O.J.: Made In America - Part 4

[Mumbles]

Quote

 I think that proves he wasn't thinking clearly.

Around the time of the trial, there was a rumor circulating that OJ and Kato had smoked meth that night (either as part of, or instead of, the McDonalds run.)  It never went beyond rumor. But to me it would explain the lack of rational thought, heightened emotional state, and paranoia that could result in a man irrationally confronting his ex-wife in a rage, killing two people, and the flurry of activity that resulted.

[jaync]

Quote

Simpson went there that night to kill Nicole.  Just Nicole.

It really is amazing to think that, if not for the fate of Ron arriving when he did, there conceivably wouldn't have been any physical evidence of O.J. even being at the scene. (Or, at least not enough to make an arrest, or for a grand jury to grant a trial.)

Quote

I don't know, while I could understand a glove coming off in a struggle, not one that was a fitted glove.

The gloves weren't fitted (i.e., made for driving, sports, certain jobs, etc.). They were just standard winter gloves, and there's no way of knowing how tightly/loosely they fit O.J. at the time.

Quote

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.

Also, his girlfriend Paula Barbieri broke up with him that same day.

[psychoticstate]

14 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

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. 

Ito was a horrible judge for this case.  He made many, many bad decisions, allowing the attorneys (mainly the defense attorneys) to run the trial versus the judge himself.  He was also clearly dazzled by celebrity and that includes Simpson, based on his deferential behavior toward him and allowing Simpson to make a statement to the jury without being sworn on and placed on the stand.  It boggles the mind.

 

13 hours ago, reggiejax said:

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.

You and me both.  I have no doubt that all the defense attorneys knew from the first minute that their client was guilty.  They had a job to do, sure, but to be gleeful that they helped their client avoid punishment for brutally killing two people?   It reminds me of what Kim Goldman said in one of her books - - that after the "not guilty" verdict, Simpson smirked at her and her family and Johnnie Cochran said "gotcha!" to them.  I could never, ever have one iota of respect for Johnnie Cochran after hearing that.

 

12 hours ago, riffraff said:

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.

Especially given that Nicole met Simpson something like 2 months after she had graduated from high school.  She was only eighteen; he basically formed her entire adulthood.  All she knew of adult life included him and came from him.  She had no training to do anything other than be his arm candy.  He supported not only her but her entire family.  The pressure on Nicole must have been insane; it's amazing that she left him at all and tragic that she never got to live her life independently.

 

5 hours ago, Asp Burger said:

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.

It's a shame that the prosecution didn't really hammer this home.  But I suspect it wouldn't have mattered, not after the Fuhrman tapes.  

 

5 hours ago, Asp Burger said:

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.  

Absolutely.  That Fuhrman/Hitler argument makes me want to drag Cochran from his grave and throat punch him.  And to expect Fred Goldman to apologize??  There are no words for how gross this is.

Cochran is especially hypocritical to me when you consider that before he was hired, he was telling others that Simpson was clearly and obviously guilty. The only reason Cochran signed on with the defense team was publicity.

 

2 hours ago, Empress1 said:

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

That was hilarious.  I'll admit that I didn't care much for Marcia Clark during the time of this trial but I kinda like her now.  She realizes the mistakes the prosecution made and she's pretty funny at times.

 

1 hour ago, Mumbles said:

Around the time of the trial, there was a rumor circulating that OJ and Kato had smoked meth that night

According to Mike Gilbert's book (he was Simpson's former sports agent), Simpson was doing the hard stuff post-murders and while living in Florida.  During the 80s, coke was a designer drug of sorts with the crowd he was running with.  Doing it wouldn't have been that big of a deal.  So I could absolutely believe he was doing narcotics around the time of the murders.  

[RemoteControlFreak]

13 hours ago, reggiejax said:

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. 

Interesting. Douglas, Scheck and Bailey presented a unified position. Is there any reason to think that Shapiro would differ?  Not unless he showed up.

[Mumbles]

Between this series and the FX series I am glad that Marcia Clark has gotten a redemption of sorts recently. Her treatment by the media at the time was sexist, and so much what made this a losing case - Fuhrman, mistreatment of evidence, having OJ put on the glove, plus the racially tense hothouse that was LA in 1994 - was out of her control. Her passion for justice for the victims in this case was palpable. 

In the past few years she's been sort of a cultural punching bag.  Tina Fey, for reasons I can't understand, has decided to ridicule her on several occasions in various projects. Why a woman who busted her ass for years, on a public employee's salary, trying to secure justice for victims and make criminals accountable , deserved such contempt, is beyond my comprehension.

And on a purely shallow point, I think she looks great.

[RemoteControlFreak]

3 minutes ago, Mumbles said:

And on a purely shallow point, I think she looks great.

She has enough money now from her writing career to pay for the best Hollywood plastic surgeon.  

[Willowsmom]

As much as I think the dream team were all lying, cheating jerks (except Barry Scheck, I never felt he was doing anything but his job). Really none of them should have appeared on the show because attorney client privilege still applies to anything that happened during the trial period. Carl Douglas is just slime crowing about inciting racial hate in this country to get that piece of trash off.

[smiley13]

If you look at it that way, doesn't that make everyone who profited off of this case scum?

You have everyone from the Brown's to the Goldman's to both groups of attorneys profiting.

[RemoteControlFreak]

1 hour ago, Willowsmom said:

As much as I think the dream team were all lying, cheating jerks (except Barry Scheck, I never felt he was doing anything but his job). Really none of them should have appeared on the show because attorney client privilege still applies to anything that happened during the trial period. Carl Douglas is just slime crowing about inciting racial hate in this country to get that piece of trash off.

Attorney-client privilege has to do with attorneys not being forced to discuss anything that their client said to them in confidence. I'm not sure that any of the attorneys who appeared in the movie crossed this line.  Agree 100% about Douglas.  

[reggiejax]

8 hours ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

Quote

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. 

Interesting. Douglas, Scheck and Bailey presented a unified position. Is there any reason to think that Shapiro would differ?  Not unless he showed up.

