O.J.: Made In America - Part 4

[RCharter]

2 minutes ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

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.

All the complaints against him or bad behavior by 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.

Mark Fuhrman destroyed his own life.  And his interviews about how great choke holds are and how the only reason Rodney King got beaten was because the choke hold was taken away shows me that there is nothing good or great about him as a cop or as a human being.

 

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.

 

When someone says that a persons life has been destroyed and that they didn't deserve it, it certainly makes it sound like they are characterizing them as a victim.  At least thats how I interpret it.

[bosawks]

I thought it was interesting that of all the F. Lee Bailey clips they could have used they chose the Sam Sheppard case.

 A media circus case where the innocent defendant was found guilty and went to jail.

I don't know what it means, it was just an interesting choice.

Edited June 18, 2016 by bosawks

[AimingforYoko]

1 minute ago, bosawks said:

I thought it was interesting that of all the F. Lee Bailey clips they could have used they chose the Sam Sheppard case.

Well, that's the case that Bailey made his bones on. (And inspired The Fugitive, although the producers deny it.)

[LadyHam]

10 minutes ago, RCharter said:

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.

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 guess we will have to agree to disagree on the gloves. I personally do not feel that any evidence was tampered with in this case, and that includes the gloves. The glove at Bundy was there from the time the very first officer showed up in the early morning hours. It's been explained in this documentary (as well in many of the other documentaries, books and articles on this case) that is it preposterous that the gloves were planted.  If you want to read a good book on this case, read Vincent Bugliosi's book.  He's a former prosecutor and was the one who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson.  He said every case has discrepancies and things that can't be explained.  He said that no crime scene is handled 100% perfectly because they are handled by people who are human and who are not perfect all of the time.  He talks about the problems in the Manson case (specifically the autopsy) and how he didn't let it derail his case.  He said that a lot of people describe an investigation like a puzzle, and you have to put all the pieces together to make a clear picture.  He disagreed with that.  He said an investigation is a lot of small puzzles and not every puzzle is going to be completely put together, that you will have missing pieces and pieces that don't seem to fit anywhere.  It's not about having every little puzzle piece put into place, it's the totality of everything put together that tells the story.

OJ barely made his flight as is, and if he waited an extra minute or two he surely would have missed it.  As others have said, he probably had no idea where he dropped the gloves.  If he retraced his footsteps, he would have found the glove on his property, but he would have had to go all the back to the crime scene to find the other glove.  There is no way he had time for that, and it would have been very stupid to go back to the crime scene to retrieve the other glove.  OJ had no way of knowing where he dropped the gloves.  If he did, he would have just retrieved them the moment he dropped them.  Perhaps he thought he had them wrapped up in the bundle of clothes and shoes that he disposed of and was surprised the gloves were found at both of the crime scenes?  I just wish OJ would come clean and tell everyone what happened.  Fred Goldman has said that he would stop seeking the civil judgement if OJ would confess and tell what happened.  If OJ gets out on parole next year and wants to start a fresh life, maybe he would do this?  Probably not though, he'll take it to his grave.

In terms of complaints against Fuhrman, it's completely untrue that he had that many complaints against him. That was one of the many things he exaggerated on those tapes to that screenwriter.  In fact, the claims he made on those tapes were investigated, and they could not be substantiated. 

[RemoteControlFreak]

12 minutes ago, bosawks said:

I thought it was interesting that of all the F. Lee Bailey clips they could have used they chose the Sam Sheppard case.

 A media circus case where the innocent defendant was found guilty and went to jail.

I don't know what it means, it was just an interesting choice.

I believe Bailey was only brought into the case for the appeal of Sheppared's conviction.  Bailey took it all the way to the Supreme Court and won.  That's what the footage is from. It was Bailey's most notable success.  

[LadyHam]

2 hours ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

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.

I wanted to throw something at my TV when Bailey was sitting there stating as fact that Mark Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockingham.  This is no longer a court of law where you are trying to use every little dirty defense trick in your arsenal to get your very obviously guilty client off scot-free.  That was reprehensible to me.  I have absolutely no respect for anyone on that defense team.

[RCharter]

21 minutes ago, LadyHam said:

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the gloves. I personally do not feel that any evidence was tampered with in this case, and that includes the gloves. The glove at Bundy was there from the time the very first officer showed up in the early morning hours. It's been explained in this documentary (as well in many of the other documentaries, books and articles on this case) that is it preposterous that the gloves were planted.  If you want to read a good book on this case, read Vincent Bugliosi's book.  He's a former prosecutor and was the one who successfully prosecuted Charles Manson.  He said every case has discrepancies and things that can't be explained.  He said that no crime scene is handled 100% perfectly because they are handled by people who are human and who are not perfect all of the time.  He talks about the problems in the Manson case (specifically the autopsy) and how he didn't let it derail his case.  He said that a lot of people describe an investigation like a puzzle, and you have to put all the pieces together to make a clear picture.  He disagreed with that.  He said an investigation is a lot of small puzzles and not every puzzle is going to be completely put together, that you will have missing pieces and pieces that don't seem to fit anywhere.  It's not about having every little puzzle piece put into place, it's the totality of everything put together that tells the story.

OJ barely made his flight as is, and if he waited an extra minute or two he surely would have missed it.  As others have said, he probably had no idea where he dropped the gloves.  If he retraced his footsteps, he would have found the glove on his property, but he would have had to go all the back to the crime scene to find the other glove.  There is no way he had time for that, and it would have been very stupid to go back to the crime scene to retrieve the other glove.  OJ had no way of knowing where he dropped the gloves.  If he did, he would have just retrieved them the moment he dropped them.  Perhaps he thought he had them wrapped up in the bundle of clothes and shoes that he disposed of and was surprised the gloves were found at both of the crime scenes?  I just wish OJ would come clean and tell everyone what happened.  Fred Goldman has said that he would stop seeking the civil judgement if OJ would confess and tell what happened.  If OJ gets out on parole next year and wants to start a fresh life, maybe he would do this?  Probably not though, he'll take it to his grave.

In terms of complaints against Fuhrman, it's completely untrue that he had that many complaints against him. That was one of the many things he exaggerated on those tapes to that screenwriter.  In fact, the claims he made on those tapes were investigated, and they could not be substantiated. 

Sure, I can agree to disagree.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that I feel strongly that the gloves were tampered with, but I find the gloves hinky and curious.  

I think its very telling that Marcia Clarke herself said that if she didn't know for certain that Fuhrman couldn't have planted the gloves, she would have agreed with the defense that Furhman was a good candidate to plant evidence.  But, it doesn't seem that she really presented this irrefutable evidence at trial, or that it wasn't nearly as strong as she thought it was.

I know who Vincent Bugliosi is, and to me shrugging your shoulders and saying "well no crime scene is perfect so, what are you gonna do?" is not really acceptable.  Or if it is, you have to expect that people are going to have issues with the evidence that is mishandled, so if you mishandle the evidence it shouldn't be out of left field to expect questions.  In this case, unfortunately, due the LAPD's actions within the community, people were not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.  And I think when you have the public trust in a police force and their actions, a lot of people are willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.  

