2 hour interview with Marcia Clark tonight on Dateline.

The prosecution was screwed when the glove "didn't fit" - they had to come up with some explanation for it. What a disaster.

Reading Marcia Clark's book now - very good, obviously biased, but still an interesting read. She hates her some Lance Ito. Hates.

She makes so many good points on the glove. Every cop at the murder scene, long before Fuhrman left for Rockingham, noted only ONE glove at Bundy. Dozens of cops and photographers documented that. There wasn't a second glove to move and plant. But that jury had zero interest in logic.

This was posted on the AO thread. Compelling read about OJs son.

http://www.businessinsider.com/oj-simpson-murders-and-jason-simpson-2014-6?op=1

Wow. That article was doing some serious reaching. Jason might have had issues but, it wasn't Jason's blood at the scene, in the Bronco, on the floor of the foyer or in OJ's bedroom. That alleged time of the murder doesn't match the witness testimony, and is still in the window in which OJ didn't have an alibi.

The only thing compelling about that article is that a violent, psychopathic killer had an offspring that may be nuts too.

Here comes Furman

This is great TV. Casting and acting is spot on. Love the pacing too.

How did the prosecution not object to the defense asking the cop where he lived (completely irrelevant) and the use of the "N" word when questioning Furman?

I'd most of this is true I feel so bad for Marcia Clark. She got hammered left and right this whole trial. The grocery store clerk was too much. I hope that was made up.
Did her and Chris have a thing in real life?

quote:

---

I'd most of this is true I feel so bad for Marcia Clark. She got hammered left and right this whole trial. The grocery store clerk was too much. I hope that was made up.
Did her and Chris have a thing in real life?

---

Haven't finished watching this one, but yes, there were rumors of an affair. I can't remember if the rumors started during or after the trial.
Some of the TV show sensationalism is to get the point across in a small amount of time. Remember what the mock jury said about her and the advice she received. That seems to be true, but ignored by the da and her. One of many mistakes they made to lose this.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/marcia-clark-people-v-oj-simpson-episode-six.html

She's pretty fair that the events didn't take place exactly as portrayed, but the spirit of what they are showing is correct.

He basically confirmed in his book they had a thing.

Idk.... Thought the episode was pretty weak.... Didn't care for the Marcia Clark sympathy parade....


Her arrogance is the reason oj was acquitted

I didn't think it was a sympathy parade. I think it was a good illustration of the things going on that contributed to her shltting the bed on the case.

The media beating and her subsequent questioning of her image, the over confidence, the hints of the affair, and the overall unpreparedness she showed during the trial were all reasons why they failed. I thought it did a nice job of portraying that.

Plus I thought the tabloids, the naked pics, etc. did a nice job of showing the media frenzy and advent of the TMZ, DeadSpin type smear media campaigns.

So many mistakes made. So many. I would have nailed that sob and gone straight for him. I wouldn't have been scared of the Cochran race cars crap. I would have addressed it head on and shoved the facts up there collective asses!

She screwed this case. Darden would have done a better job as the lead

The guy with no trial experience? Just wait, his arrogance and f up's are coming.

You have little understanding of the context apparently. You have a largly black jury from a city that just burned two years ago due to a largly white jury acquitting white cops for beating a black man on videotape. Now you're going to roll in and tell them there's no race issues huh?

quote:

---

So many mistakes made. So many. I would have nailed that sob and gone straight for him. I wouldn't have been scared of the Cochran race cars crap. I would have addressed it head on and shoved the facts up there collective asses!

She screwed this case. Darden would have done a better job as the lead

---

Yeah, that would have worked. Except the judge allowed it all to happen. Cochran tried early and often to stall and frustrate the prosecution and Ito let it all go (the hair sample is a perfect example of this). If Ito had shut that down early, you maybe don't see quite the circus. Not to mention letting TV camera's in the courtroom.

quote:

---

Her arrogance is the reason oj was acquitted

---

I'm pretty sure the makeup of the jury was why OJ was acquitted.

Fantastic episode. Loving this miniseries.

