The People vs. OJ Simpson

[wadesworld]

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?

[reinko]

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.

[rocket surgeon]

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

[GGGG]

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. 

[jsglow]

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.

[Skitch]

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.

[StillAWarrior]

I recently heard from someone I respect that she read a book (O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It) 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?

[jsglow]

I recently heard from someone I respect that she read a book (O.J. Is Innocent and I Can Prove It) 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."

[ChicosBailBonds]

As my dad used to say, "Just remember that half the people in America graduated in the bottom half of their class."

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/8rh6qqsmxNs" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/8rh6qqsmxNs</a>

[warriorchick]

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.

[warriorchick]

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.

[tower912]

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. 

[4everwarriors]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

[Pakuni]

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.

[warriorchick]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[wadesworld]

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.

[wadesworld]

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?

[GGGG]

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.

[4everwarriors]

Yeah but, none of them cats could run thru airports for Hertz like that ass hole OJ, hey?

[Sir Lawrence]

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. 

[Golden Avalanche]

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.

[Dr. Blackheart]

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.

[keefe]

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.