I don't think OJ would have missed his flight if he had taken 10 minutes to look for the glove.  Back in the 90's, on time departures weren't really a huge deal, and I think that someone might have held the plane for "the Juice."  And even if they didn't, it means he has to power-walk through the airport instead of walk.   And I'm shocked that anyone scheduled his limo to pick him up to barely make his flight.  In my experience, they always send those cars with WAY too much time....but perhaps its only this way post 9/11. 

I don't think OJ would have had to go back to the crime scene to get the first glove.  I think you let that glove slide.  You argue that you left your gloves at Nicole's house when you came to pick up the kids, it may have gotten mixed up with her stuff when she moved out, she took it with her, you have no idea who she gave those gloves to.  Its the second glove that really seals the deal, because okay, maybe you left the glove at her place, or it got there and it still had some of your DNA on it, sloppy lab work, etc, etc.  But you cannot explain the second glove being at Rockingham.  You must destroy the second glove, that is the one that absolutely, unequivocally, without a shadow of a doubt ties you to that crime scene.  It becomes vitally important to destroy it when you've left the first glove at the crime scene.

But I do agree that I think it would be best for OJ to have just taken a manslaughter deal and admitted to what he had done in open court (which would be part of a plea deal).  And I realize that whatever he "admitted to" would have been super self-serving and presented in such a way as to make him seem like a victim.  But I think Fred Goldman would have at least gotten some closure, and I think OJ would have done his time and people would have moved on.  Instead OJ has been a colossal asshole about the entire thing, him writing that "If I did it" book and the smug and smirky interviews he has done over the years have been awful.  He is like one of those guys on an episode of Law and Order that is caught red-handed but then won't tell the family where the victim is because he is just an asshole.

Edited June 18, 2016 by RCharter

[RemoteControlFreak]

1 minute ago, RCharter said:

I don't think OJ would have missed his flight if he had taken 10 minutes to look for the glove.  Back in the 90's, on time departures weren't really a huge deal, and I think that someone might have held the plane for "the Juice."  And even if they didn't, it means he has to power-walk through the airport instead of walk.   And I'm shocked that anyone scheduled his limo to pick him up to barely make his flight.  

Yeah, that's exactly what Simpson needed while trying to make a clean and quiet getaway from a crime scene ... to have a passenger jet held for him because he was delayed somehow and then have him show up sweating and bleeding.

[RCharter]

Just now, RemoteControlFreak said:

Yeah, that's exactly what Simpson needed while trying to make a clean and quiet getaway from a crime scene ... to have a passenger jet held for him because he was delayed somehow and then have him show up sweating and bleeding.

I think it would be well worth it to have destroyed the one piece of evidence that directly tied him to the scene of a double homicide.  Yeah, I would have the jet held, LA traffic is a bear and people are always underestimating it.  LA traffic is a good excuse because it is so often the truth.  Especially around LAX, because its off the 405.....which is always a shitshow.  Always.

Was he sweating on the plane?  Or bleeding profusely on the plane?  Or bleeding profusely in the limo?  If not, I highly doubt he would have shown up to the plane bleeding and sweating.  Although, if you're making a run for a plane, because you've been delayed by traffic its not uncommon to be sweaty.  At least not in my experience trying to catch a flight at LAX

[RemoteControlFreak]

Just now, RCharter said:

I think it would be well worth it to have destroyed the one piece of evidence that directly tied him to the scene of a double homicide.  Yeah, I would have the jet held, LA traffic is a bear and people are always underestimating it.  LA traffic is a good excuse because it is so often the truth.  Especially around LAX, because its off the 405.....which is always a shitshow.  Always.

Was he sweating on the plane?  Or bleeding profusely on the plane?  Or bleeding profusely in the limo?  If not, I highly doubt he would have shown up to the plane bleeding and sweating.  Although, if you're making a run for a plane, because you've been delayed by traffic its not uncommon to be sweaty.  At least not in my experience trying to catch a flight at LAX

First. Your assumption that it was an easy 5-10 minute backtrack to pick up the dropped glove is questionable.  It assumes that he knew pretty much where he dropped the glove or even that he had dropped a glove.  It also assumes that even if he knew he dropped it on the way from the street to his house, he could have run out and gotten it without raising suspicion from Kato Kaelin and Allan Park, both of whom were standing in the driveway at the time discussing mysterious thumps behind Kaelin's room and wondering where OJ was.

Second. He was sweating in the limo.  That testimony from Allan Park was not refuted. And Simpson himself admitted to bleeding while getting ready to go to Chicago.  So it's likely that he would have showed up on the plane, with all eyes on him because he made them wait, sweating and bleeding. 

Third. Using traffic as an excuse is irrelevant.  

[RCharter]

1 minute ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

First. Your assumption that it was an easy 5-10 minute backtrack to pick up the dropped glove is questionable.  It assumes that he knew pretty much where he dropped the glove or even that he had dropped a glove.  It also assumes that even if he knew he dropped it on the way from the street to his house, he could have run out and gotten it without raising suspicion from Kato Kaelin and Allan Park, both of whom were standing in the driveway at the time discussing mysterious thumps behind Kaelin's room and wondering where OJ was.

Second. He was sweating in the limo.  That testimony from Allan Park was not refuted. And Simpson himself admitted to bleeding while getting ready to go to Chicago.  So it's likely that he would have showed up on the plane, with all eyes on him because he made them wait, sweating and bleeding. 

Third. Using traffic as an excuse is irrelevant.  

First.  My assumption that it is 5-10 minutes assumes only that he knew how he got from where he parked to his house.  Along that route, he dropped the glove.  The glove being something with at least some weight to it would not fall very far from where you dropped it.  Something that was lighter in weight would have the potential to float away so it could have gone a further distance.  But a glove, given its weight should not be far from your route if you dropped it along your route.  Therefore 5-10 minutes is a reasonable estimate.  Given that he had made it a point to wear the gloves to the crime scene, and that he had to have known when removing his glove before getting into the Bronco that there was a glove at the crime scene, and that he had made it a point to put it in a pocket makes it more likely than not that he was tracking that glove.  Especially knowing that one of the gloves he had worn to avoid detection was now at the scene of the crime.

Second. He was sweating in the limo.....I'm not sure how long other people sweat, but in an air conditioned limo I wouldn't think he would show up to the plane sweating.  And bleeding while getting ready for a flight, does not mean that you are going to show up bleeding profusely or enough for anyone else to notice.  Did anyone at the airport notice OJ sweating and bleeding?  If not, than they were unlikely to notice it either when he showed up later.  All eyes would almost always be on OJ because he is a celebrity.  Additionally, as for "all eyes on him,"  I actually think fewer eyes would be on him if he were late.  First class boards in the front, and if they are holding the plane all the other passengers would already be on the plane.  Its not like he is going to have to walk back to coach.  especially if he called ahead of time, since they wouldn't give up his first class seat if they knew he was coming.

