The People v OJ Simpson - American Crime Story [** Spoilers **]

fryup

Cathy.C wrote: »

Many years later though I fully accept he for sure did have doubts at that stage and they were very much evident the second time around when Barbara Walters interviews him.

but the above interview was done in 96 just a year after the not guilty verdict was given, so i think its true that Kardashian had a change of heart mid-way during the trial

FloatingVoter

Kardashian was up close and friendly with OJ and willing to see the best in his friend. He also lived in LA and was well aware the the LA cops were well capable of a fit-up. The fact that OJ was as guilty as sin was only a small part of the jigsaw going on then.
Imagine if this was George Best (prod that he was:rolleyes:) getting the full works by the West Midlands cops in the 1970s. It'd divide down sectarian lines before a snippet of evidence was heard.
And that's before we add in the circus that the trial itself became. Younger friends of mine (and me barely middle aged) find it hard to believe that this is true enough to life and not some weird satire.

whatawaster81

Criminal trials require guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Civil requires on the balance of probabilities.
So you could say that on the balance of probabilities life exists on another planet but you cannot prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.
Therefore OJ innocent, as a decent criminal lawyer aka Johnnie Cochran smashed a crap Defence team.

Cathy.C

fryup wrote: »

but the above interview was done in 96 just a year after the not guilty verdict was given, so i think its true that Kardashian had a change of heart mid-way during the trial

Okay, a year later then but how could him showing doubts a year later be indicative of him having doubts during the trial? To the degree that we the The People vs OJ? Look at the interview he did on the day OJ was released. He is grinning from ear to ear., says he looked OJ in the eye and asked him about the crimes and that OJ cried, that he has known him for 25 years and that he has never lied to him and that THAT is why he has been beside him all that time. Then he speaks about how he is going to help OJ find the real killers.

There is no way Kardashian could have felt the way he is being portrayed as feeling given that interview.

I bet next week's episode will be even worse in that regard and they will show him no doubt looking as if he knows for sure that a guilty man is about to be set free.

Tipsy McSwagger

whatawaster81 wrote: »

Criminal trials require guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Civil requires on the balance of probabilities.
So you could say that on the balance of probabilities life exists on another planet but you cannot prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.
Therefore OJ innocent, as a decent criminal lawyer aka Johnnie Cochran smashed a crap Defence team.

Cochran didn't smash the prosecution, all he had was the race card and the failure of Judge Ito to stop the trial becoming a race issue was one of the reasons Simpson walked free. In fact the defense was pretty poor with Shapiro doing nothing, Bailey often rambling on and nearly getting fired and Barry Scheck blatantly lying about contamination to DNA. Cochran was the best out of a bad bunch, but all he had was the race card and the good lawyer he was he went with it big time.

If this defence went up against someone like Vincent Bugliosi he would have destroyed them and Simpson would more than likely have been found guilty. I mean the police interview with Simpson the day after the murders was enough to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt all on its own. Have you read it? He can't explain how he got a bad cut on his finger at the same time his wife is stabbed to death and he admits bleeding in the bronco, driveway and house, and the prosecution didn't use this interview as evidence.

fryup

Cathy.C wrote: »

Look at the interview he did on the day OJ was released. He is grinning from ear to ear., says he looked OJ in the eye and asked him about the crimes and that OJ cried, that he has known him for 25 years and that he has never lied to him and that THAT is why he has been beside him all that time. Then he speaks about how he is going to help OJ find the real killers.

well in fairness he was hardly going to spill the beans on the day of the verdict with the media frenzy and everything, he'd look like a right turn coat

PeterTheEighth

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

If this defence went up against someone like Vincent Bugliosi he would have destroyed them and Simpson would more than likely have been found guilty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9F90DHsOdg

I'm just looking at Vincent Bugliosi's program about the case right now. It's loooooong, in two 3.5 hour parts, but it's an incredible insight in to the mistakes made by the prosecutors. Fascinating stuff.

Cathy.C

fryup wrote: »

well in fairness he was hardly going to spill the beans on the day of the verdict with the media frenzy and everything, he'd look like a right turn coat

He could just have turned down the interview.