 

When I suggested Shapiro appears most decent, it was strictly because he did not appear and therefore could not give us anything new to jump all over him. I believe that had he appeared, regardless of whatever he said, he would have earned is share of enmity from viewers. But he didn't, so by defualt, he comes off best. Or more to the point, least hateful. 

Just to speculate, had he appeared, I believe Shapiro would have remained loyal to his client, though strictly in the professional sense, but would have had little good to say about his fellow Dream Team members, Bailey and Cochran especially. 

Edited June 20, 2016 by reggiejax

[psychoticstate]

2 hours ago, smiley13 said:

If you look at it that way, doesn't that make everyone who profited off of this case scum?

You have everyone from the Brown's to the Goldman's to both groups of attorneys profiting.

It's one thing to say that the attorneys profited - - most of them surely did by writing books, increasing their notoriety, etc. - -but I don't see the Goldmans and Browns profiting from the murder of their loved ones.  The Goldmans have said from the start that it was never about money, it was about responsibility and accountability; they offered to drop the civil suit if Simpson would just admit his part in Ron's death. 

Regardless, no amount of money could possibly be worth the brutal murder of a loved one.

[Moo]

This trial obviously meant something entirely different in America. To the rest of the world, it couldn't have been more obvious that it was about convicting the murderer of two human beings - the murderer clearly being OJ Simpson. To America, it seemed to be about either convicting or acquitting him based solely on the colour of his skin. America is a mad country.

[jhlipton]

It was very clear to me at the time, and it remains so, that the police and DA screwed up this case from start to finish.  As soon as the call came in from Brentwood, they had to know they were probably dealing with someone with deep pockets -- they are going to have the best lawyers, so send out the very best.  The minute OJ became the prime suspect, take Fuhrman off the case and put him on minor desk duty.  Put all evidence in a tight chain of command, so there's no possibility of cross-contamination (which could explain why Simpson's blood was found on the gloves, for instance). 

While Simpson's race didn't hurt him in post-Ramparts, post-King Los Angeles, it was his wealth that got him off.

[Hanahope]

While defense attorneys have a duty to defend their client, they also have a duty to the court, which is not to allow utter and complete lies and falsehoods to be presented as "evidence."  Question the evidence, sure, but if you are sure that what you are putting out there is complete bullshit, that's a violation of an attorney's ethical duties to the court.  In that respect, OJ's defense attorneys violated their duties to the court time and time again.  But Ito let them get away with it.  He was such a tool and a poor judge.

That said, I can't believe the criminologists handled evidence with their bare hands, the detectives running blood out to a crime scene rather than inventory it immediately, to putting the victim's blanket over her at the crime scene before the body has been processed.  All that deserves another Marcia Clark, "what the fuck, dude?" (seriously gotta meme that)

I will say the explanation as to the likely events at the time of the murders explains why there was "blood all over the place" yet very little got on OJ.  He knocked Nicole out and then sliced her while she was on the ground, ergo, her blood went 'all over the place' on the ground.  And with Ron, the little knife knicks in his face wouldn't have caused a spray, nor the fatal wound in his side, which really only soaked his pants.  Then once Ron was on the ground, OJ sliced his throat and he bled out on the ground.  Also, most of that blood likely came out after OJ split.

[psychoticstate]

2 hours ago, Hanahope said:

While defense attorneys have a duty to defend their client, they also have a duty to the court, which is not to allow utter and complete lies and falsehoods to be presented as "evidence."  Question the evidence, sure, but if you are sure that what you are putting out there is complete bullshit, that's a violation of an attorney's ethical duties to the court.  In that respect, OJ's defense attorneys violated their duties to the court time and time again.  But Ito let them get away with it.  He was such a tool and a poor judge.

That said, I can't believe the criminologists handled evidence with their bare hands, the detectives running blood out to a crime scene rather than inventory it immediately, to putting the victim's blanket over her at the crime scene before the body has been processed.  All that deserves another Marcia Clark, "what the fuck, dude?" (seriously gotta meme that)

I will say the explanation as to the likely events at the time of the murders explains why there was "blood all over the place" yet very little got on OJ.  He knocked Nicole out and then sliced her while she was on the ground, ergo, her blood went 'all over the place' on the ground.  And with Ron, the little knife knicks in his face wouldn't have caused a spray, nor the fatal wound in his side, which really only soaked his pants.  Then once Ron was on the ground, OJ sliced his throat and he bled out on the ground.  Also, most of that blood likely came out after OJ split.

Preach it.  I don't fault the defense attorneys for doing what they could to get the best deal for their client but as Bob Shapiro said, they dealt from the bottom of the deck in some regards.   And Ito had absolutely no control of that courtroom and especially not of the defense attorneys.  He called them by "Mr." while addressing the prosecutors and "Marcia" and "Chris."  Don't think that doesn't affect the jury.  He also sighed and rolled his eyes at times when the prosecution was presenting their case. Unbelievable.  Again, it sends a very clear message to the jurors.   If Ito had been more focused on having a fair, straightforward trial versus famewhoring left and right and playing to the cameras, things might have been different. 

The criminologists definitely made some serious mistakes.  I do understand why Nicole's body was covered with the blanket; media was already present and taking pictures and film.  However, I think trying to put up a tent of some kind might have been a better option if that option had been available. 

I agree that the idea Simpson would have been covered in blood is a big misconception.  He was wearing dark, knit clothing and he was pretty much covered head to foot, with the exception of his face.  Any blood that did splatter or spray on him would have been absorbed by the clothing and I think that would have been in a relatively minor amount.  The majority of Nicole's blood loss came from the wound to her throat which would have been delivered while her killer was behind her.  A great deal of Ron's blood loss came from the stab wound to his side and his thicker shirt and jeans would have absorbed a lot of that.  So all the cries of "where's the blood?" is just nonsense.

[BananaRama]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 8:35 AM, 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. 