Third.  I don't see how using traffic as an excuse is irrelevant.  I believe your point is that it would look suspicious for him to show up to the flight late, I'm saying I don't think it would be suspicious if you used traffic as an excuse because traffic so often is an excuse because it is so often the truth.  If you're excuse is reasonable, I think you look less suspicious.

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, RCharter said:

First.  My assumption that it is 5-10 minutes assumes only that he knew how he got from where he parked to his house.  Along that route, he dropped the glove.  The glove being something with at least some weight to it would not fall very far from where you dropped it.  Something that was lighter in weight would have the potential to float away so it could have gone a further distance.  But a glove, given its weight should not be far from your route if you dropped it along your route.  Therefore 5-10 minutes is a reasonable estimate. 

But you're assuming he  knew where he dropped it if he even noticed it was missing.  He might not know if he dropped the second one at the crime scene too or if he dropped it on his property. I still think finding a dark glove in the dark isn't easy even if one knows the general whereabouts of where it was dropped but I guess mileage varies on that one.  There's also the possibility that he put the glove in his pocket and threw his clothes in a bag or out or whatever he did with them and thought the glove was still in the pocket. 

Edited June 18, 2016 by Irlandesa

[LadyHam]

1 hour ago, RCharter said:

I think it would be well worth it to have destroyed the one piece of evidence that directly tied him to the scene of a double homicide.  Yeah, I would have the jet held, LA traffic is a bear and people are always underestimating it.  LA traffic is a good excuse because it is so often the truth.  Especially around LAX, because its off the 405.....which is always a shitshow.  Always.

Was he sweating on the plane?  Or bleeding profusely on the plane?  Or bleeding profusely in the limo?  If not, I highly doubt he would have shown up to the plane bleeding and sweating.  Although, if you're making a run for a plane, because you've been delayed by traffic its not uncommon to be sweaty.  At least not in my experience trying to catch a flight at LAX

The glove was not the only piece of evidence that tied him to the crime scene.  There were also the blood drops that he left from his cut finger to the left hand side of the Bruno Magli bloody shoe prints.  Although the prosecution didn't really have it at the time, the bloody Bruno Magli shoe prints tied him to the crime scene as well - the plaintiffs in the civil trial had this information though.  There were also the fibers from OJ's Brono found all over the crime scene, too.  I almost think the case would have been stronger without those gloves.  The defense couldn't have argued that the glove at Rockingham was planted, and there was still plenty of other evidence to convict OJ.

[attica]

18 hours ago, LadyHam said:

[Scheck] was instrumental in getting a murderer off scot-free.

I get this sentiment, I really do. But I don’t agree with it. First, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Toobin’s comments about the proceedings are the most salient, I think. Cochran et al didn’t do anything against the rules, or against the law, and the prosecution didn’t object to much of what they did.

I once saw a documentary about public defenders, and one of the guys profiled was filmed in front of a jury making the point that if the State wants to deprive you of your freedom, they’d better have their ducks in a row. The evidence better be solid, the theory of the crime should be able to withstand just about anything the defense can throw at it. And it should all be presented to the jury clearly. For all of Clark’s and Darden’s gifts, that just didn’t happen here. The forensics were shoddy, the witnesses were unprepared (or improperly prepared), the arc of the presentation was throughout, frankly, janky. (Don’t get me wrong: Ito has his share of blame too: his handling of the whole thing was disgraceful –he allowed in stuff he shouldn’t, he disallowed stuff he should have, and he played for the spotlight like a music hall chorine.) I remember marveling at the time how badly the prosecution was doing, so this isn’t hindsight for me. They had a good case, but the jury never got it, and openings for the defense were airplane-hangar huge.

It’s the prosecutor’s job to seek the truth and establish the facts. It’s the defense’s job to, essentially, beta-test the arguments. Kick them, drop them from heights, submit them to rigorous shaking. If the prosecutors are on point, they should be able to rebut, to parry, to refute. The worse the crime, the sturdier the prosecution has to be, because the stakes of letting a double-murderer go scot-free are so high. I, for one, think more people should be able to afford dream-team defenses. Because without vigorous challenges in court, police and prosecutors’ power goes unchecked, and they will indeed misbehave.

And not for nothing, the jury rendered the verdict, not Scheck.

[Tara Ariano]

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

'Whose Side Are You On?': The Trial On Trial In O.J.: Made In America

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

[Bastet]

Quote

the witnesses were unprepared (or improperly prepared)

That struck me again last night, and I still don't understand it.  I don't know how many times these cops and techs had testified before, but even if it was a first for everyone, the prosecutors should have better prepared them.  They knew - or should have known, given the defense lawyers' reputations and their tactics already seen in this case - how the defense was going to challenge the credibility of these witnesses, but didn't have them prepared for how to respond to cross-examination.  If a few key questions had been answered with an "I don't know" rather than a "no," it would have made a difference.

Seeing Ito again sure riled up the blood, like when Fuhrman's lawyer correctly pointed out that any further questioning by the defense would just be theatre, as his client has established that he will assert his Fifth Amendment right in response to any and all questions.  The defense needs the jury to hear him plead the Fifth to "did you plant the glove," though.  Watching Ito play right into that -- ugh.

My neighbors were probably alarmed by the fact I yelled, "You are a racist piece of shit," but watching Fuhrman will do that to me.  I feel about him much the way Marcia Clark expressed - I don't believe he planted evidence in this case, simply because it doesn't work out that he could have, but I could absolutely believe he did it in other cases.  Police departments pull this shit, and he's exactly the kind of cop I can see doing it.  I just don't think he did it here.

The urge to yell "Don't do it, Darden!" was strong, even after all these years.  It was interesting hearing from that one juror that she knew exactly what was going to happen.  It's second-hand embarrassment watching him fall for that, but come on -- what an inexcusable rookie mistake.

[KBrownie]

3 minutes ago, attica said:

I get this sentiment, I really do. But I don’t agree with it. First, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Toobin’s comments about the proceedings are the most salient, I think. Cochran et al didn’t do anything against the rules, or against the law, and the prosecution didn’t object to much of what they did.

I once saw a documentary about public defenders, and one of the guys profiled was filmed in front of a jury making the point that if the State wants to deprive you of your freedom, they’d better have their ducks in a row. The evidence better be solid, the theory of the crime should be able to withstand just about anything the defense can throw at it. And it should all be presented to the jury clearly. For all of Clark’s and Darden’s gifts, that just didn’t happen here. The forensics were shoddy, the witnesses were unprepared (or improperly prepared), the arc of the presentation was throughout, frankly, janky. (Don’t get me wrong: Ito has his share of blame too: his handling of the whole thing was disgraceful –he allowed in stuff he shouldn’t, he disallowed stuff he should have, and he played for the spotlight like a music hall chorine.) I remember marveling at the time how badly the prosecution was doing, so this isn’t hindsight for me. They had a good case, but the jury never got it, and openings for the defense were airplane-hangar huge.

