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
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Tipsy McSwagger
    Registered Users Posts: 9,065 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


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

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


  • Options
    #123
    Tipsy McSwagger
    Registered Users Posts: 9,065 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


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

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

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


  • Options
    #124
    PeterTheEighth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,930 ✭✭✭PeterTheEighth


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

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

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


  • Options
    #125
    PeterTheEighth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,930 ✭✭✭PeterTheEighth


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

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


  • Options
    #126
    Cianmcliam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 715 ✭✭✭Cianmcliam


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

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    wawaman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭wawaman


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

    Its worth reading for sheer audacity of it


  • Options
    #128
    PeterTheEighth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,930 ✭✭✭PeterTheEighth


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

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

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


  • Options
    #129
    dark crystal
    Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Well....


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

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

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


  • Options
    #130
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭fryup


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

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


  • Options
    #131
    fin12
    Registered Users Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭fin12


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    DMcL1971
    Registered Users Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭DMcL1971


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


  • Options
    #133
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    DMcL1971 wrote: »
    Did you turn off the show before the montage at the end? They summed up what has happened to every character since. That's about as closed off as you can get.

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


  • Options
    #134
    fin12
    Registered Users Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭fin12


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

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


  • Options
    #135
    furiousox
    Registered Users Posts: 6,949 ✭✭✭furiousox


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

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

    CPL 593H



  • Options
    #136
    DMcL1971
    Registered Users Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭DMcL1971


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

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


  • Options
    #137
    DMcL1971
    Registered Users Posts: 1,444 ✭✭✭DMcL1971


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


  • Options
    #138
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    **no spoilers please**


  • Options
    #139
    BorneTobyWilde
    Registered Users Posts: 35,888 ✭✭✭✭BorneTobyWilde


    Explosive episode


  • Options
    #140
    Capajoma
    Registered Users Posts: 254 ✭✭Capajoma


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


  • Options
    #141
    PeterTheEighth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,930 ✭✭✭PeterTheEighth


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

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    wawaman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,982 ✭✭✭wawaman


    The handling of those tapes were a massive mistake by all sides
    but why didnt Furman say "No" instead of pleading the fifth again when Cochran asked if he planted evidence at the scene


  • Options
    #143
    squonk
    Registered Users Posts: 8,896 ✭✭✭squonk


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


  • Options
    #144
    ERG89
    Registered Users Posts: 11,611 ✭✭✭✭ERG89


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


  • Options
    #145
    Cina
    Registered Users Posts: 2,387 ✭✭✭Cina


    wawaman wrote: »
    The handling of those tapes were a massive mistake by all sides
    but why didnt Furman say "No" instead of pleading the fifth again when Cochran asked if he planted evidence at the scene
    Because if he said no to that then the jury would know for certain that by pleading his 5th amendment he was basically saying "yes I did that" to everything else that was asked to him.

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


  • Options
    #146
    fin12
    Registered Users Posts: 10,934 ✭✭✭✭fin12


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


  • Options
    #147
    PeterTheEighth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,930 ✭✭✭PeterTheEighth


    fin12 wrote: »
    Was there only one jurior out of the whole jurey that voted guilty??

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


  • Options
    #148
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭fryup


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

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


  • Options
    #149
    DerekDGoldfish
    Registered Users Posts: 1,122 ✭✭✭DerekDGoldfish


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

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

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


  • Options
    #150
    Arrow in the Knee
    Registered Users Posts: 956 ✭✭✭Arrow in the Knee


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    tampopo
    Registered Users Posts: 2,333 ✭✭✭tampopo


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

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

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

    Travolta looked odd.


Advertisement