Did anybody watch The People vs. OJ Simpson? Thoughts?
I just finished the show and I thought it was a well done show. Interesting and informative for someone who doesn't know a whole lot of the story beyond car chase and getting away with murder (like me). I was like 6 when this was happening, so I obviously wasn't following it when it happened. How well did they tell the story with this show?
I was in high school during this, but remember a bunch of it. Still think when the jury protested by wearing all black was one of the most underrated crazy moments of that whole ordeal.
excellent show/documentary. while watching it, the biggest/most reoccurring thought i had was-how the hell did they find him NOT guilty in the first place. the forensics alone trumped all the other b.s. smoke n mirrors. if i were the prosecution, i would have had glove experts testifying to what happens to gloves when they get drenched in blood and over time. what happens to ones hands when they become slightly bloated with fluids. and for God's sake, that half-assed attempt to put the glove on was laughable. how does one explain the bloody footprints and blood droplets away from the scene. both o.j.'s and the victims on the side that o.j. cut his finger. the blood in his house and washing machine. chicago, the infamous chase and faux suicide threats...too much. and he was acquitted?? sad sad sad
watching o.j. being interviewed during his depositions for the civil part, i've never seen a more narcissistic lying person in my life. karma baby! i hope he's made many new friends in the hooscow and he should never be allowed out
I am not watching the series, but my feeling is that if this happened today, he would be convicted easily. That type of forensic evidence was relatively new back then and I think the defense team did a good job confusing the jury about its validity.
The glove move by the prosecution was stupid.
And the reason I am not watching it is because I was disgusted with the whole episode. Not simply the fact that he was clearly guilty, but because of the obsession with the entire event. I think it is hard to fully understand how this dominated news coverage for months. I mean they pre-empted a NBA Finals game to show the Al Cowlings police chase.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on April 24, 2016, 07:30:59 AM
I am not watching the series, but my feeling is that if this happened today, he would be convicted easily. That type of forensic evidence was relatively new back then and I think the defense team did a good job confusing the jury about its validity.
The glove move by the prosecution was stupid.
And the reason I am not watching it is because I was disgusted with the whole episode. Not simply the fact that he was clearly guilty, but because of the obsession with the entire event. I think it is hard to fully understand how this dominated news coverage for months. I mean they pre-empted a NBA Finals game to show the Al Cowlings police chase.
No doubt that the average American now understands the near infallibility of DNA evidence. But as it pertains to OJ, I'm not 100% sure they would have gotten past the 'police corruption' issue with the typical LA jury.
Look, we all know OJ did it. I still believe it was the greatest miscarriage of justice I can recall.
Did anyone else take the Violent Crimes course at Marquette. It was taught by an FBI agent whose name I can't recall. I happened to be taking it during the trial and remember he showed us unedited crime scene photos.
I recently heard from someone I respect that she read a book (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1629146552?keywords=OJ%20simpson%20didn%27t%20do%20it&qid=1461021355&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2&pldnSite=1">O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It</a>) that changed her mind on OJ. I haven't read the book and am very skeptical because I've been convinced for years that OJ did it.
Apparently the upshot of the book is that the police/investigators/prosecutors were so convinced that OJ was guilty that they did not give consideration to other theories (sound familiar Making of a Muderer fans?). The book posits that OJ's oldest son from his first marriage actually committed the murders. OJ, who was trying to protect his son, ended up on the scene (which explains some of the evidence).
I haven't read the book, and I have my doubts. Just thought it was worth mentioning and wondering if anyone here has read it?
Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 24, 2016, 02:10:38 PM
I recently heard from someone I respect that she read a book (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1629146552?keywords=OJ%20simpson%20didn%27t%20do%20it&qid=1461021355&ref_=sr_1_2&sr=8-2&pldnSite=1">O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It</a>) that changed her mind on OJ. I haven't read the book and am very skeptical because I've been convinced for years that OJ did it.
Apparently the upshot of the book is that the police/investigators/prosecutors were so convinced that OJ was guilty that they did not give consideration to other theories (sound familiar Making of a Muderer fans?). The book posits that OJ's oldest son from his first marriage actually committed the murders. OJ, who was trying to protect his son, ended up on the scene (which explains some of the evidence).
I haven't read the book, and I have my doubts. Just thought it was worth mentioning and wondering if anyone here has read it?
As my dad used to say, "Just remember that half the people in America graduated in the bottom half of their class."
Quote from: jsglow on April 24, 2016, 04:23:53 PM
As my dad used to say, "Just remember that half the people in America graduated in the bottom half of their class."
(http://i.imgur.com/o7V81aM.jpg.jpg)
https://www.youtube.com/v/8rh6qqsmxNs
Quote from: jsglow on April 24, 2016, 04:23:53 PM
As my dad used to say, "Just remember that half the people in America graduated in the bottom half of their class."
And that's just the ones that actually managed to graduate.
I was trying a couple of weeks ago to get my kids to understand how incredible this story was as it was going on. No one under the age of 45 or 50 realizes what a cultural icon O.J. Simpson was before the murders.
Who in their lifetime is an equivalent? Would it be as if Michael Jordan murdered his wife? Probably not. O.J.'s public reputation was pristine. You can't say that about MJ.
I believe OJ did it. I did not blame the jury for their decision, as, IMO, OJ's lawyers ran rings around the prosecution. They created reasonable doubt. Sometimes, that is all it takes.
This case was lost when it was tried in downtown LA, rather than in Brentwood. Spoke volumes 'bout race relations in this country 20 years ago. Sadly, they're even worse today, ai na?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 24, 2016, 05:35:24 PM
This case was lost when it was tried in downtown LA, rather than in Brentwood. Spoke volumes 'bout race relations in this country 20 years ago. Sadly, they're even worse today, ai na?
Ding ding
Quote from: warriorchick on April 24, 2016, 05:17:37 PM
I was trying a couple of weeks ago to get my kids to understand how incredible this story was as it was going on. No one under the age of 45 or 50 realizes what a cultural icon O.J. Simpson was before the murders.
Who in their lifetime is an equivalent? Would it be as if Michael Jordan murdered his wife? Probably not. O.J.'s public reputation was pristine. You can't say that about MJ.
A Deadspin author was asked this question a few weeks back. The best answer he/they could come up with - and I think it's a good one - is Shaq.
