missing articles of clothing.  He didn't have all the time in the world to figure out what to do about Ron Goldman.  There were the things he thought about (alibi, gloves, weapon, getting rid of the evidence) and the things he didn't think about which were the unexpected factors.  

2 hours ago, Crs97 said:

I don't think the gloves were planted, but I'm not sure that I completely buy the explanation that the police officer would lose his career if he planted the glove and then it turned out that OJ had an alibi. I would imagine that if the  officer declared that he found a glove on OJ's property and then OJ showed his ticket and receipts that he was 600 miles away at the time of the murders, the officer would just say that the person who murdered Nicole and Ron must have known that she was OJ's ex-wife  and wanted to frame OJ for the crime.   I would think it would be pretty easy to pass the buck. 

Maybe. But it would still be risky to frame someone with OJ's money. 

[Primetimer]

The ugliness isn't confined to those photos. (Don't worry, we don't reproduce them here.)

View the full article

[AimingforYoko]

I won't get in to the minutia of the case, everybody's made up their mind on that score, all I'll say is both F. Lee Bailey and Mark Fuhrman need to be sent far, far away.

And Lange? "The LAPD would never frame suspects or plant evidence." I've got one word for you: Rampart.

[Pollock]

3 hours ago, LadyHam said:

Scheck looked embarrassed to me.  I don't think even he believed what he was trying to sell.  I read in an article that he regrets getting involved in the OJ case.  He's done a lot of good with DNA, but that still does not excuse to me that he was instrumental in getting a murderer off scot-free.

As much as I think it's fucked up OJ got away with it (until the Las Vegas trial at least), I also think the only people we can't blame for that are his defense attorneys because all they did was their job to the best of their abilities. Their methods were morally reprehensible maybe (and even that could be discussed: is it moral for them to not do their best therefore breaking the trust of their client, whomever he is?) but they were deemed legal.

I blame Lance Ito over everybody else, even over Fuhrman whose only proven crime is being an intergalactic mega-asshole. Ito sucked as a referee, therefore making the trial unfair, which is kind of the only thing the justice system asks him NOT to do.

[biakbiak]

I can't get over that OJ made $3 million in jail from signing autographs. I know he didn't get all of that money but it's still makes me sick.

[Simon Boccanegra]

I won't get in to the minutia of the case, everybody's made up their mind on that score, all I'll say is both F. Lee Bailey and Mark Fuhrman need to be sent far, far away.

Can Carrie Bess and her Cro-Magnon insights into domestic violence go with them? 

[bosawks]

It was rough watching Ron Shipp cry about that 19 year old girl all these decades later.

[Lizzing]

It feels wrong to say that I'm "enjoying" this doc series, but it is really, really well done and immensely watchable, even at it's length and difficult subject matter.  After this 4th episode, I was struck by how well the casting of Sterling Brown as Chris Darden was in the FX series, because I hadn't heard Darden speak in ages, and damn if Brown didn't sound exactly like the real Darden in the show, down to the smallest inflection.  And, as shocking and horrible as the uncensored crime scene photos were, I think I was more prepared for that than to hear Ted Koppel (IIRC) actually say the N word in a nightly news broadcast.  I don't think anyone would say it now directly on TV national news like that in straight reporting (not punditry).

[wanderingstar]

This episode was just stunning.

Ron Shipp was heartbreaking.

Those crime scene photos threatened to give me nightmares.

Barry Scheck hemming and hawing about whether he believes Furhman planted evidence was telling.

I'd never watched the actual trial. I was in college at the time, had no investment in O.J. (or his guilt or innocence) and I was just put off by the whole circus. But seeing excerpts from it in this documentary, I get why people were spellbound by it. It was the stuff of Law & Order producers' dreams.

Oh, and the quotes from O.J. himself? Chilling.

ETA:

Quote

I won't get in to the minutia of the case, everybody's made up their mind on that score, all I'll say is both F. Lee Bailey and Mark Fuhrman need to be sent far, far away.

Yes. They both made my skin crawl.

Quote

I can't get over that OJ made $3 million in jail from signing autographs.

When I heard that stat, I paused my recording and yelled "WHAT!" at the TV. Then I said to my friend who was watching with me "ain't capitalism great!"