The documentary theorized that Ron saw Nicole lying on the ground and as he ran/walk to her body, OJ grabbed him.  He didn't see OJ.  OJ stood behind Ron holding the knife to Ron's throat with his right hand.  OJ's left hand was on Ron's chest.  While still in this position, OJ threatened Ron and in the process poked and cut Ron's cheek with the knife.  Then they started to struggle and Ron probably tried to pull OJ's left hand (the hand without the knife) away from his body by grabbing OJ's fingers.  The glove was probably slippery from OJ's sweaty palms and Ron was using all his strength to get this guy off of him so yes, Ron could pull the glove off pretty easily. 

[Crs97]

Quote

It reminds me of what Kim Goldman said in one of her books - - that after the "not guilty" verdict, Simpson smirked at her and her family and Johnnie Cochran said "gotcha!" to them.  I could never, ever have one iota of respect for Johnnie Cochran after hearing that.

This may be anathema to many, and I am sure that Kim really thinks this happened, but I do not believe that Cochran turned to her family and smirked a "Gotcha!" to them.  His beef was not with the Goldman family.  It was with the police department.  Of course he was happy that he won the case and in the process shone a light on racism in the police department.  He may have even mouthed, "Gotcha!" to someone.  I just don't think it was to the Goldman family.

[BananaRama]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 9:48 AM, 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.  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.

OJ being OJ probably didn't expect the cops to suspect him much less look around his property for clues.  He may have thought he could look for the glove after he returned from Chicago.  OJ probably did think that it would be suspicious if he made the limo wait longer.  Plus, as far as OJ knew, the cops may have already discovered Nicole and Ron's bodies and were on their way to Rockingham to check on him.  OJ needed to get out of Dodge fast to avoid that awkward confrontation.

[Cheyanne11]

20 minutes ago, Crs97 said:

This may be anathema to many, and I am sure that Kim really thinks this happened, but I do not believe that Cochran turned to her family and smirked a "Gotcha!" to them.  His beef was not with the Goldman family.  It was with the police department.  Of course he was happy that he won the case and in the process shone a light on racism in the police department.  He may have even mouthed, "Gotcha!" to someone.  I just don't think it was to the Goldman family.

Well, he did say on camera that Fred Goldman owed him an apology, so I put nothing passed him.

[BananaRama]

On ‎6‎/‎18‎/‎2016 at 5:39 PM, Midnight Cheese said:

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. 

Unfortunately, many people feel the same as Carrie Bess.  At the beginning of part 4, after being called to a DV dispute at OJ & Nicole's and Nicole didn't file charges, Mark Fuhrman asks, "I don't understand why women stay in abusive situations."  He's a cop!  He must be trained on domestic violence and know that it isn't that simple to just leave.  "Oh geez, Officer Fuhrman, I never thought about that before!  I should just leave!" 

[RemoteControlFreak]

2 hours ago, BananaRama said:

At the beginning of part 4, after being called to a DV dispute at OJ & Nicole's and Nicole didn't file charges, Mark Fuhrman asks, "I don't understand why women stay in abusive situations."  He's a cop!  He must be trained on domestic violence and know that it isn't that simple to just leave.  "Oh geez, Officer Fuhrman, I never thought about that before!  I should just leave!" 

No. Mark Fuhrman never said this.

What he said was this: 

Quote

"I said, 'do you want to make a report?' And she goes, 'no.'  I remember saying this because it was, I think, expressing my, um, displeasure that she was allowing herself to be treated like this. I said, 'It's your life'."

This is quite different from what you claim. It's not a lack of understanding of why women, categorically, stay in abusive relationships.  It's his "displeasure" that Nicole at this time is threatened by her husband to the point that she calls the cops but when a cop appears she backs off and declines to file a report.   As a cop, it's got to be frustrating not to be able to help. It doesn't mean he doesn't understand the reasons. 

Look, I hate to be the one to keep defending Mark Fuhrman.  But let's not lie about him.

Edited June 21, 2016 by RemoteControlFreak

[smiley13]

Fuhrman is a lying scumbag.  It cheapens the whole series that they included him in anything other than trial footage of him committing perjury.

[RemoteControlFreak]

10 minutes ago, smiley13 said:

Fuhrman is a lying scumbag.  It cheapens the whole series that they included him in anything other than trial footage of him committing perjury.

If you want to exclude lying scumbags from the film, your list is a lot longer than just Mark Fuhrman.  You can add F. Lee Bailey, Barry Scheck, Carl Douglas.  And let's not forget the biggest lying scumbag of all:  O.J. Simpson.

[smiley13]

4 minutes ago, RemoteControlFreak said:

If you want to exclude lying scumbags from the film, your list is a lot longer than just Mark Fuhrman.  You can add F. Lee Bailey, Barry Scheck, Carl Douglas.  And let's not forget the biggest lying scumbag of all:  O.J. Simpson.

Was OJ interviewed in current time?  I have still not had a chance to watch the last hour.

[TXLonghorn93]

Seeing the horrific crime scene photos and hearing how the police believe the crime occurred was gut-wrenching, especially hearing that Ron was, in effect, caged in by Simpson and had no escape route.  That poor young man.  There are no words. 

The older juror is exactly why people side-eye that jury.

[Simon Boccanegra]

Quote

The minute OJ became the prime suspect, take Fuhrman off the case and put him on minor desk duty.

That makes it sound as though Fuhrman was a major investigative force in this case for weeks. He wasn't. He responded to the Bundy call, surveyed the scene, and began taking some notes. When the case was turned over to the robbery-homicide division while Fuhrman was still on the premises at Bundy, before the visit to Rockingham, Fuhrman immediately ceded his role as lead detective on the case. His time as such was about half an hour. His work in that period seems to have been above reproach.

I cannot say the same for his senior colleagues, Detectives Vannatter and Lange. They are the ones who made so little of their one crack at questioning Simpson. I tend to think Fuhrman would have done much better, honestly.