A likeable former star athlete in LA with lots of movie and TV credits and a good reputation.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 24, 2016, 05:49:00 PM
A Deadspin author was asked this question a few weeks back. The best answer he/they could come up with - and I think it's a good one - is Shaq.
A likeable former star athlete in LA with lots of movie and TV credits and a good reputation.
There you go. I would have to agree.
Thing is, OJ had this national pristine reputation, but locally he was considered a douche. Much like Marcus Allen. People that interact with Marcus and a number of others know what complete d-bags they are. Reggie is the absolute worst. Folks knew about OJ knocking around Nicole out here as well, so to me that was a national misnomer more than a local one.
We got up and close with OJ back in the day when he was busted by our guys for stealing DIRECTV. Busted him in 2001 as the law allowed us to work with Federal, State and local officials to conduct raids of people we knew were stealing. We caught him in Florida where he had to move to after he was found guilty in the civil jury. He had protections in Florida he didn't in California. He had to pay $25,000 in a judgment in 2005 for stealing the service.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 24, 2016, 05:49:00 PM
A Deadspin author was asked this question a few weeks back. The best answer he/they could come up with - and I think it's a good one - is Shaq.
A likeable former star athlete in LA with lots of movie and TV credits and a good reputation.
That sounds pretty good. Again I was too young to be aware of OJ really, but what about LeBron? Most think he's a good, likeable guy and he's one of the greatest athletes ever.
Question regarding the trial...did the prosecution not push for a mistrial When the opportunity presented itself due to the wife of Judge Ito signing an affidavit saying she did not have any personal connections with Mark Fuhrman, among others, when she clearly did because they felt they were going to win the case? Or could they only have pushed for a mistrial if that part of the Fuhrman tapes were allowed in court?
The show made it seem like the prosecution knew they were in trouble and had a chance to push for a mistrial, in which case they pretty much couldn't lose the retrial. If it's because only the 2 sentences from the tapes were allowed, wouldn't that be even more cause for a mistrial? The judge only allowing a certain amount of that evidence into court to protect his wife?
Could his wife have faced legal issues because of her lying?
Quote from: wadesworld on April 24, 2016, 06:29:58 PM
That sounds pretty good. Again I was too young to be aware of OJ really, but what about LeBron? Most think he's a good, likeable guy and he's one of the greatest athletes ever.
But, unlike Lebron, OJ was well out of his playing career and was a minor celebrity. Shaq, or Barkley or Mike Strahan would be equivalents.
Yeah but, none of them cats could run thru airports for Hertz like that ass hole OJ, hey?
The prosecution should have tried their case in three to four weeks, tops. At the time, many in the trial lawyer world were of the opinion that the prosecution should have stepped aside and brought in outside counsel, like Gerry Spence, to try the case. The time drag played into the defense hands. Clark was schooled. Now she appears on the Ellen show as a minor celebrity. For losing a prosecutorial lay up. Incredible.
4ever is right about the race situation at the time. Wades, the resources extended for a trial of that length (unnecessary) meant that a mistrial scared the prosecution as much as a NG verdict.
As to the current show, it's exceptionally well done.
Racial issues are written as racial issues but without specifically mentioning that Rodney King was beaten senselessly by the LAPD (all acquitted) and captured on video just two years prior, and the subsequent racially tinged riots, seems to cover over that the OJ Simpson trial was just the perfect venue for the people to reassert their "power" in a complex scheme of racial triumph.
With the advent of CNN as a world channel, I was able to hear different global perspectives about the case while doing business in Asia. One, the Japanesse were quite proud, if not amazed, that one of their own could rise to the rank of a prominent judge on a famous case in America. Two, the takeaway was that only in America could a famous person face public justice, especially on TV--that the case would have been swept under the carpet in any other Asian country, and it certainly would be not heard by a jury of peers.
While I was personally embarrassed by way the American justice system was playing out to the point of it being cringe worthy, other parts of the world viewed this with admiration of a true democracy. I am not so sure that level of respect still exists, but perspective is everything.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on April 24, 2016, 09:38:58 PM
With the advent of CNN as a world channel, I was able to hear different global perspectives about the case while doing business in Asia. One, the Japanesse were quite proud, if not amazed, that one of their own could rise to the rank of a prominent judge on a famous case in America. Two, the takeaway was that only in America could a famous person face public justice, especially on TV--that the case would have been swept under the carpet in any other Asian country, and it certainly would be not heard by a jury of peers.
While I was personally embarrassed by way the American justice system was playing out to the point of it being cringe worthy, other parts of the world viewed this with admiration of a true democracy. I am not so sure that level of respect still exists, but perspective is everything.
We were living in Hong Kong when all of this happened and "The Chase" was not shown at all. There was little to no local coverage of the trial and frankly our lives were busy enough where we didn't feel we were missing anything.
A Danish couple had a party on verdict night (time difference) which was more of an excuse to have a party than it was for the verdict announcement itself. But when the big moment arrived you could hear a pin drop and the mostly European crowd cheered lustily when The Juice was exonerated.
Different people have different takes. A lot of Europeans genuinely believed that Simpson was innocent as they have little faith in the fairness of American jurisprudence.
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on April 24, 2016, 09:23:58 PM
Racial issues are written as racial issues but without specifically mentioning that Rodney King was beaten senselessly by the LAPD (all acquitted) and captured on video just two years prior, and the subsequent racially tinged riots, seems to cover over that the OJ Simpson trial was just the perfect venue for the people to reassert their "power" in a complex scheme of racial triumph.
great point! the juxtaposition pf these two played a huge role and probably neutered the prosecution somewhat. however, the prosecution still butchered this case. they were playing NOT to lose because of the racial element. all they had to do, among a few other things, was point out that o.j. himself didn't feel any allegiance to his race until he NEEDED them. what a surprise! al cowlings was one of the few holdovers. otherwise, everyone he hung around with was....
as for his defense-well that's why they called it the "dream team"
oh, and i wonder how o.j. is doing finding nicole and ron's real murderer
20+ years has been a long time in the development of race relations. While Shaq might be the best example, what the younger generation doesn't understand is that today's black celebrities don't have to deny their 'blackness' the way OJ carefully did. He was essentially a white man with a suntan and lived in a white man's world all for the purpose of maximizing his marketability to the white community. At the same time he had somehow avoided alienating the black community along the way. Today, more folks embrace the differences among people and the complete disassociation with one's roots isn't as necessary.