It’s the prosecutor’s job to seek the truth and establish the facts. It’s the defense’s job to, essentially, beta-test the arguments. Kick them, drop them from heights, submit them to rigorous shaking. If the prosecutors are on point, they should be able to rebut, to parry, to refute. The worse the crime, the sturdier the prosecution has to be, because the stakes of letting a double-murderer go scot-free are so high. I, for one, think more people should be able to afford dream-team defenses. Because without vigorous challenges in court, police and prosecutors’ power goes unchecked, and they will indeed misbehave.

And not for nothing, the jury rendered the verdict, not Scheck.

Thank you for this.  

It's appalling in some instances how willing people are to demonize the people who were doing what they were supposed to do.  Johnnie Cochran, Barry Scheck, F. Lee Bailey, Carl Douglas, et. al were doing the job they were hired to do.  They don't owe anyone any explanation.  Same thing with the jury.  They didn't ask to be a part of that trial, but people want to demonize them and attack their intelligence and moral character?  Come on.  People can disagree with their decision or tactics, but to act as if they are the worst scum of the earth?  That they are at fault for the greatest injustice (which isn't even the greatest injustice, not even close) of the world? 

As a citizen of the United States of America, O.J. Simpson was entitled to a fair trial and all that comes with that.  Whether you like him or not.  Whether you thought he was guilty or innocent.  Sorry, but you don't get to just throw that out the window because it was OJ Simpson.  Or because it was Nicole Brown or Ronald Goldman that was killed.  Or because they were killed in the brutal way that they were.  That's a real slippery slope if you decide that rules and laws only apply to certain people who we like.  Not that this country is above that or anything.  OJ had the money and resources to pay for the best defense team to defend his case, so why shouldn't they have done what they were hired to do?  Should they just have thrown the case and not even tried because the a lot of people in the public thought he was guilty?  Should they abandon all the laws and rules of their profession and the country to appease the angry lynch mob of the public? I mean, some act as if there shouldn't have been a trial at all.  He should have been thrown in prison immediately after they located him after finding the bodies.  It doesn't work like that.  The laws of this country say that everyone is entitled to due process, trial by jury, etc.  The laws don't say that only nice people can benefit.  Although, the laws did keep blacks and other minorities from benefiting for a few centuries.  Some would argue that they still don't.  But, that's a conversation for another day.

The Simpson case was not new.  The result and circumstances were not an anomaly.  Shitty people get off for abhorrent, disgusting crimes every day in this country.  Innocent victims never get the justice they deserve.  Lawyers defend people who they probably feel are guilty.  But, by the same token, prosecutors go after people who they know are innocent.  Again, it happens EVERY DAY.  And has been from Day One.  So why such outrage for this case?  The majority public never really cared so much before, so why OJ?  He certainly wasn't the first rich celebrity to get off for murder.  

[Mittengirl]

11 minutes ago, KBrownie said:

  The majority public never really cared so much before, so why OJ?  He certainly wasn't the first rich celebrity to get off for murder.  

Why O.J.?  TV.   If the Bronco chase had not been on everybody's TV for several hours the case likely would not have become such a media sensation, IMO.  That chase coverage led to immense interest in all facets of the case, which, again IMO, led to the televised trial, which led us all down the rabbit hole that the case continues to be.  Whether or not that would have changed the outcome of the trial is anybody's guess.  I think the decision to televise the Bronco chase to all corners of the nation, LIVE, was the exact moment the case went to hell in a hand basket.  

As far as why jurors make the decisions they do, I think it is simply the nature of using regular folk as jurors.  I don't think we can expect ordinary people to shed all of their life experiences the moment they get in a jury room/box.  We can ask them to try, but it is unrealistic to expect that no one is going to find some reason, conscious or not, to give more credence to some witnesses/evidence over others.

Unless someone can find a way to take the human element out of the justice system I don't think there is any way to get a completely impartial or unbiased jury.

[KBrownie]

14 minutes ago, Mittengirl said:

Why O.J.?  TV.   If the Bronco chase had not been on everybody's TV for several hours the case likely would not have become such a media sensation, IMO.  That chase coverage led to immense interest in all facets of the case, which, again IMO, led to the televised trial, which led us all down the rabbit hole that the case continues to be.  Whether or not that would have changed the outcome of the trial is anybody's guess.  I think the decision to televise the Bronco chase to all corners of the nation, LIVE, was the exact moment the case went to hell in a hand basket.  

As far as why jurors make the decisions they do, I think it is simply the nature of using regular folk as jurors.  I don't think we can expect ordinary people to shed all of their life experiences the moment they get in a jury room/box.  We can ask them to try, but it is unrealistic to expect that no one is going to find some reason, conscious or not, to give more credence to some witnesses/evidence over others.

Unless someone can find a way to take the human element out of the justice system I don't think there is any way to get a completely impartial or unbiased jury.

While televising the Bronco case certainly added to the spectacle of the whole thing, I think the reason why this particular case resonates with some is far more complex than just a simple car chase.  

I have my own opinion as to why this case is still such a thing, but it's only tangentially related to the documentary, and will only only open up a can of worms that is not appropriate for this forum, so I'll keep that to myself.  And most of America doesn't want to talk about it anyways.

Edited June 18, 2016 by KBrownie

[RemoteControlFreak]

21 hours ago, Crs97 said:

nothing here

Edited June 18, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[Mittengirl]

Why the case resonates is, to me anyway, a far different issue than why it became a media spectacle in the first place.   The question is, does/did the media attention feed the resonance or does the resonance continue to feed the media interests?

[Mumbles]

Quote

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.

YMMV.  I have been interested in this case since it happened, and I've tried to see everything about it. What Edelman adds to me is (a) an examination of what made OJ so popular in the first place; (b) what seems to be his belief that he had transcended race (e.g. referring to other black men as "N--ers"), which was probably fed a lot by his general popularity; and (c) a lot more context of the decades-long simmering (and understandable) unease/anger that the black community had toward law enforcement. Yes, I was aware of the Rodney King beating and the resulting riots from the acquittal. And I knew about Watts. But I didn't know how the LAPD had had a long legacy of being run by men who were racist (Gates, and the guy who preceded him who recruited officers from clan rallies), or about Eulia Love, or Latasha Harlins.  In the pre-Internet days, if these last two stories got 2 minutes of coverage on the national news, that would probably be the extent of the coverage.  And I appreciate that he gave people like Ron Shipp time and attention to talk.

As fare as this episode is concerned, I like the contrast between the two jurors - one thoughtful and insightful, and one so infuriating that my blood pressure goes up when I see her (the older one who said she doesn't respect a woman who lets her ass get beat.)

[Bastet]

Quote

As fare as this episode is concerned, I like the contrast between the two jurors - one thoughtful and insightful, and one so infuriating that my blood pressure goes up when I see her (the older one who said she doesn't respect a woman who lets her ass get beat.)