That said, I disagree with the characterization of that recorded interrogation (by one of the interviewees in the documentary) as being harmless to Simpson because he was permitted to be so vague. Vincent Bugliosi claimed it was plenty for a skilled prosecutor to work with, and I trust his professional judgment.

Vannatter was also the one whose custody of blood evidence the defense was able to call into question.   

Edited June 21, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[DangerousMinds]

10 hours ago, smiley13 said:

Fuhrman is a lying scumbag.  It cheapens the whole series that they included him in anything other than trial footage of him committing perjury.

But not a double murderer, as far as I know.

[7isBlue]

Carl Douglas completely disgusted me in his interviews. What a cynical son of a bitch. This is what was so gross about this, and many other "notorious" cases: it all gets turned into one big game for attorneys (especially defense attys) to win at any cost. 

[ridethemaverick]

On 6/19/2016 at 6:00 PM, Moo said:

This trial obviously meant something entirely different in America. To the rest of the world, it couldn't have been more obvious that it was about convicting the murderer of two human beings - the murderer clearly being OJ Simpson. To America, it seemed to be about either convicting or acquitting him based solely on the colour of his skin. America is a mad country.

 

I think that's what is so brilliant about this documentary. It exposes the hypocrisy of America. All of the evil, hateful shit certain groups have done to other groups for years, without care or consequence, and THIS injustice is what sets people off? THIS case is unbelievable? THIS verdict is the great outrage? THIS is what convinces us that America is a mad country?

It's fascinating. 

[psychoticstate]

6 hours ago, ridethemaverick said:

 

I think that's what is so brilliant about this documentary. It exposes the hypocrisy of America. All of the evil, hateful shit certain groups have done to other groups for years, without care or consequence, and THIS injustice is what sets people off? THIS case is unbelievable? THIS verdict is the great outrage? THIS is what convinces us that America is a mad country?

It's fascinating. 

I don't think this crime is the ONLY injustice that sets people off.  I think maybe it was the straw that broke the camel's back.  I also think that Simpson had bridged race for so many years and then this trial and viewpoints on guilt or innocence comes along and created a racial divide also play into it. 

[Margherita Erdman]

On June 17, 2016 at 8:44 AM, 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.

...and even the genius serial killers of TV and movies and mystery novels are left with plot loopholes that would get them off with a good enough attorney. I consume a huge amount of true crime and mystery/thriller fiction, always have (with the exception of a trauma-induced hiatus as described below), and the thing with true crime is that timelines never quite add up (not even with the incomparable Ann Rule, or maybe especially with her because she is meticulous with her facts), and there's always at least one strange bit of evidence or lingering question somewhere. We never get the satisfying authoritative flashback in real life.

A couple of years before the O.J. trial — as I think I posted about when we discussed some of this during the FX series, so I apologize if I am going on, as my southern grandma would say — I was a juror on a trial for rape-murder that has always informed the way I see every aspect of the O.J. crime and trial. Black defendant, white victim, horrible violent crime, racially divided city. Tons of evidence — fingerprints, eyewitnesses, police sketch. No blood or DNA though, because they didn't catch the guy right away and the victim died slowly in the hospital on life support, so all the EMT and medical intervention destroyed forensic evidence. Even with literal cartloads of evidence, I t wasn't a perfect puzzle piece case. Never would be. Medical examiner couldn't even say with 100% scientific certainty that the physical injuries "consistent with" rape and sodomy were in fact caused by being raped and sodomized, because that's not how the rules of evidence work. It's MESSY.

The experience was so horrible that I couldn't read even Miss Marple cozies for a year or so afterward, couldn't fathom how I or anyone else found violent crime to be entertainment, was disgusted with myself for my mystery novel collection and encyclopedic knowledge of the serial killer genre. This circuitous glove discussion amd the death photos are bring everything back with a big whooshing rush, sticky-summer days locked in a room with grumpy people and bloody evidence and horrifying pictures. I may be taking another vacation from true crime for a while.

On June 17, 2016 at 8:44 AM, RCharter said:

"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.

This is true, but every time this comes up with respect to the O.J. trial and jury I reserve all my considerable frustration and rage for Judge Ito — because it is up to the trial judge to issue jury instructions to guide deliberations that will define concepts like reasonable doubt for the purpose of the trial. His discretion, his responsibility. One of his worst, maybe THE worst, of his failures.

I know that without the clear and narrow definition of reasonable doubt (distinguishing it in very concrete terms from shadow of a doubt, admonishing us against bringing any outside or personal knowledge or speculation to the table, forbidding us from considering any argument or information not brought out in open court, etc.) that our trial judge gave us as a jury when we decided the murder case I described above, we would have been unable to reach a verdict. We would have hung along racial lines, for all the reasons.

On June 17, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Bastet said:

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.

They are being shown un-blurred On Demand also, at least by my cable provider.

On June 18, 2016 at 7:38 AM, whiporee said:

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...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...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

...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.

I'm curious to hear more what you thought it might be. Truly! I thought it was extremely balanced, sympathetic, and open to most points of view in this real-life drama (I agree though, not at all sympathetic to Simpson).

If it was groundbreaking, or prompted anyone to reevaluate (and I think it was), I believe it was because of the sheer volume of material and the skill with which he sifted and presented it, and because the perspective of 20 years and change has shifted some things with some additional wisdom (Marcia Clark) and hardened some others to demonstrate how urgent and current these issues continue to be (Fuhrman, other LAPD veterans, opinions on domestic violence).

On June 18, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Bastet said:

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.

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.

I do wish the defense attorneys in this case would just own their role in the justice system and be done with it.

On June 18, 2016 at 7:48 PM, reggiejax said:

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. 

That moment caught me by surprise during all that grimness and I laughed out loud also. I can't imagine what it must have been like to be Marcia Clark in the midst of that trial. Seems like Sarah Paulson really did nail it in her portrayal in American Crime Story.

On June 19, 2016 at 3:14 AM, Asp Burger said:

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.

While I have admired and been riveted by every minute, I agree the first installment was most revelatory, and re-introduced me in a way to the magical charm of the young O.J.