Another example of this might be Bill Cosby, regardless of his skin color. Bill's image was carefully crafted to be the doting father. Of course his real life story doesn't match that in one important way.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on April 25, 2016, 05:19:25 AM
great point! the juxtaposition pf these two played a huge role and probably neutered the prosecution somewhat. however, the prosecution still butchered this case. they were playing NOT to lose because of the racial element. all they had to do, among a few other things, was point out that o.j. himself didn't feel any allegiance to his race until he NEEDED them. what a surprise! al cowlings was one of the few holdovers. otherwise, everyone he hung around with was....
as for his defense-well that's why they called it the "dream team"
oh, and i wonder how o.j. is doing finding nicole and ron's real murderer
Playing the race card against Cochran was not going to end well for the prosecution. He was a master spin-artist and story-teller. He would have eaten them alive if they took the trial in that direction, especially given the make-up of the jury.
In addition to the huge mistake of having the trial in LA, the prosecution's two biggest mistakes were jury selection and failing to understand that the jury did not understand what DNA evidence actually meant. It was a very foreign concept at the time and went right over their heads (especially since they didn't have CNN to explain it to them like the general public) and instead they bought in to the defense team's well-told, though often conflicting, tales. For the most part, the jurors were looking for a reason to acquit and they found one.
I was in junior high in Tampa at the time of the trial, and while I wasn't paying that close of attention (far too many sports to play) I remember all the racial tensions it stirred up as a white kid going to a school where I was far in the minority. I think the show did a good job of showing just how f%&ked up the racial environment was back in that day. It's still not ideal but it really has come a long way. Someone mentioned how white OJ had to act, that's 100% true and now we've gotten to the point where people are upset because people who aren't black are "acting black"...it's progress.
What I think people miss with the trial(with the benefit of hindsight) is that while DNA was pretty new and may have flown over their heads, I think the jury was set to overlook the DNA. Given the political and racial elements of the environment of the time they were going to overlook a lot of stuff to find OJ not-guilty. The biggest mistakes the prosecution made were in not better handling the jury environment(they just got pissed as time went on and identified with OJ) and were Mark Furman.
The one complaint I have about the show(other than Cuba as OJ, I don't think people realize how physically intimidating OJ was) was that I don't think they drove home exactly how awful Furman was as a human being and as a witness. Never should have put him anywhere near the witness stand. And again I wasn't paying attention at the time I guess but at the end of the series they said Mark Furman was a commentator on Fox News, wha?????
Overall I thought it was a very good show and I especially enjoyed that at least once an episode something so crazy would happen(that actually happened) that my wife would say WTF they didn't make that up? Good stuff
Quote from: mu03eng on April 25, 2016, 08:56:23 AM
I was in junior high in Tampa at the time of the trial, and while I wasn't paying that close of attention (far too many sports to play) I remember all the racial tensions it stirred up as a white kid going to a school where I was far in the minority. I think the show did a good job of showing just how f%&ked up the racial environment was back in that day. It's still not ideal but it really has come a long way. Someone mentioned how white OJ had to act, that's 100% true and now we've gotten to the point where people are upset because people who aren't black are "acting black"...it's progress.
What I think people miss with the trial(with the benefit of hindsight) is that while DNA was pretty new and may have flown over their heads, I think the jury was set to overlook the DNA. Given the political and racial elements of the environment of the time they were going to overlook a lot of stuff to find OJ not-guilty. The biggest mistakes the prosecution made were in not better handling the jury environment(they just got pissed as time went on and identified with OJ) and were Mark Furman.
The one complaint I have about the show(other than Cuba as OJ, I don't think people realize how physically intimidating OJ was) was that I don't think they drove home exactly how awful Furman was as a human being and as a witness. Never should have put him anywhere near the witness stand. And again I wasn't paying attention at the time I guess but at the end of the series they said Mark Furman was a commentator on Fox News, wha?????
Overall I thought it was a very good show and I especially enjoyed that at least once an episode something so crazy would happen(that actually happened) that my wife would say WTF they didn't make that up? Good stuff
Totally agree with part 1 of this. The prosecution really never had a chance once the jury was selected the way it was. They also made a mistake of going on waaaaaay too long. Those folks just wanted to go home.
Not so sure about your Fuhrman analysis. Johnnie found one example of Fuhrman using the 'N word' and successfully widened that fissure into the Grand Canyon. It's a reality that the prosecution had to deal with as Fuhrman was a very key component in the discovery of evidence the night of the murder. Recall that he personally escorted Lang and VanAter to the Rockingham location because he had been there before on prior OJ matters. And he was the one that found the glove. With the backdrop of today's police misdeeds (Baltimore, Chicago, Manitowoc, the list goes on), the work that LAPD did that night was actually very good. Any departure from procedure (like the blood vial custody issue) was trivial and a red herring.
OJ did it. This was a case purely centered on jury nullification. God himself could have been a witness and testified and it wouldn't have mattered.
Simple motive, very simple case to try and get a conviction. Yet, Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden managed to fook it up. Kato Kaelin also knew da truth and played dumber than he is. To gain a not guilty verdict, da jury bought da bs that da cops planted OJ's blood at da crime scene. Unfookin' believable, ai na?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 25, 2016, 09:24:55 AM
Simple motive, very simple case to try and get a conviction. Yet, Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden managed to fook it up. Kato Kaelin also knew da truth and played dumber than he is. To gain a not guilty verdict, da jury bought da bs that da cops planted OJ's blood at da crime scene. Unfookin' believable, ai na?
Kato has said since, he knows OJ did it.
Quote from: jsglow on April 25, 2016, 06:50:54 AM
20+ years has been a long time in the development of race relations. While Shaq might be the best example, what the younger generation doesn't understand is that today's black celebrities don't have to deny their 'blackness' the way OJ carefully did. He was essentially a white man with a suntan and lived in a white man's world all for the purpose of maximizing his marketability to the white community. At the same time he had somehow avoided alienating the black community along the way. Today, more folks embrace the differences among people and the complete disassociation with one's roots isn't as necessary.
Another example of this might be Bill Cosby, regardless of his skin color. Bill's image was carefully crafted to be the doting father. Of course his real life story doesn't match that in one important way.
This is the generational divide many may not fully comprehend. 1994 saw nothing like Instagram or Twitter or Facebook. Mobile phones were in their infancy. People didn't scroll the internet reading TMZ. Heck, valets and waiters and baristas and gym employees weren't yet incentivized to spy and expose celebrities for a $1,000 wad of cash.