Same here, on both counts - I like the contrast, and I may need medication to get through the next part with that juror. 

I also liked the cut back and forth between Marcia Clark and someone else, regarding the jurors' reaction to the domestic violence testimony, with one saying they didn't get it, and one saying they got it, but didn't care. 

I ran the legal clinic of a DV shelter for several years until I shifted from direct representation to policy work because it was less likely to lead to me throwing myself off a bridge.  At the time of O.J.'s arrest, I had just fairly recently started studying the issue and volunteering.  My heart sank thinking that he'd be acquitted, confirming to many victims what Nicole had known all along -- someday he'll kill me, and he'll get away with it.  (And, to this day, we get clients who've been threatened via reference to O.J.)

One of my clearest memories after the verdict is one of the jurors (not either of the ones seen last night) saying she didn't understand why the prosecution spent time on the DV evidence -- this case was about murder, not domestic abuse.  What is intimate partner homicide if not the final point on the spectrum of abuse?

The other is of a juror saying of the blood evidence, yeah, it matched O.J.'s blood type, but lots of people had that blood type.  Look, there were issues with how the prosecution presented the evidence, but if you sat and listened to the explanation of what DNA is and what a match means and came out thinking all we knew was someone with O.J.'s blood type was there, the prosecutors and their witnesses are not the ultimate problem here.

Which takes me back to my appreciation that this film includes the two very-different jurors.  Because I hate the "oh, that stupid jury" sentiment as much as the next person, because they should not shoulder all or even a majority of the blame yet there's this enduring (false) narrative that the prosecution put forth a slam-dunk case and the jury reached a decision no reasonable jury could reach, but, yeah, some of those jurors did stupid things.  So, juror no. 9 thinks what she thinks and we should see that.  But it's important to also see juror no. 2, who gave the evidence fair consideration.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Bastet

[attica]

2 minutes ago, Bastet said:

she didn't understand why the prosecution spent time on the DV evidence -- this case was about murder, not domestic abuse.  What is intimate partner homicide if not the final point on the spectrum of abuse?

Not making that connection explicitly was another failure of the prosecution.

[jaync]

Quote

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.

There's nothing magical about it; the reasonability for the location of the gloves can be, and has been, explained. If it makes no sense how one glove could be pulled off during a proven defensive struggle, then it should equally make no sense that the other glove was left at the same crime scene to be subsequently planted at Rockingham by Fuhrman.

Aside from the virtual improbability of it all, what convinces me that O.J wasn't framed is O.J. himself - he never made a peep about being set up until it became his team's line of defense more than a year after he was first arrested.

Bailey calling another out on their alcohol use...rich.

Quote

Those crime scene photos are horrific.

It takes nothing short of a barbarian to do that to two innocent human beings.

Quote

I remember marveling at the time how badly the prosecution was doing, so this isn’t hindsight for me.

Same here, and I've never faulted the jury for the verdict. And, now it comes to light that the prosecution approved a juror who was antagonistic towards DV victims. Unfuckingbelievable.

Shame on L.A. for not ensuring twenty-plus years ago that a double-murderer was put away, and with those other pieces of shit Soon Ja Du, Koon, Powell, Briseno and Wind.

[Bastet]

Quote

Not making that connection explicitly was another failure of the prosecution.

I guess I should have made that explicit myself, that prosecutors and (some) jurors both failed on that front.  With my professional experience, it was one of the particularly frustrating aspects of the trial, and what my colleagues and I had feared would happen.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Bastet

[wallflower75]

I just listened to an interview with one of the defense lawyers--Carl Douglas--and I find it interesting that when asked the million-dollar question about whether or not he believed O.J. to be innocent, he danced around the question.  Oh, he talked about how he got to know O.J. and saw into his heart and all that crap, which could lead you to infer that he believes O.J. didn't do it, but he never came right out and said, "Yes, I believe he didn't do it."  I'd say that was rather telling, except when I listen to him talk with such glee about how they got O.J. off, I tend to believe he does think O.J. was innocent.

I thought I'd braced myself to see those crime scene photos, but I hadn't. There really aren't words to adequately describe the horror of what happened to them.

[Crs97]

Quote

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.

I think the better analogy is whether people are uncomfortable with OJ serving a much harsher sentence than normal for robbery.  Or as Toobin said,

"It's the perfect perversity of the O.J. Simpson case that he was acquitted of the crime he was guilty of and convicted of a crime he's innocent of."

Anyway, regardless of the analogy, Fuhrman's life was ruined because he lied under oath.  The defense didn't force him to do that.

[Bastet]

Quote

I just listened to an interview with one of the defense lawyers--Carl Douglas--and I find it interesting that when asked the million-dollar question about whether or not he believed O.J. to be innocent, he danced around the question. 

I don't particularly care for asking defense attorneys whether they think their client is innocent.  Their job is to ensure the prosecution makes its case.  We give the state the power to imprison (and, in some cases, execute) people.  The check on that enormous power is that it must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Defense attorneys perform that check, as someone up-thread described beautifully.  Sure, it's easier to be sympathetic to a public defender who's working to ensure a fair trial for some disadvantaged member of society particularly vulnerable to police and prosecutorial misconduct than to a high-paid attorney for a celebrity client, but the principle is the same.  If any defense attorney wants to only take on clients she or he believes are innocent, that's fine, but I'm not throwing shade on those who are focused on not guilty (the legal standard) rather than innocent.

The flip side is I also don't much care for defense attorneys faced with that question doing a dance rather than just explaining that it's irrelevant.

On that note, I was stunned by how poorly Scheck performed when he was asked whether he believed the DNA theories he proposed were true.  You're a top-notch trial lawyer, and you can't control the shoulder-brushing and such?  He may as well have held up a neon sign that flashed "Hell, no."  He initially said, paraphrasing, it wasn't about what he believed, it was him casting doubt on the evidence, but then he was asked again, even more directly, and got strangely flustered; the body language and the word salad that fell out of his mouth was surprising.

Quote

I thought I'd braced myself to see those crime scene photos, but I hadn't. There really aren't words to adequately describe the horror of what happened to them.

Whenever there's a horrific cause of death, I become fixated on how awful it must be for victims' families to think about how violent and terrifying their loved one's final moments were.

Edited June 18, 2016 by Bastet

[SoSueMe]

I'm sure it's already been said and said better, but I think Scheck's work with the Innocence Project, etc. is his self-imposed penance for his part in setting a guilty man free. Maybe the only way he can live with himself.

[Midnight Cheese]

1 hour ago, Mumbles said:

As fare as this episode is concerned, I like the contrast between the two jurors - one thoughtful and insightful, and one so infuriating that my blood pressure goes up when I see her (the older one who said she doesn't respect a woman who lets her ass get beat.)