Edited June 18, 2016 by Gillian Rosh

[RemoteControlFreak]

13 hours ago, LadyHam said:

... ... ... I don't believe for one second that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove, but for those who did, how did he first find the glove and then second, how did he get it over to Rockingham?  He was the 17th officer or so on the scene at Bundy.  None of the previous officers saw a second glove.  Even if there was, how did Mark Fuhrman get it over to Rockingham?  There were numerous officers roaming around the scene.  Mark Furhman wasn't wearing a coat, so he would have had to put the glove in his sock.  If he tried to put it in his pocket or underwear, there would have been a very prominent bulge.  How did he manage not to get any of his DNA or hair on the glove?  Or any of the blood from the glove on his pants? ... ..

In Episode 4, F. Lee Bailey looks right at the camera and claims that Mark Fuhrman picked up the second glove at Bundy, put it in a plastic bag (during the trial he also claimed that he put the plastic bag with the glove in it in his sock because "that's what Marines do") and took it to Rockingham where he dropped it on purpose and then pretended to find it.

This kind of absurd, basically impossible, claim was the bread and butter of the defense team's approach.  To watch this film with Bailey, Carl Douglas, and Barry Scheck gleefully show off about all the tricks they pulled to confuse the jury to acquit, or to believe lies, is sickening.

It's too bad that Bob Shapiro didn't have the balls to appear in the film. He might have refuted some of this bullshit.

[Eolivet]

I don't know...I was a huge fan of the FX series, and the palm fronds being laid at the feet of this documentary by sports reporters were so over-the-top that I was skeptical going in. I still don't see the big deal about what makes this series ~so amazing, other than they have old footage and new interviews, and not performances by actors. It seems so overly ponderous to me. And at times, it seems like they're just trolling the FX series (not with the events, which would obviously be the same: but they have the defense attorney say the Fuhrman tapes were "pennies from heaven," similar to the title of the episode about the tapes ["Manna from Heaven"] -- in an interview, not old footage; they have the regretful former friend who comes to believe O.J. did it -- again, in an interview, not old footage, just like the role Robert Kardashian played in the series). It actually made me appreciate the pacing of the FX series, and as others said above, the performances there.

Maybe I could enjoy this more, as the case does interest me, if it hadn't been hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread. For the subject matter, I found the FX series much more compelling.

[PQuinn]

Quote

To watch this film with Bailey, Carl Douglas, and Barry Scheck gleefully show off about all the tricks they pulled to confuse the jury to acquit, or to believe lies, is sickening.

 

 

 

Scheck surprised me the most; I would have thought he'd have shown some contrition, but no.

Nothing can prepare you for the photographs. I read all the books, all the Vanity Fair articles, so I figured I'd be somewhat ready. Again, no.

Edited June 18, 2016 by PQuinn
Add quote.

[RemoteControlFreak]

This will be an unpopular opinion, but I've been impressed with Mark Fuhrman in this movie.

No doubt, he had abhorrent views about African Americans and other minorities, especially when he was younger. I'm not excusing that. But it has nothing to do with his investigation of the murders of Nicole and Ron.  His life was destroyed by the defense team to prove Simpson's innocence.  No one deserves this.

There is no indication that he was was other than a good cop with the LAPD in his handling of Nicole Brown Simpson's abuse calls and in the investigation of her and Ron's murders.  He was definitely better than those buffoons Lang and Vanatter who blew their chance to pin down Simpson during the first interview at Parker Center and tossed a blanket from within the house over Nicole's body allowing the defense to claim that the crime scene had been contaminated.

Edited June 18, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[RCharter]

14 hours ago, LadyHam said:

I don't understand what you think is so hinky about the gloves.  Do you think someone (the police, someone else) put the gloves there and not OJ?  The very first officer on the scene at Bundy (who I believe was a patrol officer) saw the glove as did 16 or so (give or take) other officers who arrived on the scene before Mark Fuhrman.  I don't think there is anything hinky about that glove.  These were very rare gloves and in fact, only about 200 pair were sold in the entire USA.  They were size XL, OJ's size.  They had a receipt from when Nicole bought OJ 2 pairs of these gloves in New York.  One in black and one in brown.  I think the brown pair were the ones used in the murder.  Did someone go over and steal OJ's gloves after they saw the murder scene and plant one glove at Bundy and one at Rockingham?  If OJ was not the murderer and had the gloves in his possession, don't you think the defense team would have produced them?  I don't believe for one second that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove, but for those who did, how did he first find the glove and then second, how did he get it over to Rockingham?  He was the 17th officer or so on the scene at Bundy.  None of the previous officers saw a second glove.  Even if there was, how did Mark Fuhrman get it over to Rockingham?  There were numerous officers roaming around the scene.  Mark Furhman wasn't wearing a coat, so he would have had to put the glove in his sock.  If he tried to put it in his pocket or underwear, there would have been a very prominent bulge.  How did he manage not to get any of his DNA or hair on the glove?  Or any of the blood from the glove on his pants?