You could craft an image in careful means, in multiple aspects of the citizenry, and not worry as much about it being considered fake or contrived. And, at the time, television was the most powerful avenue to do so and OJ had perfected it all to a tee. For him to be involved in a controversy like this quite literally brought the country to a standstill.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 25, 2016, 09:27:33 AM
Kato has said since, he knows OJ did it.
Kato was a classmate in high school with da Mrs. 4ever. He made an appearance at da 25 year reunion and was treated like some fookin' rock star. Coulda absolutely buried OJ at da trial, but pussied out, ai na?
Quote from: Golden Avalanche on April 25, 2016, 09:28:45 AM
This is the generational divide many may not fully comprehend. 1994 saw nothing like Instagram or Twitter or Facebook. Mobile phones were in their infancy. People didn't scroll the internet reading TMZ. Heck, valets and waiters and baristas and gym employees weren't yet incentivized to spy and expose celebrities for a $1,000 wad of cash.
You could craft an image in careful means, in multiple aspects of the citizenry, and not worry as much about it being considered fake or contrived. And, at the time, television was the most powerful avenue to do so and OJ had perfected it all to a tee. For him to be involved in a controversy like this quite literally brought the country to a standstill.
Very well said.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 25, 2016, 09:42:41 AM
Kato was a classmate in high school with da Mrs. 4ever. He made an appearance at da 25 year reunion and was treated like some fookin' rock star. Coulda absolutely buried OJ at da trial, but pussied out, ai na?
Not correct at all. Kato testified fully and truthfully about what he knew and experienced that night as I recall. None of his testimony in any way conflicted with the facts and I don't think he had any additional evidence to provide. If someone is aware of specific info Kato withheld I'm all ears. And I believe what Kato has said since is that he's firmly convinced that OJ did it. Well, da.
On the other hand, there was strong suggestion that an accomplice may have 'cleaned up' after OJ left for Chicago. The most likely party was his daughter Arnelle. It is speculated that she might have run the washer and failed to reset the house alarm in the wee hours of the morning.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 25, 2016, 09:27:33 AM
Kato has said since, he knows OJ did it.
Johnnie Cochran told Harvard Law classes that O.J. did it.
Here's another interesting tidbit. Prosecutors were fully within their rights to file the case in Santa Monica (the actual jurisdiction for the crime) rather than LA. The composition of the jury would have likely been considerably different than the 9 black, 1 Hispanic, 2 white composition that actually heard and decided the case.
Mrs. MU82 and I very much enjoyed the show - way more than we thought we would. We didn't have time to watch it when it was first being aired, so I kept DVRing the episodes. Finally, about 6-7 episodes in, we watched. We were so enthralled that we binge-watched them over just a few nights.
It was a compelling, true story - well-told and mostly well-acted.
I am 55, so I obviously was an adult when it was all going on, but I was surprised at how little I remembered. Many times, I'd find myself saying, "Oh yeah, that was how that happened ... " Looking back at how the trial captivated America, especially black America, is really eye-opening.
Clark and Darden came through as incompetent and overly emotional. I thought those two characters were especially well-acted. Cochrane's character also was acted superbly.
Travolta was over the top but actually better than I thought he'd be. Nathan Lane was OK in his relatively limited role. Schwimmer was not convincing at all - but I did get a kick out of the portrayal of the then-young Kardashian girls.
Initially, I had trouble getting past Cuba Gooding as O.J. First, and most obviously, O.J. was physically imposing. Cuba? A relative shrimp. It was as if Jonah Hill were to play Babe Ruth.
As the season went on, though, I thought Cuba did a good job. I thought he was especially good in the latter episodes, portraying a Juice who actually had convinced himself he was innocent.
All in all, it was one of the past year's best TV shows. Interesting, thought-provoking and quite often entertaining.
Personally, I largely avoided the show. Fred Goldman had suggested that it failed to make any attempt to capture the victim's story and that he was not even asked for an interview. I'm skeptical of a 'documentary' these days that might have an agenda (not saying this one did) in the aftermath of Making a Murderer.
For those of you that watched it, do recall that it's not a trial transcript.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 25, 2016, 09:27:33 AM
Kato has said since, he knows OJ did it.
I believe this is false. I watched an interview with Kato where the interviewer brought up an article that said the author spoke to Kato and Kato said that without a doubt OJ did it. Kato said that he had never even been asked for an interview from the author so he has no idea where the author got that from, but that he truly believes OJ did it, but he cannot prove it.
Another question on the show. Obviously I knew about the glove fiasco and trying it on in court. Is that really how it happened? Court went to recess and Robert Shapiro was able to walk up to the unattended glove on the witness stand and put it on with nothing else on his hands? That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense...
Also, my first reaction to it "not fitting" was that he had a latex glove on over his hands, so of course it wouldn't fit. Why wouldn't the prosecution raise this issue? And how could Shapiro walk up to it with no gloves on and try it on?
Quote from: wadesworld on April 25, 2016, 10:59:22 AM
Another question on the show. Obviously I knew about the glove fiasco and trying it on in court. Is that really how it happened? Court went to recess and Robert Shapiro was able to walk up to the unattended glove on the witness stand and put it on with nothing else on his hands? That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense...
Also, my first reaction to it "not fitting" was that he had a latex glove on over his hands, so of course it wouldn't fit. Why wouldn't the prosecution raise this issue? And how could Shapiro walk up to it with no gloves on and try it on?
According to a Vanity Fair fact-checking article...
Shapiro tried on the crime-scene gloves in evidence during a courtroom break.
True. So did Cochran, according to Lawrence Schiller's American Tragedy. But the defense just planned "at some time in the future" to have O.J. put on the gloves before the jury.http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-7-recap (http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-7-recap)
Quote from: jsglow on April 25, 2016, 10:49:16 AM
Personally, I largely avoided the show. Fred Goldman had suggested that it failed to make any attempt to capture the victim's story and that he was not even asked for an interview. I'm skeptical of a 'documentary' these days that might have an agenda (not saying this one did) in the aftermath of Making a Murderer.
For those of you that watched it, do recall that it's not a trial transcript.
I definitely know that it embellished some things, and I absolutely don't take it as anything close to gospel.
It still was good entertainment, and an interesting look back at a huge event that happened in my lifetime. That's all I'm saying.