[BananaRama]

On 6/20/2016 at 6:39 PM, RemoteControlFreak said:

No. Mark Fuhrman never said this.

What he said was this: 

This is quite different from what you claim. It's not a lack of understanding of why women, categorically, stay in abusive relationships.  It's his "displeasure" that Nicole at this time is threatened by her husband to the point that she calls the cops but when a cop appears she backs off and declines to file a report.   As a cop, it's got to be frustrating not to be able to help. It doesn't mean he doesn't understand the reasons. 

Look, I hate to be the one to keep defending Mark Fuhrman.  But let's not lie about him.

I didn't mean to lie, I just hadn't memorized the transcript.  Thank you for correcting me.  

[Superpole2000]

This episode was a 10 out of 10. So many moments hit me, and I've paid attention to this case for 20 years. Marcia Clark's "They just didn't care..." comment about the jury's reaction to the wife abuse testimony was especially poignant. So too was the smugness from Carl Douglas and the simplistic analysis provided by the two jurors.

Part of me wishes I could have been on that jury to hopefully have changed the outcome. But I have no idea what verdict I would have provided given how sprawling and disjointed that case was. It's easy to side with the prosecution after the fact, when they can present the likeliest scenario in a coherent manner, but that defense team was incredibly disruptive and effective at clouding the picture. Looking at the case through the lens of the jury changes so many things.

[jhlipton]

On 6/26/2016 at 7:35 PM, Superpole2000 said:

It's easy to side with the prosecution after the fact, when they can present the likeliest scenario in a coherent manner.

I thought at the time that the two verdicts (Not Guilty for the criminal trial, Liable for the civil trial) were spot on, and I still do (albeit a little less so given the shenanigans of the defense).  The prosecution totally failed on so many points, including giving a reasonable scenario.  And knowing that OJ would have the best defense money can buy and that the defendant was rich and black in post-Rodney King LA, their complete failure in controlling the trial was inexcusable.

[whiporee]

On June 22, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Margherita Erdman said:

I'm curious to hear more what you thought it might be. Truly! I thought it was extremely balanced, sympathetic, and open to most points of view in this real-life drama (I agree though, not at all sympathetic to Simpson).

There were legitimate issues with the evidence. Real ones. The missing blood, the leak through on the sock. The fact that Vanatter brought the blood to the crime scene. Those were real things that happened, and Edleman never addressed them at all. I was hoping he would make the case -- or at least explore the idea -- that a reasonable jury could have acquitted. But he didn't do any of that -- she showed snippets of the case, but never gave a hint as to with Simpson was acquitted, except to say it happened along racial lines. Cochran's closing went on for hours, but he chose only a snippet that showed Cochran saying to send a message. But he never said what the message was -- Cochran never said to send LAPD a message about Rodney King; he said to send a message that they couldn't frame people and misuse evidence. 

And then he had Hodgeman explaining the crime scene and what he thought had happened. That was just a prosecutor's guess, and he portrayed it like solemn fact. 

Instead, Eldeman had one juror flat out say her vote was racially motivated; he had another offer no reasons for her vote, leaving  He showed nothing of what the deliberations were like; he said nothing of the white jurors in the room, or the two who changed their votes after the initial ballot. He did a very good job of showing why a jury might acquit along racial lines, but he didn't explore for an instant the idea that they might not have done that. And, while others may disagree, I firmly believe there were reasons a jury could acquit that weren't just paying back the LAPD. So I had hoped Edleman would have investigated -- at at least raised -- the possibility that the jury acted in good faith. But he did just the opposite. 

[DangerousMinds]

WHAT missing blood?

[jaync]

Quote

There were legitimate issues with the evidence. Real ones. The missing blood, the leak through on the sock. The fact that Vanatter brought the blood to the crime scene. Those were real things that happened, and Edleman never addressed them at all.

Vannatter bringing the blood to the crime scene was addressed - it came up in trial footage, and an interviewee (the bearded journalist, IIRC) mentioned how that particular incident was enough to cause reasonable doubt. (That scene stood out to me, as I remember thinking the exact same as him when it was brought to light in real-time during the actual trial.)

Quote

Instead, Eldeman had one juror flat out say her vote was racially motivated; he had another offer no reasons for her vote, leaving  He showed nothing of what the deliberations were like;

There were no actual deliberations to speak of, though. And, I thought Yolanda Crawford did a good job in relaying how she came to her decision, and that she made for a good counterbalance to Carrie Bess. Anyway, it all was what it was, and Edelman could only work with what was available and/or given to him.

[whiporee]

4 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

WHAT missing blood?

The guy who drew it from Simpson said there was about 8 ml. The LAPD could only account for 6 ml. 

The other thing that Edleman could have done was disprove the defense theories. Show them as ludicrous or impossible. We didn't get any of that, either. (I'm not arguing whether they were or they weren't) In a documentary that encompassed as much as this encompassed addressing the alternate views of the evidence would have been worthwhile.

1 hour ago, jaync said:

There were no actual deliberations to speak of, though. And, I thought Yolanda Crawford did a good job in relaying how she came to her decision, and that she made for a good counterbalance to Carrie Bess. Anyway, it all was what it was, and Edelman could only work with what was available and/or given to him.

Kind of a weak argument from a documentarian, though, and maybe that's my overall problem. In the end, he really didn't have a lot to say that wasn't race-related. I know Cochran's dead and a lot of others aren't talking, but I think in those situations you just sort of say 'this isn't going to work' and move on to your next idea instead of trying to use second-tier evidence to make your case. And with the interviews he did have, he didn't press them for reasons. Why did Yolanda vote not guilty? I would have liked to see Carrie bess explain why she voted not guilty instead of hinting around it. Lots of OJ jurors have given interviews and written books -- the stated reasons are out there, but Edleman didn't include them. Instead he focused on his own narrative -- OJ Simpson was a superstar who owed his freedom to the same community he repeatedly rejected, and he owes his current imprisonment to the community he embraced but eventually rejected him. It's a good narrative, but there was more to all of it than that. 