Yes.   I agree with Bastet's comments as well on the contrast between the two jurors.  The younger juror had to be any trial lawyer's dream - thoughtful, smart, rational, compassionate.  The sequence of events, where she's moved by the actual testimony to find Fuhrman at first a seemingly straight-forward and honest police officer, and  then is driven to conclude that he lacked a fundamental credibility and could conceivably plant evidence, made sense.  You can imagine her 21 years ago, weighing everything, and growing disillusioned and dismayed.  She was the perfect person to illustrate how a reasonable woman could have very reasonable doubts.

And then on the other side of the planet lives Carrie Bess, the older juror who seemed damned close to saying, 'Nicole got what she deserved' along with a shoulder shrug.  I don't care what kinds of hard experiences one brings with them once they apply them to someone who was unequivocally victimized for years.  She blamed Nicole for her beatings.  She blamed her for more, I'm sure, but has the small scrap of shame in her somewhere, where she won't just say it.  There is a ton of ugly under Bess's opinions, and not all of it has to do with being an Angeleno and watching the LAPD get away with murder, with King's beatings, with the systematic, oppressive pursuit of and abuse of African-Americans by a significant part of department.  Bess is awful.

I don't really have words for the photos.  I thought I was ready.  For those who don't have my ooh-la-la TV addiction, the cat-faced freak with the government name Faye Resnick is an ancillary character on the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.  Kathryn Edwards, Marcus Allen's fiance and then wife at the time of the murders, was added to the cast this past season, and barnacle Faye and Kathryn had a conversation of sorts about Faye's book, where she apparently quoted Kris The Great Satan Kardashian and wrote that Kathryn looked the other way as Marcus and Nicole carried on.  PTV let us comment about the O.J. backstory in a dedicated subthread, to talk about the preceding events leading to what was ultimately a tepid confrontation.  Some posters, including me, talked about reading about the severity of Nicole's injuries, and described them as a near-decapitation.  Some posters pshawed over that, oh what a dramatic and unnecessary way to describe the injuries.  Look at what O.J. did to them. 

Edited June 18, 2016 by Midnight Cheese

[KBrownie]

7 minutes ago, SoSueMe said:

I'm sure it's already been said and said better, but I think Scheck's work with the Innocence Project, etc. is his self-imposed penance for his part in setting a guilty man free. Maybe the only way he can live with himself.

Someone earlier, sorry don't remember who it was, clarified that Scheck's work with the Innocence Project started before the Simpson trial.

And he has done nothing to do penance for.  He didn't do anything wrong.  The judgment should be saved for those who did.    

[wallflower75]

10 minutes ago, Bastet said:

Whenever there's a horrific cause of death, I become fixated on how awful it must be for victims' families to think about how violent and terrifying their loved one's final moments were.

 

The person I've always felt the sorriest for--aside from Ron and Nicole, of course--was Fred Goldman.  The only reason his son was killed was because he was in the wrong place at the worst possible time.  Then he had to sit through a mockery of a trial and hope that the jury would not be fooled by the hocus pocus of the dream team and would look at the facts.  Instead, they bought the magic act and his son's killer walked free.

[Mumbles]

Quote

The sequence of events, where she's moved by the actual testimony to find Fuhrman at first a seemingly straight-forward and honest police officer, and  then is driven to conclude that he lacked a fundamental credibility and could conceivably plant evidence, made sense. 

...and that's why, while I think OJ did it, I am far less outraged by the verdict now than I was 20 years ago.  Now I know that at least one juror (the younger one) seems to have had an open mind, weighed the evidence carefully, was skeptical and annoyed at the defense's pandering, but concluded that she couldn't rely on the evidence of one of the main prosecutorial witness.  Of course, I didn't know or was related to the two victims, so I can imagine why their families are still outraged.

Quote

And he has done nothing to do penance for.  He didn't do anything wrong.  The judgment should be saved for those who did.    

As for Scheck, I agree.  He was hired by a defendant to call into question the DNA evidence. He did that.  The blood was handled poorly at the crime scene. He pointed that out. I think he's done great work with the Innocence Project. He never pandered to the jury or did anything untoward or unprofessional.

I keep going back and forth on Carl Douglas.  He certainly is larger than life and his segments are always interesting. But sometimes he comes off as gleeful, which, given the brutality of the crime, really rubs me the wrong way.

[psychoticstate]

9 hours ago, RCharter said:

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. 

I think it's just as likely that Ron pulled off the glove while Simpson was attacking him with the knife.  He would have been doing whatever he could to attempt to protect himself.  Simpson could have been grabbing Ron's shirt, to make the stabbing easier, and Ron could have hit at the left hand or even twisted to get away and the glove came off.

Simpson went there that night to kill Nicole.  Just Nicole.  He was already behind schedule because Kato had invited himself along on the jaunt to McDonald's which Simpson did not anticipate.  I think he was going to use that McDonald's trip as his alibi and Kato effed it up.  I also think that Simpson planned on killing Nicole and then dumping her body somewhere.  I don't think he intended to leave her there.  So . . . he was running late already, he was pissed at Nicole, he blamed her for Paula breaking up with him, he blamed her for everything.  Then Ron shows up.  I think Simpson was freaked and frantic.  He had just killed a stranger.  One thing to kill your ex-wife who, according to Simpson, had it coming but a young man he didn't even know?  There is no way Simpson would have returned to the crime scene to look for that left hand glove.  No way.   He could have been caught red-handed, so to speak.  He knew he had to get back to Rockingham because the limo was coming to pick him up.  Also, no matter how much Simpson may have prepared to slice up Nicole, the reality of it was likely very different.

As far as the limo goes, yes, it did show up with plenty of time to get to LAX.  The driver waited and waited, rang the bell at the gate and got no answer.  This was very, very bad for Simpson, who was either chipping golf balls in the back yard, sleeping or taking a shower.  Regardless, if Simpson was truly in the house at the time, unless he was showering for an hour, he would have heard the gate buzzer.  

Driving with the lights off . . . could have been a conscious effort to avoid detection, although I would think speeding through Brentwood with your lights off would call attention.  It could also have been the actions of a person who had just committed two brutal murders and sped away from Bundy in a panicked state. 

I don't think Simpson ever realized he lost the second glove.  He may have always assumed that the glove was in the pocket of the pants he wore and was disposed of with the clothing and weapon.  

Regardless, another excellent portion of the documentary.  The crime scene photos were horrific.  I had seen a few online but . . . man. 

The sports memorabilia guy was an idiot - - you aren't presumed innocent until convicted; it's until you're proven guilty.

Carrie Bess can STFU anytime.  I hope they address her statement in part 5 that the jury had "to look out for one of its own."  I wonder what she would say now knowing that Simpson called the African Americans outside Rockingham the n word.

I did appreciate hearing from Yolanda Crawford (Juror #2).   She seemed very intelligent and thoughtful and, at last, someone seemed to voice sympathy for Nicole and Ron.

I also think that what Fuhrman said in those tapes was reprehensible but believe that he did nothing wrong on this particular case. 

Barry Scheck knew and knows that the defense's arguments were total b.s.