In any case, he was asked did he ever doubt OJ during the trial and he said not for a second. That he was in denial about all the blood evidence and that it wasn't until afterwards, when Kris started to suggest to him that OJ might be guilty, that he started to really think he might be.

Even the whole nonsense in the TV show is baloney where Robert and AC open the bag afraid of what they might find. First of all, OJ had just brought that bag to Chicago and back again. Are we really supposed to believe that a person would have evidence they murdered someone in a bag, bring that bag to another city, and then return with that evidence in the bag knowing that they were about to go to a house swarming with cops. Puhlezze. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Here's the first part of the ABC interview that I posted above for anyone that hasn't seen it:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/robert-kardashian-longtime-friend-oj-simpson-doubts-innocence-33841038

FloatingVoter

Cathy.C wrote: »

He could just have turned down the interview.

In any case, he was asked did he ever doubt OJ during the trial and he said not for a second. That he was in denial about all the blood evidence and that it wasn't until afterwards, when Kris started to suggest to him that OJ might be guilty, that he started to really think he might be.

Even the whole nonsense in the TV show is baloney where Robert and AC open the bag afraid of what they might find. First of all, OJ had just brought that bag to Chicago and back again. Are we really supposed to believe that a person would have evidence they murdered someone in a bag, bring that bag to another city, and then return with that evidence in the bag knowing that they were about to go to a house swarming with cops. Puhlezze. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Here's the first part of the ABC interview that I posted above for anyone that hasn't seen it:

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/robert-kardashian-longtime-friend-oj-simpson-doubts-innocence-33841038

If I had gutted a couple of people, dumped the knife in rage....then found myself against the KKK branck of US law, I'd be nervous about things being put where they shouldn't be found.
And allow for dramatic licence. Kardashian was a bit player at best - he's in this dramatic production as a signal for what was to follow. Non-entities celebrated for appearing in front of a camera.
The truth is it was a case of domestic violence that involved a B-lister at the birth of the 24 hour news cycle. Oh, yeah, Johnny, you're a fantastic legal mind- the guy was black.
When you were getting lifted for driving a car while being black, The Clash wrote White Riot in London, and Richard Pryor was on Johnny Carson warning the folks of Beverly Hills that he planned on having a run next day. 10/10 on doing a Paisley regards incitement. 0/10 on anything approaching a legit legal argument.

KKkitty

In my opinion the prosecution probably thought it was an open and shut case. The defense super team had way too many tricks up their sleeves. Making it a racially charged case shouldn't have happened. It was a double murder case and should have stayed like that. I felt sorry for Ron Goldman's family. It became all about OJ and Nicole. Ron was a mere dot on the page. Even if OJ didn't personally kill them I'm sure he had a part in it. To me he's guilty.

PeterTheEighth

Just watched Episodes 7 & 8. It's great stuff. The actors playing Marcia Clarke, Chris Darden and Johnnie Cochran were perfectly cast. It's hard to work out how the same casting team chose Cuba Gooding Jr as OJ though. I cant take to him at all, seems like a bad Saturday Night Live impression or something.

And he's much smaller than OJ, I was 100% sure that when he tried on the gloves he was going to be swimming in them.

frostyjacks

The only negative I have with the show is the casting of Cuba Gooding Jr as OJ. OJ was a big guy with a sonorous voice. Cuba doesn't have the physical presence, and his voice is more of a whiney, raspy one. It's like had the money for a big Hollywood name and just stuck him in.

Travolta steals every scene, imho.

fryup

^^^^^^^^^^

i think Travolta's portrayal of Shapiro is way off the mark, making him look like some camp media whore dandy almost comical in a way...

the real Shapiro was way more measured in his persona, esp if this interview is anything to go by...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OR_HHAMqpo8

philstar

Was it really that bad for the jurers?? nearly a year pent up in a hotel away from their families??

no wonder they gave a crazy decision at the end their brains must have frazzled

PeterTheEighth

philstar wrote: »

Was it really that bad for the jurers?? nearly a year pent up in a hotel away from their families?? no wonder they gave a crazy decision at the end their brains must have frazzled

that jury episode really annoyed me. They hadnt made the jurors characters in any episode previous to this, and then all of a sudden decide to completely deviate from the existing plots to devote and entire episode to the jury. If they were going to do this it could have been done earlier in the series.