[SunDevil28]

7 hours ago, whiporee said:

The guy who drew it from Simpson said there was about 8 ml. The LAPD could only account for 6 ml. 

 

I'm just going off memory here, but I believe the guy said he "typically" draws about 8cc.  I don't think he measured it at the time.

What I *did* spend too much time researching was the timeline and limo driver's testimony to address the glove issue.

By the time Simpson arrived at home (10:55), he knew he was way past the scheduled limo pick-up time (10:35) and knew the driver would be waiting and ringing the buzzer and not finding him home.  Plus, by the time Simpson got inside and showered (more important than looking for the glove because he can hardly go out with blood all over him!) Kato is outside looking around with a flashlight and talking to the limo driver.  No way could Simpson go out with his own flashlight and start poking around.  Considering Fuhrman initially thought the glove was "dog poo", I'd say it would have been pretty hard to find.  And that was WITH a flashlight, which Simpson couldn't have used outside Kato's room in any case.  

THE most important thing was to be on that flight as an alibi.  As several have mentioned, gloves can be planted, but people can't be in two places at once.  He was counting on being seen several times that night and almost succeeded.  In fact, as it was he only pulled up to the airport 10 minutes before the flight departed, so 5-10 minutes to look for the glove would have made a difference.  He also had to check bags, and possibly dispose of murder evidence.  Seriously, if you're dressed in clothes and shoes with blood on them and possibly still have the murder weapon with you, those are really important to dispose of - definitely more important than the gloves!  The prosecution presented evidence that he may have disposed of them at the airport.  He knew how much time it took to get to LAX from his home and knew he was desperately in danger of missing his best chance at an alibi and opportunity to get rid of the clothes and knife.  You're very late, the limo driver and Kato are talking and comparing notes.  Yes, at this point you just get in the limo and get the hell out of dodge rather than comb your property for a glove.

Limo driver's testimony: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/parktest.html
Timeline: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/12/11/court.archive.simpson14/index.html?_s=PM:US

[Drapers4thWife]

Quote

In the past few years she's been sort of a cultural punching bag.  Tina Fey, for reasons I can't understand, has decided to ridicule her on several occasions in various projects.

FWIW, I think Tina regrets that now. I saw an interview with her where she talked about how blown away she was by American Crime Story. She said she even switched her Academy membership (where previously she was enrolled a writer) to the acting wing expressly to vote for Sarah Paulson and Courtney B. Vance this year for the Emmys. 

[Drapers4thWife]

Quote

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.

I think at the heart of your confusion is that you're convinced it would "only take five minutes" to find the glove, which is a huge assumption. Assuming O.J. even realized it had fallen, he lived on a large estate and had gone across it to get inside his house after committing the murders. Have you ever lost anything in a yard? I have, and in a much smaller yard than the O.J. estate. It was also in the middle of the night. Without knowing exactly where he dropped it (it could have been the yard, the car, going over the fence, back at the crime scene, etc.) it could have taken quite a while in the middle of the night to find it. You write that it should have been easy because he knew where he'd been, but life doesn't work like that. Hell, the other day I lost my cellphone in my house and it took me over ten minutes to find it, and that's inside, in the daylight, knowing exactly where I'd last had it and retracing my steps. 

You also have some erroneous assumptions about the limo driver and the timeline. The deadline was not the limo driver, it was the flight. The limo driver arrived at O.J.'s at 10:25 p.m. He rang the buzzer but got no answer. He waited and rang the buzzer several times over the next half hour. The limo driver called his boss at 10:55 p.m. to report that Simpson either wasn't home or not answering, and the boss told him to wait until 11:15 before leaving. At about 11:00 p.m. Kato walked outside to investigate the bumps on his wall. He saw the limo driver at the gate, who buzzed again and got his first answer from O.J., who said he was just getting out of the shower and would be down in a minute. Between 11:00 and 11:15 O.J. finally appeared, put his cases in the limo and they left. They arrived at the airport at 11:35, ten minutes before the flight. At 11:45, the flight to Chicago departed with O.J. as passenger. 

So as it was, O.J. only got to the airport ten minutes before his flight left, so no, he didn't have any time to spare to go outside and search for a dropped glove in the middle of the night, even if he realized he'd dropped it. As another poster mentioned, that's also assuming that O.J. would want to risk going outside with a flashlight and hunting around when two people (Kato and the limo driver) were in sight. 

As for premeditation, this was not a cool, calm, overly planned murder. The "If I Did It" book is probably the closest we'll get to a confession, so some might be interested in what it says: in it, O.J. claims he was going over to the condo to "scare the shit out of that girl" because he'd heard she'd been out partying. He claims he kept the knife in the glove department of his Bronco for self-protection, and grabbed it and his cap and gloves at the spur of the moment. He said he went up to the condo and peaked in the window and saw candles and heard music playing, and became incensed that Nicole was clearly waiting for a romantic date. 

At that point, O.J. claimed that Ron Goldman entered the gate behind him. O.J. turned and accused Ron of being Nicole's lover. Ron said he had no idea what O.J. was talking about, he was just there to return some glasses. O.J. screamed, "Fuck you, man! You think I'm stupid or something?" Nicole, alerted by the shouting, came to the door to see what was going on. O.J. got further incensed by her "slinkly little black cocktail dress." 

Nicole came out on the stoop and told O.J. to leave Ron alone, and O.J. then accused Ron of being a drug dealer and bringing drugs to Nicole. Nicole told O.J. to leave and O.J. refused. They got into a shouting match and O.J. claimed Nicole "came at him, arms flailing" but that he "ducked" and she then fell, hit her head against the stoop and lay there unconscious. Nicole then started moaning and O.J. said he removed his glove to take the knife (from his invisible friend "Charlie" who accompanied him to the murder scene). Ron Goldman then got into a karate stance to try and fight O.J., which O.J. found hilarious. O.J. taunted Ron. 