[RCharter]

^^I don't know, while I could understand a glove coming off in a struggle, not one that was a fitted glove.  However, be that as it may, the idea that you left glove #1 at the crime scene and you don't seriously keep track of glove #2 is strange to me.  After all that planning, before and after the murder, but you don't keep hold of the one thing that can tie you to the crime?  Hinky.

Is there any evidence that Simpson planned to move Nicole's body?  He brought the Bronco, which would fit a body, but was there any evidence of garbage bags in there, or a tarp or anything to assist with the transport of her body?  Although if he planned for the time to dispose of her body, that would have taken time, which means that he would have had some extra time in the final analysis.  Because disposing of a body, I imagine, would take more time than killing a second person.  You have to transport the body, drive to wherever you're going to dispose of it. take it out again, move it to the location and cover it up or conceal it.  So, if his plan was to dispose of Nicole's body, he should have had extra time.

So, it sounds like the limo driver was fine waiting for him and could have waited an additional 10 minutes.

Although, I will say that if Simpson was all that worried about being caught red-handed he would have never gone there to kill anyone.  And I wonder where RG parked his car?  If Simpson saw RG's vehicle, he may have been on notice that someone was there, unless RG parked his car in the back or something along those lines.

Driving with the lights off seems like it would only be a way to attempt to avoid detection.  What other reason would there possibly be to drive with your lights off in the dead of night?  I do think that while there is a slight risk of being stopped by an officer, its worth the reward of not having anyone see your vehicle or to be able to really identify it.  So, it was a conscious effort on his part to not be detected.  I could potentially see it as a person who is panicked and just forgot, but when you realize that its hard to see where you're going, you would turn them on.   Unless you're driving with the lights off to avoid being detected.  And if he made it a point to take off the second glove to avoid having too much blood in the car than he was thinking somewhat coherently, even right after murdering two people.  Even more scary than that, I think he was thinking coherently during the murders, which is super creepy.  I believe at one point they were saying that after he had stabbed them both, OJ walked over to Nicole and cut her throat in order to make sure she was dead.  He then went over to Ron Goldman, and stabbed him four times in the neck.  This wasn't just a guy who viciously stabbed two people and was like "oh fuck!  what did I just do, I gotta get the hell outta here!"

And I find it hard to believe that that guy knows he just left a glove at the crime scene, and has the companion glove in his pocket is just going to sort of give it the old shoulder shrug treatment.  I think that guy knows that the second glove will fry his ass, and so that is the first thing he looks for when he gets home, he makes sure he has that glove, because having the cops find that glove in his possession will spell his doom.  More so than any other piece of evidence, having the companion glove, to the bloody glove you just left at the scene of the crime is going to fry you.  But you just sort of  "meh, maybe I have it, maybe its in my pants pocket and I can't keep the limo driver waiting" with it?  You don't even double check to make sure that you have this super important piece of evidence that can tie you to a double murder?  I don't know, for someone who engaged in planning before and after the murders, it seems....out of character.

[attica]

1 hour ago, wallflower75 said:

when I listen to him talk with such glee about how they got O.J. off, I tend to believe he does think O.J. was innocent.

I saw instead a lawyer delighted with how successful his efforts were in achieving his goal. Which may have been defending his client, or may just have been triumphing over a PD and DA's office that was (in his view) corrupt. It was a big public win which certainly helped his career since. In the absence of an affirmative defense (i.e. I didn't do it, here's how we know; or I did it and was either justified or not criminally responsible), a canny defense lawyer doesn't focus on the guilt of his client; he or she works on dismantling the prosecution's case or presenting a reasonable alternative theory of the case. I think he knows OJ is guilty, but it's bad for business to say so out loud. 

[psychoticstate]

7 minutes ago, RCharter said:

Is there any evidence that Simpson planned to move Nicole's body?  He brought the Bronco, which would fit a body, but was there any evidence of garbage bags in there, or a tarp or anything to assist with the transport of her body?

There was a shovel found in the back of the Bronco.  Simpson claimed he used this shovel to pick up poop from his dog.  Doubtful.

There was also allegedly the "bag" Ford provided for their spare tires missing. 

9 minutes ago, RCharter said:

don't know, while I could understand a glove coming off in a struggle, not one that was a fitted glove.  However, be that as it may, the idea that you left glove #1 at the crime scene and you don't seriously keep track of glove #2 is strange to me.

It is strange if you're thinking clearly.  I don't think Simpson was immediately following the murders.  His mind was likely on getting away from the crime scene, getting back to Rockingham and getting on that plane to Chicago to firm up his alibi.

[RCharter]

1 hour ago, Crs97 said:

I think the better analogy is whether people are uncomfortable with OJ serving a much harsher sentence than normal for robbery.  Or as Toobin said,

"It's the perfect perversity of the O.J. Simpson case that he was acquitted of the crime he was guilty of and convicted of a crime he's innocent of."

Anyway, regardless of the analogy, Fuhrman's life was ruined because he lied under oath.  The defense didn't force him to do that.

And the fact that Fuhrman felt comfortable lying under oath, because the truth would be uncomfortable for him.....tells me a lot about Furhman circa 1994.

And he lied about something that he should have known F. Lee Bailey had something on.  When a defense attorney is asking you for the 5th time about referring to black people as the "n word" you know he has something.  Lying in a situation where you should know that someone has something on you is just....I don't even know.

[psychoticstate]

10 minutes ago, RCharter said:

Driving with the lights off seems like it would only be a way to attempt to avoid detection.  What other reason would there possibly be to drive with your lights off in the dead of night?  I do think that while there is a slight risk of being stopped by an officer, its worth the reward of not having anyone see your vehicle or to be able to really identify it.

If Simpson had not wanted his vehicle to be identified, he wouldn't have run the light at San Vicente and he wouldn't have driven erratically, while screaming at Jill Shively.  I think that proves he wasn't thinking clearly.

[RCharter]

7 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

But you're assuming he  knew where he dropped it if he even noticed it was missing.  He might not know if he dropped the second one at the crime scene too or if he dropped it on his property. I still think finding a dark glove in the dark isn't easy even if one knows the general whereabouts of where it was dropped but I guess mileage varies on that one.  There's also the possibility that he put the glove in his pocket and threw his clothes in a bag or out or whatever he did with them and thought the glove was still in the pocket. 

He has left one glove at the scene of a double homicide.  He has taken off the right glove before getting into his car.  He did not take off two gloves before getting in the Bronco, so he knew one was at the crime scene.  The other he took off and put in a pocket.  So he knows that he has one piece of evidence in his hand that could tie him to the murder perfectly if the police find it in his possession.  The glove that could send you to the chair.  Because the other glove...that you wore to a crime scene to kill two people...is still at the crime scene.  And you don't even double check to make sure you have that glove with you when you get back home?    That just doesn't make much sense to me.  

[Bastet]

Quote

And he lied about something that he should have known F. Lee Bailey had something on.  When a defense attorney is asking you for the 5th time about referring to black people as the "n word" you know he has something.  Lying in a situation where you should know that someone has something on you is just....I don't even know.