And i still cant download a copy of Episode Ten. I mean, I have no idea what the verdict IS. :P

Cathy.C

PeterTheEighth wrote: »

And i still cant download a copy of Episode Ten. I mean, I have no idea what the verdict IS. :P

Watched the final episode just there but won't spoil it for you.

Just to say this much: they include small snippets from the Oprah Show and the news reports at the time where they captured the audience and public's reaction to the verdict.

Here are those full segments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czGL1dv3ibo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nsnuhz-Kb7k

frostyjacks

Hadn't seen the Oprah reactions before. "The blacks would have burned the city down", I dunno if I would have the balls to say that in a studio full of them. I wonder if they ever look back on it and realise they got played by OJ's lawyers.

PeterTheEighth

frostyjacks wrote: »

Hadn't seen the Oprah reactions before. "The blacks would have burned the city down", I dunno if I would have the balls to say that in a studio full of them. I wonder if they ever look back on it and realise they got played by OJ's lawyers.

Well you can thank Johnnie Cochran for that. A man who thought that the best way to get reparation for all the wrongs done to his community was to see one of them walk free after murdering two white people.

wawaman

If anyone is interested i have a PDF version of the "If I Did It" book. Interesting read to say the least !

furiousox

It was a travesty that he got away with murder of course, and at the time the jury got a lot of criticism for their decision but they had no option (legally) except come back with a not guilty verdict.
They weren't asked was OJ Simpson guilty of murder (and most jurors thought he was guilty) they were asked has the prosecution proved that he is guilty of murder, beyond reasonable doubt.
Due to botching the dna evidence, the glove shambles, Mark Fuhrman's testimony & a wily defence team, the prosecution undermined their case and failed to prove his guilt "beyond reasonable doubt".

Tipsy McSwagger

PeterTheEighth wrote: »

Well you can thank Johnnie Cochran for that. A man who thought that the best way to get reparation for all the wrongs done to his community was to see one of them walk free after murdering two white people.

The thing is though that OJ Simpson was probably the worst representative for black people in America. He hung around with middle aged white guys, never gave back or did anything for black charities or groups and basically turned his back on his black roots once he became rich and famous.

Tipsy McSwagger

furiousox wrote: »

It was a travesty that he got away with murder, and at the time the jury got a lot of criticism for their decision but they had no option (legally) except come back with a not guilty verdict.
They weren't asked was OJ Simpson guilty of murder (and most jurors thought he was guilty) they were asked has the prosecution proved that he is guilty of murder, beyond reasonable doubt.
Due to botching the dna evidence, the glove shambles, Mark Fuhrman's testimony & a wily defence team, the prosecution botched the case and failed to prove his guilt "beyond reasonable doubt".

I disagree with most of that except the prosecution bit. The DNA wasn't botched at all, it was standard practice that a tiny bit of blood would come out when the vial was opened and the glove the examiner was using would be put in a bin, Scheck said the LAPD crime lab was a cesspool of contamination but the DNA was tested in 3 different centers and they all came back with the same results.

The crazy thing is there was a conspiracy hidden in this case. For years the LAPD let Simpson get away with beating and harassing Nicole and wouldn't touch him because he was famous. They conspired to hush it up because of who he was and this eventually led to him murdering Nicole.

PeterTheEighth

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

The thing is though that OJ Simpson was probably the worst representative for black people in America. He hung around with middle aged white guys, never gave back or did anything for black charities or groups and basically turned his back on his black roots once he became rich and famous.

yeah that was a point that Vincent Bugliosi made in his mock prosecution (which I've linked to above). He said that if the LAPD were going to fit up a black man for the crime, OJ is the LAST black man that they would fit up, cos he was always signing autographs/pictures for them. They even called around to use his swimming pool!!

One of Bugliosi's main points was as to how ridiculous the defence's "abandoning" of Mark Fuhrman was. Clarke said something like "do we wish that Fuhrman had never been born? Of course we do", which Bugliosi said was just ridiculous as this gave MORE credence to the framing scenario. It's very interesting when you watch him go through it. Because it has been mainly portrayed in the media that the defence did a great job, but when he points out the mistakes they made, they really didnt do a great job.