Quote from: MU82 on April 25, 2016, 11:35:15 AM
I definitely know that it embellished some things, and I absolutely don't take it as anything close to gospel.
It still was good entertainment, and an interesting look back at a huge event that happened in my lifetime. That's all I'm saying.
I hear ya. Chick watched it.
Always wondered what was in the garment bag that Kardashian walked out of OJ's house in hand. And why he was not stopped and questioned
Quote from: elephantraker on April 25, 2016, 11:43:39 AM
Always wondered what was in the garment bag that Kardashian walked out of OJ's house in hand. And why he was not stopped and questioned
Don't know if this was based on the truth or not, but there was a scene in the miniseries where days later, Robert Kardashian very nervously opens up the garment bag and looks through it. He finds nothing and looks relieved.
One of the most interesting parts of the miniseries was the depiction of Robert Kardashian's slow realization that O.J. did it. He went from being a guy who could never imagine his best friend committing this crime to one who ran to the courthouse bathroom and vomited after the verdict was read. Of course, most of this did not play out in the press at the time, but my most distinctive memory of watching the verdict was the look on Robert Kadashian's face. He stood there, stunned, as the rest of the defense team hugged OJ and each other.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on April 25, 2016, 09:42:41 AM
Kato was a classmate in high school with da Mrs. 4ever. He made an appearance at da 25 year reunion and was treated like some fookin' rock star. Coulda absolutely buried OJ at da trial, but pussied out, ai na?
Did Kato ask to spend a few nights/years on your couch afterwards?
Sometime watch the verdict YouTube once again. Bob's reaction is obvious. He knew the truth in his soul.
Vox.com also has a very good episode by episode fact check guide featuring a reporter who covered the trial. As my husband and I watched, there were many places where we both said simultaneously "that did not happen" and sure enough, it was a dramatization to show an event while saving story time. For example, the first assistant DA did not collapse in the courtroom, but he did leave the trial for health reasons. Other things that seemed preposterous really did happen, like the redecoration of OJ's home for the jury tour (and overall, the jury tour of the crime scenes in general - who does that?
It's important to remember that this was a dramatization - not a documentary - but overall it did a good job of depicting the circus around the trial and the racial views of the day. And OJ really was a god in those days. Even white folks had a hard time believing he did it - until later when he stupidly commited armed robbery to steal some of his sports memorabilia back from a dealer at a Las Vegas show.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on April 25, 2016, 12:46:52 PM
Did Kato ask to spend a few nights/years on your couch afterwards?
I remember back in the day People magazine ran an article on Kato and it had a few pictures of him from Nicolet High School. In one, he was wearing a sweatshirt with the school name on it, but his arm was covering part of it so all you could see was "Nicole". There was also an action shot of him on the football team in which he was throwing a block for someone wearing a number 32 jersey. Eerie.
Quote from: MomofMUltiples on April 25, 2016, 12:58:08 PM
Vox.com also has a very good episode by episode fact check guide featuring a reporter who covered the trial. As my husband and I watched, there were many places where we both said simultaneously "that did not happen" and sure enough, it was a dramatization to show an event while saving story time. For example, the first assistant DA did not collapse in the courtroom, but he did leave the trial for health reasons. Other things that seemed preposterous really did happen, like the redecoration of OJ's home for the jury tour (and overall, the jury tour of the crime scenes in general - who does that?
It's important to remember that this was a dramatization - not a documentary - but overall it did a good job of depicting the circus around the trial and the racial views of the day. And OJ really was a god in those days. Even white folks had a hard time believing he did it - until later when he stupidly commited armed robbery to steal some of his sports memorabilia back from a dealer at a Las Vegas show.
I don't think this is that uncommon? I know for sure it happens on occasion. But I was shocked to see they had OJ walking around the scene with the jury. That was just odd.
Quote from: warriorchick on April 25, 2016, 12:44:25 PM
One of the most interesting parts of the miniseries was the depiction of Robert Kardashian's slow realization that O.J. did it. He went from being a guy who could never imagine his best friend committing this crime to one who ran to the courthouse bathroom and vomited after the verdict was read. Of course, most of this did not play out in the press at the time, but my most distinctive memory of watching the verdict was the look on Robert Kadashian's face. He stood there, stunned, as the rest of the defense team hugged OJ and each other.
Agree 100%. I was very surprised to find his story to be the most interesting side story. Not only was he slowly realizing that his best friend was a murderer, but he was a member of his defense team trying to get an acquittal. Schwimmer did some excellent work with the part...although it was mildly distracting that he was so much bigger than Cuba Gooding.
Quote from: wadesworld on April 25, 2016, 01:01:38 PM
I don't think this is that uncommon? I know for sure it happens on occasion. But I was shocked to see they had OJ walking around the scene with the jury. That was just odd.
It's pretty uncommon, but I've seen it happen in a few trials.
They definitely keep the defendant well separated from the jurors, but the defendant has an absolute right to be there, and usually is (cause road trip!. It's a part of one's right to face an accuser, which is generally expanded to mean you have the right to see all evidence presented against you.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 25, 2016, 01:46:13 PM
It's pretty uncommon, but I've seen it happen in a few trials.
They definitely keep the defendant well separated from the jurors, but the defendant has an absolute right to be there, and usually is (cause road trip!. It's a part of one's right to face an accuser, which is generally expanded to mean you have the right to see all evidence presented against you.
Interesting. I had no idea.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 25, 2016, 01:06:35 PM
Agree 100%. I was very surprised to find his story to be the most interesting side story. Not only was he slowly realizing that his best friend was a murderer, but he was a member of his defense team trying to get an acquittal. Schwimmer did some excellent work with the part...although it was mildly distracting that he was so much bigger than Cuba Gooding.
And I thought Schwimmer was pretty bad and thought the character would have been served better by a superior actor.
Vive la difference!
Quote from: MU82 on April 25, 2016, 03:12:54 PM
And I thought Schwimmer was pretty bad and thought the character would have been served better by a superior actor.
Vive la difference!
Lots of Emmy buzz for Schwimmer.
Quote from: warriorchick on April 25, 2016, 03:44:17 PM
Lots of Emmy buzz for Schwimmer.
There you go.
I've never seen Big Bang Theory and it wins 100 Emmys a year, so what the hell do I know?
Quote from: MU82 on April 25, 2016, 04:00:49 PM
There you go.
