Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    La_Gordy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭La_Gordy


    PeterTheEighth wrote: »

    Every time I see Travolta I think of yer man out of The Mask.

    Hahahaha!


  • Options
    #93
    PeterTheEighth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,930 ✭✭✭PeterTheEighth


    And just one more video I found when I was on my OJ Simpson binge last year. This is a sketch that was done by Steve Harvey (more recently famous for calling out the wrong name of the Miss Universe winner) while the trial was going on. As well as being funny it's probably the most reasoned analysis of the case.

    Note before watching: the Heisman Trophy is an award given to the most outstanding college footballer, which OJ won in 1968.

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


  • Options
    #94
    Ben Gadot
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭Ben Gadot


    The latest episode was absolutely surreal, meltdown central. Slamming fists, threatening another lawyer, storming out of court in the middle of (albeit farce of a) testimony, the judge talking of his love for his wife....all on live TV! Mental.


  • Options
    #95
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Loved the scene where Shapiro tries to put the frighteners on Kardashian. "Maybe five years, you'll be out in two.". "What the f...?"

    The acting is great in this, a mixture of deadly seriousness and then some pantomime-esque scenery chewing stuff. I'd prefer the episodes were a bit longer though, maybe show two back to back. Yanks must take ad breaks every five minutes.


  • Options
    #96
    La_Gordy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭La_Gordy


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Loved the scene where Shapiro tries to put the frighteners on Kardashian. "Maybe five years, you'll be out in two.". "What the f...?"

    The acting is great in this, a mixture of deadly seriousness and then some pantomime-esque scenery chewing stuff. I'd prefer the episodes were a bit longer though, maybe show two back to back. Yanks must take ad breaks every five minutes.

    They are riddled wi ad breaks. Every 5 - 10 minutes to peddle some pharmaceutical pish.

    The show is gripping me more and more. What is painful is the prosecution clearly having a solid case, but media and popularity overruling it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    wawaman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭wawaman


    Ben Gadot wrote: »
    The latest episode was absolutely surreal, meltdown central. Slamming fists, threatening another lawyer, storming out of court in the middle of (albeit farce of a) testimony, the judge talking of his love for his wife....all on live TV! Mental.

    What i didnt know until recently was that the Judges wife was a cop. And as luck would have it one of the cops under her command at one point was Mark Furman....who on the tapes where he was heard racially abusing people, was also heard bad mouthing her


  • Options
    #98
    Tipsy McSwagger
    Registered Users Posts: 9,065 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    I finished the book by Toobin and watched both docs by Bugliosi. It's crazy how much the trial was messed up. First off the DA Garcetti should never have let the trial be held downtown in a prominent black area. He didn't realize he could have held it in Brentwood until Bugliosi pointed it out to him after the trial was over. Second the 'dream team' who defended Simpson were washed up lawyers apart from Cochran. Judge Ito was more concerned in how he was being portrayed by the media than running a proper trial and he made some massive mistakes, the main one being letting race become the main issue of the trial. The Jury were completely idiotic. As for the prosecution the fact that they didn't include into evidence the suicide note, the bronco chase, the money and disguise, and most importantly Simpsons interview with the police the day after the murders when he admits he doesn't know how he badly cut himself and bled all over his house,driveway and bronco shows how useless they were.


  • Options
    #99
    Cathy.C
    Closed Accounts Posts: 637 ✭✭✭Cathy.C


    I'm not sure I believe all the soul searching scenes with Robert Kardashian at all. I think it is a but of a myth that he had doubts to that degree all along mainly because he looked shocked at the sentence and people ran with it, but in other scenes moments later he looks delighted that same day. Kris Jenner has even said herself that it took him a long time to start to see things her way. This interview is a good example. You can't tell me this man doubts OJ's innocence.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88Cx64NMFXU



    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.


  • Options
    #100
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭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.

    very telling interview,

    *what does Kardashian say at the end (10.15) when Walters asks him "will OJ Simpson go to heaven?" ?????


  • Options
    #101
    DMcL1971
    Registered Users Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭DMcL1971


    fryup wrote: »
    very telling interview,

    *what does Kardashian say at the end (10.15) when Walters asks him "will OJ Simpson go to heaven?" ?????

    I'm not God, Barbara.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #103
    FloatingVoter
    Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #104
    whatawaster81
    Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #105
    Cathy.C
    Closed Accounts Posts: 637 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #106
    Tipsy McSwagger
    Registered Users Posts: 9,065 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #107
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #108
    PeterTheEighth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,930 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #109
    Cathy.C
    Closed Accounts Posts: 637 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #110
    FloatingVoter
    Registered Users Posts: 6,133 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #111
    KKkitty
    Registered Users Posts: 7,534 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    PeterTheEighth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,930 ✭✭✭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. :p


  • Options
    #113
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #114
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #115
    philstar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,986 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #116
    PeterTheEighth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,930 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #117
    Cathy.C
    Closed Accounts Posts: 637 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #118
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #119
    PeterTheEighth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,930 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #120
    wawaman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭wawaman


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    furiousox
    Registered Users Posts: 6,931 ✭✭✭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".

    CPL 593H



Advertisement