Then O.J. claims he blacked out, and came to only to see Nicole and Ron both dead in puddles of blood and himself covered in blood and holding the knife. Realizing what he'd done, O.J. stripped down to his underwear and socks to drive home. He gave the knife and bloodied clothes to "Charlie," left his socks and underwear on the bedroom floor thinking they had no blood on them, and hopped in the shower to clean off the rest of the blood, then rushed to make his flight. 

[psychoticstate]

17 hours ago, whiporee said:

The guy who drew it from Simpson said there was about 8 ml. The LAPD could only account for 6 ml. 

The other thing that Edleman could have done was disprove the defense theories. Show them as ludicrous or impossible. We didn't get any of that, either. (I'm not arguing whether they were or they weren't) In a documentary that encompassed as much as this encompassed addressing the alternate views of the evidence would have been worthwhile.

Kind of a weak argument from a documentarian, though, and maybe that's my overall problem. In the end, he really didn't have a lot to say that wasn't race-related. I know Cochran's dead and a lot of others aren't talking, but I think in those situations you just sort of say 'this isn't going to work' and move on to your next idea instead of trying to use second-tier evidence to make your case. And with the interviews he did have, he didn't press them for reasons. Why did Yolanda vote not guilty? I would have liked to see Carrie bess explain why she voted not guilty instead of hinting around it. Lots of OJ jurors have given interviews and written books -- the stated reasons are out there, but Edleman didn't include them. Instead he focused on his own narrative -- OJ Simpson was a superstar who owed his freedom to the same community he repeatedly rejected, and he owes his current imprisonment to the community he embraced but eventually rejected him. It's a good narrative, but there was more to all of it than that. 

 

10 hours ago, SunDevil28 said:

I'm just going off memory here, but I believe the guy said he "typically" draws about 8cc.  I don't think he measured it at the time.

You are correct.  The tech gave the amount he normally drew but stated he was nervous because he was drawing blood from O.J. Simpson.  I don't think we can necessarily take that 8 cc as gospel.

I cut Edelman some slack with the trial in general.  He was doing a documentary about Simpson as a whole, not the trial itself.   If the documentary was only about the trial then, yes, he should have explored all avenues.  

I like that he got Yolanda Crawford on board and appreciated what she said.  If I recall, she said she decided to vote not guilty after the glove incident and after the prosecution abandoned Fuhrman.  

I think Carrie Bess explained very firmly why she voted not guilty.  Payback for the Rodney King verdict. 

What I think I took away from Edelman's documentary is that while POC were being treated horribly in 1960s LA, Simpson was being lauded as a football god. That he transcended race in the 1970s and 1980s and while Rodney King was beaten and the cops responsible found not guilty, within a couple of years, the guilty Simpson would escape being convicted for murder in the same city.  I think Edelman did a great job of showing how the rules were very different for Simpson and the dichotomy between how he was treated and your average every day POC.   Simpson could have done so much for the African American community and he did not; he apparently did not relate to the AA community at all, even when they were supporting and defending him.  The murders and the trial were really secondary in the whole thing.   

[whiporee]

1 hour ago, psychoticstate said:

You are correct.  The tech gave the amount he normally drew but stated he was nervous because he was drawing blood from O.J. Simpson.  I don't think we can necessarily take that 8 cc as gospel.

That whole testimony was weird, though, wasn't it? He originally testified to 8, but then changed it later saying he had a heart condition that caused memory loss, but he now was sure it was 6 or 6.5. And I think that recantation was on video and not crossed, but I could be wrong. 

2 hours ago, psychoticstate said:

What I think I took away from Edelman's documentary is that while POC were being treated horribly in 1960s LA, Simpson was being lauded as a football god. That he transcended race in the 1970s and 1980s and while Rodney King was beaten and the cops responsible found not guilty, within a couple of years, the guilty Simpson would escape being convicted for murder in the same city.  I think Edelman did a great job of showing how the rules were very different for Simpson and the dichotomy between how he was treated and your average every day POC.   Simpson could have done so much for the African American community and he did not; he apparently did not relate to the AA community at all, even when they were supporting and defending him.  The murders and the trial were really secondary in the whole thing

And that's fine, except the doc has been touted as the definitive OJ piece as it's been lauded. My guess is it will win an Oscar. But I don't think it was definitive or comprehensive at all -- I think Edleman had a story to tell, and that's the story you described. I just don't think it was the whole of the OJ case or its effects on race relations and the country as a whole.  You and I have argued about this over two forums this year, and I respect and understand your opinion on all this. But don't you think that the defense's arguments at least deserved reasonable mention when you're talking about this case? Even if you dismiss them, they were a real part of the actual narrative to the OJ story. If for no other reason than the defense's arguments are what made the whole thing interesting.  And Edleman chose to disregard it and replaced it with his own version.

This bigs me because now the popular narrative has won out, and if people look at these thing (ACS included) they'll see one side of what was a multi-faceted story and consider it history. I thought Edleman did a great job of setting the scene of OJ, and I think he did a great job of showing the aftermath. But he blew it when it came to actual OJ story, which is the one that was important -- he did a great job of showing the context of OJ, but he didn't show what the context was about. The jury may have been sending a message, but they needed something to hang their hat on when they did it, and Edleman showed none of that. He showed none of the nuance that could have gone into the jury's decisions. 

In the end, as much as I hate to say it, I think ACS did the better job. And I think they botched it, too. Just not as badly. 

[DangerousMinds]

I think the truth has won out.

[psychoticstate]

3 hours ago, whiporee said:

But he blew it when it came to actual OJ story, which is the one that was important -- he did a great job of showing the context of OJ, but he didn't show what the context was about. The jury may have been sending a message, but they needed something to hang their hat on when they did it, and Edleman showed none of that. He showed none of the nuance that could have gone into the jury's decisions. 

I suppose it depends on what you consider the actual OJ story.  If you think the OJ story is comprised of the murders and criminal trial alone, I can understand your frustration.  