 

One would have to believe that every police officer, criminologist, and lab personnel involved in this case were all in on some vast conspiracy to frame OJ.  Isn't the easier conclusion that OJ just made mistakes when committing these murders?  He was not a genius and he simply made the mistake of dropping the gloves and the hat.  He most likely disposed of the shoes and clothes he wore in a neighbor's trash can or at the airport.  He probably knew he lost the gloves and was hoping that they either wouldn't be found or else if found wouldn't be tied to him.  OJ also made the mistake of leaving the socks he wore on the floor in his bedroom.  They were dark socks and the blood droplets were hard to see on them, so OJ probably thought they were clean and safe to keep there.

Also, OJ was in a rush.  IMO, he couldn't just try to tie up his loose ends and make the limo driver wait an extra 5+ minutes.  They were on a tight timeline as it was.  If OJ would have missed his flight, in his mind, his airtight alibi was gone.  He had no extra time to waste.

I feel like I've explained why I think the gloves are hinky a few times.  I have no hard theory on what happened to the gloves, or else I wouldn't think it was hinky I would think it was highly suspicious.  To me, hinky just means there is something off about it.  And for me, there is.  Did they belong to OJ...I believe they did.  How one was magically left at the crime scene and the other magically left at his house is hinky to me for all the reasons I've given. 

I actually think one or two officers could have messed with evidence.  Occam's Razor is often right, but not always.  And there have been cases where officers have "framed a guilty man."  You don't have to be a genius to realize that if you left glove #1 at a crime scene, you had better destroy glove #2 and not just leave it lying around in your backyard.  You don't have to be a criminal mastermind to realize that the gloves you specifically wore to the crime scene to keep you from getting caught, are the same gloves you had better dispose of.  Especially if you left one at the scene of the crime, covered in blood.

OJ leaving the socks around makes perfect sense, because he probably assumed that they didn't have any blood on them since he wore shoes and pants.  But he would have known for damn sure that those gloves had blood on them because they were exposed throughout the commission of the crime.  So, he gets rid of almost everything else he was wearing....except the one glove that would perfectly tie him to the scene of the crime?  The socks on the other hand were mostly covered, so him thinking that the socks wouldn't have any blood would make sense.  

He couldn't make a limo driver wait?  In ritzy Brentwood, he thought the driver would just take off, or think that anything was remiss in having to wait 5 minutes for a celebrity?  And it wasn't worth that small risk that you get an angry/super curious limo driver to get rid of the one piece of evidence that directly ties you to the scene of a double homicide?  The timeline was tight, but he wasn't living in Hampton Court, he made a relatively short trek from point a to point b, and a 5 minute backtrack before he took a shower wouldn't mess up his timeline so much that he would miss a flight.  Especially pre-TSA.

1 hour ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

This will be an unpopular opinion, but I've been impressed with Mark Fuhrman in this movie.

No doubt, he had abhorrent views about African Americans and other minorities, especially when he was younger. I'm not excusing that. But it has nothing to do with his investigation of the murders of Nicole and Ron.  His life was destroyed by the defense team to prove Simpson's innocence.  No one deserves this.

There is no indication that he was was other than a good cop with the LAPD in his handling of Nicole Brown Simpson's abuse calls and in the investigation of her and Ron's murders.  He was definitely better than those buffoons Lang and Vanatter who blew their chance to pin down Simpson during the first interview at Parker Center and tossed a blanket from within the house over Nicole's body allowing the defense to claim that the crime scene had been contaminated.

Mark Furhman as the victim in all of this?  Yeah, I don't get that.

How many complaints did he say he had? 66 or 67?  Well, that is an impressively high number of complaints from the community you're policing....so I guess thats impressive.