I've never seen Big Bang Theory and it wins 100 Emmys a year, so what the hell do I know?
i don't watch sitcoms except big bang and modern family-that's it. can watch reruns after reruns after...jim parsons from big bang is an incredible talent. i'm not a theater/shakespeare et.al. guy, but i'd pay to see him do shakespeare without falling asleep
I was lawyering about 12 yrs when this went down. I worked with a guy who had been Chief Felony Prosecutor--Capital Crimes Unit for Harris County (just having shifted over to work with we civil attorneys) . In Houston he prosecuted and won some very high profile murder trials.
While daily watching the action with him at work...he was our expert.
I remember he was very critical of : 1)forum choice, 2) couldn't believe how the defense almost hijacked jury selection in their favor ( he said he would have had the state also hire a selection consultant, like the defense); 3) that you never allow demonstrations of physical evidence; 4) that you'd seal off the home and video it....to prevent the "staging" done by Cochran 5) that you try to limit all testimony of actions in investigation....just elicit what was found and where...ie scope of Furman testimony was way too detailed; 6) That you try to find reasons to have the victim's family testify...ie once you got in the prior beating stuff...call family members who cry a lot and say they too were aware of that (the jury makes the link to the crime better, hearing from them); and 7) the sheer trial length was destructive of theme and of highlighting their 4-5 best evidence points;
He acknowledged though that once the race issue was keyed to defense, no prosecutor can really blunt the momentum.... he said he would have closing argued to remind jurors of their sworn oath to "set aside all prejudice" ie he thought it important to challenge them to do exactly what they SWORE to do. Dont argue or apologize over race like darden did...make them realize they swore an oath to set that point aside
The show itself was fine...I tutored and gained all my insight from my buddy and at the verdict...he said....I think I would have done it better...smiled...and then said....but I still might have lost, too
Reasonable doubt can be in the minutial level and support a not guilty...too many holes in the case as it was presented left that door open and the jury slammed it. That he did it is lacking in relevance...the issue is did the state meet its sole, and undelegable burden in proving it beyond any reasonable doubt...the jury said it did not
Quote from: MU82 on April 25, 2016, 04:00:49 PM
There you go.
I've never seen Big Bang Theory and it wins 100 Emmys a year, so what the hell do I know?
You would enjoy it I think.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 25, 2016, 10:25:50 PM
You would enjoy it I think.
That is what my brother told me so we tried it, terrible, please name the last show that was any good and used a laugh track because that one isn't it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 25, 2016, 10:25:50 PM
You would enjoy it I think.
Meh. I have seen it a few times. 22 minutes of nerd jokes.
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on April 26, 2016, 09:48:35 AM
That is what my brother told me so we tried it, terrible, please name the last show that was any good and used a laugh track because that one isn't it.
you have to be patient enough with it to understand the character development. once you've established that, it's clever and funny as balls. same with modern family-character development-eric stonestreet is incredible
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on April 26, 2016, 09:48:35 AM
That is what my brother told me so we tried it, terrible, please name the last show that was any good and used a laugh track because that one isn't it.
Seinfeld...which went off the air 18 years go.
Wife and I tried on multiple occasions to watch Big Bang...but found it unfunny and painful to watch. Happy/relieved to hear that we're not the only ones.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on April 26, 2016, 10:56:32 AM
you have to be patient enough with it to understand the character development. once you've established that, it's clever and funny as balls. same with modern family-character development-eric stonestreet is incredible
Modern Family is the only network comedy we watch. It's not as funny as it used to be and the plot is the exact same pretty much every week:
Character A tries to deceive Character B about some issue; Character B gets suspicious as Character A's deception gets goofier and goofier; Character A finally fesses up but that's OK with Character B, who loves Character A anyway. Toss in a little sexual innuendo and a cute line or two for Lily. Wrap it up and get ready for next week.Despite that, it has mostly good acting and several good chuckles most weeks.
I'm sure there might be another show or two worth watching, but we can't watch everything. We already have too much on HBO, SHOW, FX, AMC, Netflix, etc. Those are in addition to sports, news, etc.
Can't watch everything!
Quote from: MU82 on April 26, 2016, 11:13:34 AM
Modern Family is the only network comedy we watch. It's not as funny as it used to be and the plot is the exact same pretty much every week: Character A tries to deceive Character B about some issue; Character B gets suspicious as Character A's deception gets goofier and goofier; Character A finally fesses up but that's OK with Character B, who loves Character A anyway. Toss in a little sexual innuendo and a cute line or two for Lily. Wrap it up and get ready for next week.
Despite that, it has mostly good acting and several good chuckles most weeks.
I'm sure there might be another show or two worth watching, but we can't watch everything. We already have too much on HBO, SHOW, FX, AMC, Netflix, etc. Those are in addition to sports, news, etc.
Can't watch everything!
It don't know that I totally agree with the cookie cutter criticism but I get your POV on it. They've earned a lot of leeway with me after the "Apple" episode last season, it was brilliant television
Quote from: mu03eng on April 26, 2016, 11:17:01 AM
It don't know that I totally agree with the cookie cutter criticism but I get your POV on it. They've earned a lot of leeway with me after the "Apple" episode last season, it was brilliant television
Well, of course the character doing the deceiving and the one being deceived changes every episode. And the nature and scope of the deception changes, too. But seriously, watch any episode and let me know if this isn't a major theme - if not the major theme. It hasn't ruined it for me; it actually cracks me up as my wife and I try to guess who the deceiver/deceived will be before we watch every episode.
And yes, the Apple one was hilarious. The show still is often quite funny.
And speaking of funny ...
Just watched the season opener of Veep. My wife and I couldn't stop laughing. It was as funny as anything they've ever done, especially the first 10-15 minutes. Dreyfus is a national comedy treasure.
Quote from: MU82 on April 26, 2016, 01:36:10 PM
Just watched the season opener of Veep. My wife and I couldn't stop laughing. It was as funny as anything they've ever done, especially the first 10-15 minutes. Dreyfus is a national comedy treasure.
They have set the bar pretty high. I have never seen a bad episode of this show. They have amassed both a great set of characters and the actors who portray them.
The "Founding F***ers" line was one of the funniest ever.
Quote from: MU82 on April 26, 2016, 01:36:10 PM
Well, of course the character doing the deceiving and the one being deceived changes every episode. And the nature and scope of the deception changes, too. But seriously, watch any episode and let me know if this isn't a major theme - if not the major theme. It hasn't ruined it for me; it actually cracks me up as my wife and I try to guess who the deceiver/deceived will be before we watch every episode.