FWIW, I don't think Edelman went into great detail on either side.  He got interviews from Hodgman, Clark, Furhman and Lange on the prosecution side and from Douglas and Scheck on the defense side.  Cochran and Kardashian are dead and Shapiro, Bailey, Dershowitz and Uelman elected not to participate. He also spoke to Carrie Bess and Yolanda Crawford.  Who knows why he didn't speak to other jurors - - maybe they didn't want to participate either.

Regardless, I think a jury - - any jury - - can decide to send a message without needing anything else to hang their hat on.  They said they didn't feel the State did its job and felt the defense raised reasonable doubt.  That's enough.  As far as whether your or I or anyone else outside of the jury felt there was reasonable doubt, that's another story. 

I think that no matter what Edelman presented - - or how ACS presented its series - - someone wasn't going to be happy or feel they had done enough.

I do agree with @DangerousMinds that the truth ultimately won out in the end.  Regardless of how the jury decided and what was presented or not at the trial, I firmly believe that Simpson was guilty of the murders.  No innocent person would ever write a book about how he would have done it, had he done it - - and that's outside of the evidence, proven and questionable.

 

3 hours ago, whiporee said:

And that's fine, except the doc has been touted as the definitive OJ piece as it's been lauded.

Maybe it would be better to define this documentary as the most definitive piece on Simpson to date.  I think most other programs have focused almost entirely on the murders and trials; this was the first one to really explore Simpson's background, upbringing, athletic career and then transition into commercials, Hollywood and mainstream America.  It may not have been perfect but I thought it was very well done and I learned a bit about Simpson.

 

3 hours ago, whiporee said:

You and I have argued about this over two forums this year, and I respect and understand your opinion on all this. But don't you think that the defense's arguments at least deserved reasonable mention when you're talking about this case?

Yes, we have and I respect and understand your opinions as well.  Thank goodness we live in a society where we can agree to disagree and embrace others' thoughts.  

I'll have to go back and rewatch portions of the documentary because I didn't think that Edelman gave short shrift to anyone.  The defense claimed that misconduct and sloppy handling led to reasonable doubt and/or their client's innocence.  We heard how Bailey decided to go after Fuhrman after Shapiro broached the idea, saw the idea in action and heard from Lange, Fuhrman and Clark about it.  Yes, Hodgman did give his interpretation of what happened -- the most likely scenario and the one that most people would agree to, if you believe in Simpson's guilt.  It is interesting that neither Douglas nor Scheck spoke on the record (as far as we know) about what they think "really" happened that night and neither stated they believed in Simpson's innocence either.   

[Superpole2000]

4 hours ago, whiporee said:

The jury may have been sending a message, but they needed something to hang their hat on when they did it, and Edleman showed none of that. He showed none of the nuance that could have gone into the jury's decisions.

I think one of the key points was that the jury spent less time deliberating than this documentary spent showing us what happened in the trial. There was no nuance. The jury was a disaster. The majority had made up their minds during those endless nights in seclusion and didn't care to discuss evidence or justify their decisions once they could do so. They voted with their gut and had long ago switched off their brains by the time the trial was over.

Of course, it's not all their fault. No trial should last that long, and we should never seclude a jury for 8 months. That's a disgrace and completely unfair.

[jhlipton]

On 6/29/2016 at 10:28 AM, psychoticstate said:

Simpson was being lauded as a football god. That he transcended race in the 1970s and 1980s

To quote UnREAL, he's black, but he's "football black".

[mansonlamps]

On 6/19/2016 at 5:00 PM, Moo said:

This trial obviously meant something entirely different in America. To the rest of the world, it couldn't have been more obvious that it was about convicting the murderer of two human beings - the murderer clearly being OJ Simpson. To America, it seemed to be about either convicting or acquitting him based solely on the colour of his skin. America is a mad country.

Who gives a damn what the rest of the world felt,  if indeed this is true?  And I think this is quite a simplified take on the American view of this case as well,  it was about a lot more than skin color.  I think it was a travesty of justice myself,  but the case was complicated by systematic racial oppression in Los Angeles,  athlete hero worship,  domestic abuse,  sexism,  tactical errors, atrocious courtroom antics, and on and on.  To literally say it was black and white doesn't capture the many,  many subtleties of this case and how this could happen. 

[Mystical chick]

On 6/18/2016 at 8:02 PM, Mumbles said:

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.

I have seen him on other shows and he can barely contain his glee over the verdict. He seems to really dig being in the limelight (no shame there) but doesn't give his opinions with any sense of respect for the victims. To him (it seems to me), it was all about who bested whom, what strategy they used (like watching a football game) and how they were able to get OJ off for the murders. I dunno - maybe do your gloating in private and pretend respect? Doesn't seem like his gig. 

[Mystical chick]

What this documentary has done for me is given me a lot more context than I had before. I was 34 when all this went down, watched it all on television and like a lot of people, was stunned by the verdict. I read almost every book that was published on it (even that hideous junk Resnick offered) and yet, I still didn't really grok the context of being black in LA at that particular time. I only knew of OJ as a former football guy who parlayed his gridiron success to the screen but had never seen him in action on the field and how he "wasn't black. He was OJ!"  I get it now. Like, I get it. All of this makes sense to me in a way it did not before and I more clearly understand the verdict and almost agree with it based only on what went on in the court room.

There's never been one shred of doubt in my mind that OJ killed Nicole and Ron. Never. And I agree with many of you who say that the prosecution did a shit-ass job of presenting a coherent case. The defense tore them up (and oh, Chris Darden, I feel for you. But holy cow. Just. No.) as I would have expected them to do. Did they do their job? Yes. Was it in the most underhanded way possible? Yes.

I liked the other series on FX for what it brought to the table (a much more intimate portrait of Marcia Clark and her role) and thought it was well done. Of the two, though, this one really helped me see things that have puzzled me for years and gave me (as I said) context.

Also, I had no knowledge ahead of time that there were the close-up wound photos. No words. Just none. I would not be surprised to hear OJ was on some meth-like substance because that was brutal beyond belief.