[RemoteControlFreak]

40 minutes ago, RCharter said:

Mark Furhman as the victim in all of this?  Yeah, I don't get that.

How many complaints did he say he had? 66 or 67?  Well, that is an impressively high number of complaints from the community you're policing....so I guess thats impressive.

I never said he was the victim in all of this.  There were two victims:  Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

I said that I was impressed by how Fuhrman handled himself in this movie. And that there was no indication of any misconduct from him in this double murder case or in prior handling of Nicole's abuse calls.

Whatever complaints -- I'm not sure where you are getting the numbers "66 or 67" -- were made about him earlier in his career do not justify destroying his life for something he didn't do in 1994, anymore than OJ Simpson's successful football career and popular Hollywood persona justify letting him get away with a double murder.

Edited June 18, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[RCharter]

11 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

All we have is theories but a struggle is inherently forceful.  Maybe he walked up while OJ was killing Nicole and Ron grabbed his arm/hand and ended up pulling off the glove.

As has been pointed out, he was on a very tight timeline. It would have been worth going to get it but only if he knew where he had dropped it.  If he didn't have a clue, then it could have taken hours.

But there are two different stages to this crime.  There was the premeditation during which he had all the time in the world to fantasize how he'd do it if he were to kill her and then how he was going to actually do it.  Then there was the event and right after the event.  He didn't have all the time in the world to figure out what to do with missing articles of clothing.  He didn't have all the time in the world to figure out what to do about Ron Goldman.  There were the things he thought about (alibi, gloves, weapon, getting rid of the evidence) and the things he didn't think about which were the unexpected factors.  

Maybe. But it would still be risky to frame someone with OJ's money. 

The theory that the prosecution had was that RG pulled the glove off as OJ was behind him.  That he would directly pull at the finger of a glove from someone behind him doesn't make much sense to me.  A struggle may be forceful, but you're aiming your force at the knife, not at a glove.  And you may inadvertently pull at the hand, but since the gloves were fitted you would have to pull at the finger, in the right direction. 

I don't see how it could have taken hours to find the glove.  He knew his trek from where he pulled up to how he got into the house.  A glove isn't a feather, so it shouldn't float too far from where it is dropped.  A 5 minute backtrack, 10 minutes...at best.....for the one piece of evidence that directly ties him to the scene of the crime.....its more than worth it.....and I think that would be for any reasonable person.  Even with a tight timeline, generally, in my experience, if a car or shuttle service is picking you up, they insist on picking you up with PLENTY of time to get to the airport, because they don't want you yelling at them for missing their flight.  So, it stands to reason that a 10 minute backtrack before showering would be worth it, because even if OJ made the driver wait 10 additional minutes, he likely would have still made the flight.  Especially in the days before screening.

There is the murder and post murder, but OJ still was able to make conscious decisions after the murder...including driving with his lights off to avoid detection, and taking off his second glove so there wasn't a ton of blood all over the car.  So, if you're thinking about avoiding detection, to me you're probably still thoughtful enough to realize that you left a giant piece of evidence at the crime scene and to make sure that you destroy the companion piece of evidence.  He also got rid of his bloody clothing and his shoes. 

[whiporee]

This has turned out a lot differently than I thought it would. It's very good, but listening to interviews with Ezra, i thought the presentation of the case would be a lot more balanced. Instead, it's been a lot about the race situation in LA and how it set the jurors up to act not according to the case, but according to their overall viewpoint. And it's done a fabulous job of completely demonizing Simpson -- while he probably deserves it, the interviews I heard before the show started did not lead me to think that's what the show would be.

Edleman has presented a longer version of the standard white take on this case -- that a racially motivated jury went not with the facts, but with their political stance. And again, while that may have been the case, I don't think he's explained other possibilities. All the evidence was presented in a pro-prosecution light, with only the faintest of hints that the defense might have actually had points to make. Instead we got Carl Douglas and Barry Scheck basically admitting they didn't believe what they were saying -- only Bailey stuck by his guns.

Still very good television, but not the groundbreaking thing that made everyone re-evaluate the case with new material. it's more of the same stuff we heard 20 years ago, and more of the same re-itteration of the arguments opponents of the verdicts have made for 20 years. I had hoped for more --and Edleman's interviews had made me think there was -- but in the end, it's just more of the same.