PeterTheEighth

wawaman wrote: »

If anyone is interested i have a PDF version of the "If I Did It" book. Interesting read to say the least !

yeah I saw that in my list of 100% legitimate downloads :pac:
Is it worth reading? I assumed it would be just self serving.

Cianmcliam

furiousox wrote: »

It was a travesty that he got away with murder of course, and at the time the jury got a lot of criticism for their decision but they had no option (legally) except come back with a not guilty verdict.
They weren't asked was OJ Simpson guilty of murder (and most jurors thought he was guilty) they were asked has the prosecution proved that he is guilty of murder, beyond reasonable doubt.
Due to botching the dna evidence, the glove shambles, Mark Fuhrman's testimony & a wily defence team, the prosecution undermined their case and failed to prove his guilt "beyond reasonable doubt".

I don't think that's the case at all, the defense put question marks over a lot of the physical evidence but there was still a mass of evidence pointing to only one conclusion. As Bugliosi pointed out, the defense gave the jury a completely incorrect direction several times during the trial: if one piece of evidence was tainted then that alone indicates reasonable doubt. Not completely correcting this dangerous misrepresentation of reasonable doubt was a fatal mistake for the prosecution and was a perfect excuse for a jury looking for a way to deliver a not guilty verdict.

wawaman

PeterTheEighth wrote: »

yeah I saw that in my list of 100% legitimate downloads :pac:
Is it worth reading? I assumed it would be just self serving.

Its worth reading for sheer audacity of it

PeterTheEighth

Cianmcliam wrote: »

As Bugliosi pointed out, the defense gave the jury a completely incorrect direction several times during the trial: if one piece of evidence was tainted then that alone indicates reasonable doubt..

There were two major points that Bugliosi made, which seemed obvious, but were not made strongly by Clarke and Darden were:
1. A few years previous, information came into Mark Furhman's possession that an African American man had been convicted and sentenced for a crime that he didnt commit. Furhman followed up on this, and actually got the guy released from jail. Bugliosi contended that this proved that while he may have been a racist in the past, this proved that he was not in the game of fitting people up just because they were black. And this would have played well with the black jurors.
2. The defence didnt do enough to disprove the whole fit up theory. Bugliosi goes through what would be involved in such a frame up. Firstly, the opportunity only arises as soon as Fuhrman finds out about the murder, so the time frame is ridiculously short to attempt such a thing. He would also have to have known that OJ didnt have a good alibi, as any such attempt to frame OJ (if he'd had a solid alibi) would have led to him immediately being fired and up on charges himself. He needed to get the sock with the different DNA in OJs house, get Ron/Nicoles blood inside the Bronco, get the DNA on the glove and throw it behind Kato's residence etc etc.

But dont get me wrong, it wasnt all the fault of the defence. Obviously having Fuhrman as such a central part of the investigation was hugely unfortunate from the defence's point of view. And this was something that Clark and Darden could not do anything about. I think that without Fuhrman's racist tendencies, the defence wins every time.

dark crystal

Well....


I watched the actual trial the first time 'round and still remember how I felt when the verdict came in then - like justice hadn't been done. I remember Ron Goldman's sister crying out after the verdict was read out to the court. It was awful.

Watching this series and learning things about the case I missed during the original trial, it makes the blood boil. I just felt so sorry for the Brown & Goldman families having to watch people celebrate the acquittal of the man who murdered their loved ones. It really was a macabre circus.

Hats off to the producers though...as the bailiff was walking over to the jury to have the verdict read out, I was on the edge of my seat, even though I knew the outcome! I thought they did a great job with something that could easily have become a complete ham fest (even big ol' ham Travolta himself won me over in the end).

fryup

PeterTheEighth wrote: »

that jury episode really annoyed me. They hadnt made the jurors characters in any episode previous to this, and then all of a sudden decide to completely deviate from the existing plots to devote and entire episode to the jury.

well they are a very important part of the story, i enjoyed the episode

fin12

How many episodes are in this series, I just watched the tenth one last night, is that the end or is there more?

DMcL1971

Did you turn off the show before the montage at the end? They summed up what has happened to every character since. That's about as closed off as you can get.

DMcL1971

DMcL1971 wrote: »

Did you turn off the show before the montage at the end? They summed up what has happened to every character since. That's about as closed off as you can get.