Right?  What hubris.  When Bailey kept on after the original denial, clearly he had witnesses waiting in the wings.  Fuhrman bought himself some time by saying he wasn't sure how to answer the question as posed, and had the perfect out right there in front of him.  Bailey was asking if it was possible he had, in fact, used the word in the past 10 years, but forgotten.  The correct answer to that (if you're Mark Fuhrman) is, "Yes, I suppose it's possible."  You know what's coming, get ahead of it.  Stand by not remembering a specific instance, but allow that, yes, it's possible, phrase it as something you unfortunately might have done in the past, and let the prosecution help you out on redirect.  Instead he goes with "No."  Then Bailey essentially says, "I have witnesses who will testify otherwise, so let's make sure you hang yourself but good" and he doubles down!  Lying sack of racist shit.

Edited June 19, 2016 by Bastet

[formerlyfreedom]

Conversation is getting circular. Agree to disagree and move on.

[wallflower75]

6 minutes ago, RCharter said:

And the fact that Fuhrman felt comfortable lying under oath, because the truth would be uncomfortable for him.....tells me a lot about Furhman circa 1994.

And he lied about something that he should have known F. Lee Bailey had something on.  When a defense attorney is asking you for the 5th time about referring to black people as the "n word" you know he has something.  Lying in a situation where you should know that someone has something on you is just....I don't even know.

That's what I kept thinking--"Hello, he's hounding you about this for a REASON."

[txhorns79]

Quote

Back in the 90's, on time departures weren't really a huge deal, and I think that someone might have held the plane for "the Juice."

I doubt OJ would have done something like that to purposefully draw attention to himself.   But more to the point, I'm fairly certain airlines have always been big on their planes arriving and leaving on time.  I don't recall any point in time where there wasn't a big deal for them or the scheduling was loosey goosey. 

Quote

I keep going back and forth on Carl Douglas.  He certainly is larger than life and his segments are always interesting. But sometimes he comes off as gleeful, which, given the brutality of the crime, really rubs me the wrong way.

He really rubbed me the wrong way when he seemed to be taking such pride in restaging OJ's house to make OJ more appealing to the jury.  I'd think if Ito had been a better Judge, he would have shut that down immediately once it became clear that the defense was essentially trying to deceive the jury. 

[Willowsmom]

I think we don't think about the person Simpson is when we talk about planning. He is, like many athletes, a person that has been put on a pedestal from an early age. He has a huge ego and no concept that other people matter. He's convinced he is smarter than everyone else. 

So comes Sydney's recital and he's not getting what he wants. He's not invited to sit with the Browns and not allowed to go to dinner with them. He's mad,in a rage. He goes home and gets madder and madder. Who is this broad to thwart his plans? Nobody, he's more important, he's OJ. So although he made some preparations he didn't really plan. He commits the murders, loses one of his wet with blood gloves, and then like high school when he simply denied his wrongdoing, he won't be caught, he's OJ. Driving without lights pretty much proves he wasn't thinking straight.That's a very busy area and a car without lights would be noticed far more than a car just driving along. Now he goes home and must get on the property without anyone seeing and make his plane to a Hertz event, he couldn't miss that plane.

That's what I think , given what happened later in Vegas, was what was going on in Simpson's mind.

lastly leather, especially thin leather stretches quickly when wet. Blood is extremely slick when wet.

[reggiejax]

For me, this was the most compelling episode yet, but I would be lying if I said I didn't feel the need to take a shower afterwards. But frankly, there is no water hot enough to ever make me feel clean after that.

There was so much that made me sick, but the present day talking heads of the defense team took the cake. Intellectually, I know they were doing their jobs, and their jobs are an essential, and dare I say, sacred part of our justice system. But I must have screamed "oh, fuck you!" at least a dozen times at Scheck, Douglas and Bailey.

It was suggested earlier in this thread that Shapiro did not have the balls to appear. Perhaps. But lack of sack or not, not appearing makes him appear to be the most decent, for lack of a better term, by default. 

On a different note, I will also admit that I took a break from my usual Marcia Clark bashing to laugh my ass off in agreement with her assessment of the existence, and substance, of the Fuhrman tapes, which was "What the fuck, dude?!". What the fuck, dude, indeed. 

[riffraff]

Watching her sister testify and how much she looked like Nicole was heartbreaking. I can't believe the juror that said she had no respect for Nicole because she let OJ abuse her. It's a mental thing that is hard to escape from. Nicole was not perfect, but she did not deserve to be murdered on the steps of her home in that brutal way. Her children lost knowing her. I honestly think the years of OJ suppressing who he really was inside made him think he could get away with murder. If you pretend to be something long enough you lose who you really are.

[Asp Burger]

I thought this episode was the least interesting of the first four, because it's the only one that didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. I saw the trial footage when it was ongoing. Maybe for someone who was too young then or didn't pay attention, it was more entertaining. In my opinion, the best episode of the first four was actually the first episode, covering OJ's childhood and USC days.  

Carrie Bess disgusts me.  

Whenever people would talk about the evidence being contaminated or mishandled, then and now, I just want to scream: You can't mishandle blood evidence and make it just happen to match the DNA of the man (of all the millions in Los Angeles) who was married to one of the deceased and used to beat and stalk her, and has cuts on his hands, and has no good alibi. If it were mishandled that badly, it just wouldn't have a conclusive result. But it's pretty clear from watching this that that jury had a whole bunch of Carrie Besses and Linda Jays (not that she was on the jury) who went into it looking for any slim justification for acquitting that handsome man. When Barry Scheck threw them a lifeline, they were going to grab it with both hands.    

When I feel even a glimmer of sympathy for Johnnie Cochran for what he went through about ten years later, it goes away when I watch the Fuhrman/Hitler argument and see his smug ass saying Fred Goldman should apologize to him. No, not buying the "They were just doing their job" argument. There are lines you don't cross. But Cochran was a POS wife beater himself, so...birds of a feather.  

Edited June 19, 2016 by Asp Burger

[Empress1]

10 hours ago, reggiejax said:

For me, this was the most compelling episode yet, but I would be lying if I said I didn't feel the need to take a shower afterwards. But frankly, there is no water hot enough to ever make me feel clean after that.

There was so much that made me sick, but the present day talking heads of the defense team took the cake. Intellectually, I know they were doing their jobs, and their jobs are an essential, and dare I say, sacred part of our justice system. But I must have screamed "oh, fuck you!" at least a dozen times at Scheck, Douglas and Bailey.

It was suggested earlier in this thread that Shapiro did not have the balls to appear. Perhaps. But lack of sack or not, not appearing makes him appear to be the most decent, for lack of a better term, by default. 

On a different note, I will also admit that I took a break from my usual Marcia Clark bashing to laugh my ass off in agreement with her assessment of the existence, and substance, of the Fuhrman tapes, which was "What the fuck, dude?!". What the fuck, dude, indeed. 

I fell out and rewound "What the fuck, dude?" like 4 times. Marcia Clark is a pistol.