And yes, the Apple one was hilarious. The show still is often quite funny.
And speaking of funny ...
Just watched the season opener of Veep. My wife and I couldn't stop laughing. It was as funny as anything they've ever done, especially the first 10-15 minutes. Dreyfus is a national comedy treasure.
Modern Family was an excellent show that's past its prime. It still has Phil and some great one-liners and it still cranks out the occasional hilarious episode, but its largely just going through the motions at this point. It'd be interesting if they had Cam and Mitchell get divorced. It'd be a new outlet for some awkward comedy (while still having heart) and be a "ground-breaking" shake-up for several reasons. It'll obviously never happen but it would actually make sense considering those two characters often don't seem to like each other.
Veep is the best show since Arrested Development.
Quote from: brandx on April 26, 2016, 01:56:12 PM
They have set the bar pretty high. I have never seen a bad episode of this show. They have amassed both a great set of characters and the actors who portray them.
The "Founding F***ers" line was one of the funniest ever.
Yes, it is consistently funny. I just don't remember laughing quite as much as I did this time. Maybe it was just the chance to see truly hilarious TV again.
Kevin Dunn, who plays the chief of staff, was especially funny. Again, he's always funny ... and maybe it was absence making my heart grow fonder ... but I laughed loudly at probably a half-dozen of his lines. Had to rewind the DVR a couple times because our laughter made us miss the next line!
Julia Louis-Dreyfus is amazing in this show. She was, obviously, spectacular in Seinfeld. She even made New Christine watchable - hell with watchable; it was funnier than most things on today. Selina Meyer was THE perfect role for her.
What a comedic actress. There haven't been too many as funny in TV history.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 26, 2016, 02:05:53 PM
Veep is the best show since Arrested Development.
Us fans of a little show that airs just before Veep beg to differ.
And I assume by show you mean sitcom.
Quote from: Pakuni on April 26, 2016, 02:18:10 PM
Us fans of a little show that airs just before Veep beg to differ.
And I assume by show you mean sitcom.
Nope. I meant show.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on April 26, 2016, 02:27:15 PM
Nope. I meant show.
Maybe the best two hour lineup in the history of television.
Russ Hanneman's explanation how he wanted the doors to open on his car (last year) was one of the funniest things I have seen on TV.
Quote from: MU82 on April 26, 2016, 11:13:34 AM
Modern Family is the only network comedy we watch. It's not as funny as it used to be and the plot is the exact same pretty much every week: Character A tries to deceive Character B about some issue; Character B gets suspicious as Character A's deception gets goofier and goofier; Character A finally fesses up but that's OK with Character B, who loves Character A anyway. Toss in a little sexual innuendo and a cute line or two for Lily. Wrap it up and get ready for next week.
Despite that, it has mostly good acting and several good chuckles most weeks.
I'm sure there might be another show or two worth watching, but we can't watch everything. We already have too much on HBO, SHOW, FX, AMC, Netflix, etc. Those are in addition to sports, news, etc.
Can't watch everything!
Try Blackish - it has its moments.
Quote from: brandx on April 26, 2016, 03:06:23 PM
Maybe the best two hour lineup in the history of television.
Russ Hanneman's explanation how he wanted the doors to open on his car (last year) was one of the funniest things I have seen on TV.
Agreed.
(http://www.gifsco.com/g/PJjvrH31.gif)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 24, 2016, 05:55:12 PM
Thing is, OJ had this national pristine reputation, but locally he was considered a douche. Much like Marcus Allen. People that interact with Marcus and a number of others know what complete d-bags they are. Reggie is the absolute worst. Folks knew about OJ knocking around Nicole out here as well, so to me that was a national misnomer more than a local one.
We got up and close with OJ back in the day when he was busted by our guys for stealing DIRECTV. Busted him in 2001 as the law allowed us to work with Federal, State and local officials to conduct raids of people we knew were stealing. We caught him in Florida where he had to move to after he was found guilty in the civil jury. He had protections in Florida he didn't in California. He had to pay $25,000 in a judgment in 2005 for stealing the service.
I had many dealings with him. You are absolutely correct he was a d bag on every possible level. The miracles of advertising and marketing glossed him up.
The second of the five part 30 for 30 on OJ Simpson is getting better than the first.
OJ's interview after his arrest for the beating of Nicole on New Years is absolutely disgusting.
Some haunting images in last night's episode.
The combination of having seen the FX series and now the 30 for 30 is really interesting. The FX series focused more on OJ and the trial and everything that went into that while the 30 for 30 goes more into the history of the LAPD and the racial issues surrounding the case and then gets a lot of good interviews with people that were part of the trial and personal friends of Nicole and/or OJ.
I watched both the FX and ESPN versions of OJ. The story is well-known. The mistakes obvious for any objective observer. The trial was simply too long and the sloppiness of the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office in failing to understand there was a Panther in the jury box, that Mark Furhman had a very unfortunate set of tapes and the inability to seal off there crime scene and overseeing the LAPD from the beginning was ridiculous.
Two things were interesting about it. One was the framing of the case in the black/white narrative that was Los Angeles. Frankly, that's why OJ walked. The second was the post-conviction world OJ found himself it. The ESPN piece was particularly good at framing the change in the Juice's life and the aftershock he faced from a public that in many cases no longer idolized him.
Maybe I spent too much time at Marquette, but I never did get why he didn't divorce her, walk away and get on with his life. Obsessions of any kind are just bad for you (except when they involve our Warriors!).
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 19, 2016, 04:22:35 PM
Maybe I spent too much time at Marquette, but I never did get why he didn't divorce her, walk away and get on with his life. Obsessions of any kind are just bad for you (except when they involve our Warriors!).
They already were divorced. He killed her because he couldn't stand seeing her living a life apart from his.
Impressed wit the entire 30 4 30 production, hey?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 19, 2016, 06:01:33 PM
Impressed wit the entire 30 4 30 production, hey?
Pretty good. Thought the history leading up to the trial was a bit long for my liking personally, and thought they could've gone more into why decisions were made on each side of the trial, but well done overall, as always.
Quote from: wadesworld on June 19, 2016, 06:45:00 PM
Pretty good. Thought the history leading up to the trial was a bit long for my liking personally, and thought they could've gone more into why decisions were made on each side of the trial, but well done overall, as always.