The episode just ended for me when the Goldmans are in their car and they say "what do we do now?" Was there more after that?

fin12

Deleted User wrote: »

The episode just ended for me when the Goldmans are in their car and they say "what do we do now?" Was there more after that?

Ya that was exactly where it ended for me as well. I thought there might be 12 episodes.

furiousox

Deleted User wrote: »

The episode just ended for me when the Goldmans are in their car and they say "what do we do now?" Was there more after that?

About 25mins!
Episode 10 (final episode) is 1hr 4mins long without commercials.

DMcL1971

Deleted User wrote: »

The episode just ended for me when the Goldmans are in their car and they say "what do we do now?" Was there more after that?

That was at the 41 minute mark. The episode was 65 minutes long. You are missing the last 24 minutes.

DMcL1971

There appears to be a 42 minute version on line which is the truncated version. You will need to get the full 64-65 minutes version instead.

fryup

**no spoilers please**

BorneTobyWilde

Explosive episode

Capajoma

Did not think he'd have been found 'not guilty'. Nice twist by the writers.

PeterTheEighth

Capajoma wrote: »

Did not think he'd have been found 'not guilty'. Nice twist by the writers.

I found myself actually feeling sad for OJ when they showed that last photo, you know the one with him in the orange jumpsuit looking old and overweight. I know I shouldnt feel sorry for him, but it's such a tragic story.

wawaman

The handling of those tapes were a massive mistake by all sides

but why didnt Furman say "No" instead of pleading the fifth again when Cochran asked if he planted evidence at the scene

squonk

I think it was all a pretty sad tale. I felt sorry for Marcia Clarke and her co-counsel. They were railroaded and manipulated. I felt sorry for OJ once he was released and it was obvious that his life, as he knew it, was gone. Then again though I'm pretty sure he did it so hard to really feel sorry for him however, regardless of what I think, he was acquited. He managed to screw up his own life though. He's only in jail now for robbery but you'd think a stint in jail and a close run with a murder sentence would focus the mind. Apparently not in OJs case however. Finally I felt sorry for his defence team because they clearly came across as a bunch of chancers. Early on they had an air of being a crack team but, in the end, it looked like a disparate bunch of guys chancing their arm and one guy going on of a Black rampage. I think it was all just a pretty pittiful episode in american legal history.

ERG89

Felt sorry for Darden though. The scene where Johnnie Cochran offers to bring him back to the community was as horrible as it was likely accurate.
Still the way Chris said the verdict changed nothing but it didn't change Johnnie's mood for his staff party.

Cina

wawaman wrote: »

The handling of those tapes were a massive mistake by all sides

but why didnt Furman say "No" instead of pleading the fifth again when Cochran asked if he planted evidence at the scene

Because if he said no to that then the jury would know for certain that by pleading his 5th amendment he was basically saying "yes I did that" to everything else that was asked to him.

Either he committed fully to the 5th amendment stance or not at all.

fin12

Was there only one jurior out of the whole jurey that voted guilty??

PeterTheEighth

fin12 wrote: »

Was there only one jurior out of the whole jurey that voted guilty??

From what I've read the decision had to be unanimous, that means ALL have to vote the same way. There were two dissenting voices, who thought that he was guilty. But I think they just saw that trying to convince the other ten was futile and voted with them.

fryup

can someone clarify something...was Furhman reading from a script? or was it his own actual words?

what was it for? research by a scriptwriter for a movie or something??

DerekDGoldfish

fryup wrote: »

can someone clarify something...was Furhman reading from a script? or was it his own actual words?

what was it for? research by a scriptwriter for a movie or something??

He was telling s scriptwriter stores of his time in the LAPD to give them ideas for movie scripts.apparently.

Arrow in the Knee

What I don't get is that he was shaving in his cell before going into court yet was unshaven in court for the verdict?

tampopo

Arrow in the Knee wrote: »

What I don't get is that he was shaving in his cell before going into court yet was unshaven in court for the verdict?

Ha! Really! I didn't notice. I did wonder about the shaving in the cell alright. Presumably it was just a plot device for the conversation with the prison guard.

I have to say, though I haven't seen the programme for about three weeks, I couldn't remember Shapiro or Kardashian from the original trial till the closing credits.

Travolta looked odd.