I actually thought that was the best part. I have been trying to articulate my kids why O.J. going on trial for murder was such an incredible story, and this series did a great job of explaining his place in American pop culture.
Quote from: warriorchick on June 19, 2016, 04:49:08 PM
They already were divorced. He killed her because he couldn't stand seeing her living a life apart from his.
Were they or were they separated and in the process of divorce?
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 19, 2016, 08:13:12 PM
Were they or were they separated and in the process of divorce?
Divorced in 1992.
Mrs. MU82 and I FINALLY watched all five parts. It had been sitting in our DVR for a while before we had the time.
I loved Part 1 because it reminded me how incredible OJ was as a football player. I grew up as a sports fan in the early '70s, so I don't remember seeing him in college or when he first struggled with the Bills. My memories of his playing days are of how spectacular he was. If he isn't the best RB I've seen, he's in the top few. He was so fluid and ran so tall, but he could cut and had power, too. Dickerson was kind of like him, but OJ welcomed contact more.
So seeing OJ first at USC, which was new to me, and then during his great years with the Bills ... it was really cool.
I also liked how they framed it against the racial times that existed then. No matter where one stands on it politically, it was really interesting, and it helps explain why they really never had a chance to convict OJ.
They interviewed two jurors often, and I got a lot out of those. One was a highly intelligent woman, maybe late-40s or early-50s, who really struggled with so much about the case. She did not believe OJ but in the end, she felt she had no choice but to acquit him because the prosecution failed so miserably. The other was an old lady without teeth who basically said, "OJ is black, the cops were white and racist, and I was never gonna convict him."
I also thought the Marcia Clark interviews were great, very enlightening. I thought the actress who played Marcia in the docudrama was excellent, but Marcia was even better as Marcia - ha!
On a scale of 1-5, Jim brown gives Eric a 5 for rushing, a 5 for speed, and a 1 for heart. In terms of "domination" , he likes OJ, Sayers. peyton, and Campbell , in no particular order.
I had forgotten that OJ had world class speed:
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-17/sports/sp-4512_1_years-ago-today
Brown says that oj also had tremendous upper body strength and "a precise sense of when to accelerate". Says he "ran with great determination", "there would be no hesitation before a hit", and "at his best, OJ had a lot of heart".
Quote from: Mutaman on July 07, 2016, 12:16:09 PM
On a scale of 1-5, Jim brown gives Eric a 5 for rushing, a 5 for speed, and a 1 for heart. In terms of "domination" , he likes OJ, Sayers. peyton, and Campbell , in no particular order.
I had forgotten that OJ had world class speed:
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-17/sports/sp-4512_1_years-ago-today
Brown says that oj also had tremendous upper body strength and "a precise sense of when to accelerate". Says he "ran with great determination", "there would be no hesitation before a hit", and "at his best, OJ had a lot of heart".
That's interesting stuff.
I didn't move to Chicago until after Payton retired -- and my kids eventually attended Walter Payton Prep. I had many conversations with many Chicagoans and when I said I thought OJ was better than Payton, they didn't care for that! In reality, they were 1 and 1A for me, and I'm not really sure of the order.
I loved watching Campbell, too. Also Emmitt Smith for his consistency and toughness, though I don't think he was as good as the others. Dickerson, Sanders and Dorsett were a couple steps down.
Csonka is my choice for "best pure fullback" ever. Some call Brown a fullback because he was big, but Brown usually lined up behind Cleveland's other back in an I-formation. Csonka usually was the fullback; that he was able to get as much yardage as he did from that position, when the defense knew what was coming, was a testiment to his brute strength and the Dolphins' fine offensive line.
Brown and Sayers were before my time, though both are spectacular on film. If I were rating off that, I'd probably dismiss Sayers in best-ever conversation for not playing enough games.
So many say Brown is the best ever that I'm thinking he must have been. It's like when I'll tell my grandkids that Jordan was the best ever ... they'll believe me!
Quote from: MU82 on July 07, 2016, 02:52:34 PM
That's interesting stuff.
I didn't move to Chicago until after Payton retired -- and my kids eventually attended Walter Payton Prep. I had many conversations with many Chicagoans and when I said I thought OJ was better than Payton, they didn't care for that! In reality, they were 1 and 1A for me, and I'm not really sure of the order.
I loved watching Campbell, too. Also Emmitt Smith for his consistency and toughness, though I don't think he was as good as the others. Dickerson, Sanders and Dorsett were a couple steps down.
Csonka is my choice for "best pure fullback" ever. Some call Brown a fullback because he was big, but Brown usually lined up behind Cleveland's other back in an I-formation. Csonka usually was the fullback; that he was able to get as much yardage as he did from that position, when the defense knew what was coming, was a testiment to his brute strength and the Dolphins' fine offensive line.
Brown and Sayers were before my time, though both are spectacular on film. If I were rating off that, I'd probably dismiss Sayers in best-ever conversation for not playing enough games.
So many say Brown is the best ever that I'm thinking he must have been. It's like when I'll tell my grandkids that Jordan was the best ever ... they'll believe me!
I guess you've never heard of John Kuhn...
"Brown says that oj also had tremendous upper body strength and "a precise sense of when to accelerate"."
obviously she said this before she was fillet'd, ayn'a
Quote from: Mutaman on July 07, 2016, 12:16:09 PM
On a scale of 1-5, Jim brown gives Eric a 5 for rushing, a 5 for speed, and a 1 for heart. In terms of "domination" , he likes OJ, Sayers. peyton, and Campbell , in no particular order.
I had forgotten that OJ had world class speed:
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-17/sports/sp-4512_1_years-ago-today
Brown says that oj also had tremendous upper body strength and "a precise sense of when to accelerate". Says he "ran with great determination", "there would be no hesitation before a hit", and "at his best, OJ had a lot of heart".
Lots of greats there. I also think Barry Sanders was right up there with the best of them, but probably doesn't get his due because he retired so early. In addition to over 15,000 yards, he typically carried over 300 times per season, averaged exactly 5 yards per carry over his career, and less than 2.7 fumbles per year. And on a team that typically had no passing attack, opponents were always keying on him. Pretty amazing.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on July 07, 2016, 03:19:27 PM
"Brown says that oj also had tremendous upper body strength and "a precise sense of when to accelerate"."
obviously she said this before she was fillet'd, ayn'a
The Brown referred to was James, not Nicole.