**** Johnnie Cochran.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Her arrogance is the reason oj was acquitted

---

I'm pretty sure the makeup of the jury was why OJ was acquitted.

---

I'm pretty sure her arrogance & disregregard of expert opinion during jury selection led to the makeup of the jury

Regardless of what you think about Marcia how can you not feel terrible for her after that episode? Case of the century, divorce, child custody battle, a-hole first husband, a-hole second husband, media and tabloids smearing the hell out of her. I can't imagine that much stress.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Her arrogance is the reason oj was acquitted

---

I'm pretty sure the makeup of the jury was why OJ was acquitted.

---

I'm pretty sure her arrogance & disregregard of expert opinion during jury selection led to the makeup of the jury

---

No doubt, but she was fighting a losing battle to begin with. The women she "identified with" in regards to wife beating cases she had previously tried were AA women convicting AA men of beating AA women. OJ was the antithesis to this...he was successful and they saw his white wife as stealing/taking from his success. They didn't care about her.

The LA Police bungling the evidence and Furman being a racist all but guaranteed the jury would never find OJ guilty. Hell, they could have found the murder weapon in his bedroom and I'm not sure the jury would have convicted him.

Most AA cheered when OJ was acquitted, not b/c they though he was innocent, but b/c it was revenge for the Rodney King beating and all the times they were profiled by police b/c of the color of their skin.

You can't blame it all on Clark's arrogance. That's just to simple.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Her arrogance is the reason oj was acquitted

---

I'm pretty sure the makeup of the jury was why OJ was acquitted.

---

I'm pretty sure her arrogance & disregregard of expert opinion during jury selection led to the makeup of the jury

---

No doubt, but she was fighting a losing battle to begin with. The women she "identified with" in regards to wife beating cases she had previously tried were AA women convicting AA men of beating AA women. OJ was the antithesis to this...he was successful and they saw his white wife as stealing/taking from his success. They didn't care about her.

The LA Police bungling the evidence and Furman being a racist all but guaranteed the jury would never find OJ guilty. Hell, they could have found the murder weapon in his bedroom and I'm not sure the jury would have convicted him.

Most AA cheered when OJ was acquitted, not b/c they though he was innocent, but b/c it was revenge for the Rodney King beating and all the times they were profiled by police b/c of the color of their skin.

You can't blame it all on Clark's arrogance. That's just to simple.

---

quote:

---

You have little understanding of the context apparently. You have a largly black jury from a city that just burned two years ago due to a largly white jury acquitting white cops for beating a black man on videotape. Now you're going to roll in and tell them there's no race issues huh?

---

+1 to both of these posts.

This is going to infuriate some of you all, but I saw the interview with the Hispanic Juror from the OJ trial. He essentially said that the State did not prove its case.
I agree with him.

There was a load of circumstantial evidence, but there wasn't any real hard evidence. I once had an Attorney friend of mine tell me that in a murder case that if there is no Murder Weapon and No Eye Witness that a really good defense attorney can get their client acquitted.

I think OJ did it....but was it proven? Not really.
Without a murder weapon or an eye witness its all speculation.

All that was proven was that there was a high probability that OJ was at the crime scene. (I have read the theory that think OJ's son is the killer and its a great read)

You have to really understand what was going on in Los Angeles at the time to make a downtown jury very distrustful of the Police.
There was the riots. The Rodney King acquittal. And the Rampart Scandal.

The Rampart Scandal would not be made public until 1998 or 1999. Those are you that are unfamiliar with the Rampart Scandal should realize that these incidents became the basis for the movie Training Day.

Essentially a group of black and Hispanic LAPD officers commit all sorts of atrocities fighting LA gang bangers and drug dealers. A lot of their dirt goes unnoticed because they are doing this to criminals and poor people.


Once Mark Fuhrman was proven to be a liar and a racist his credibility was absolutely gone. If you are from the inner city and know someone that was setup by the Rampart police officers.....a racist officer planting evidence is not that hard to believe.

quote:

---

This is going to infuriate some of you all, but I saw the interview with the Hispanic Juror from the OJ trial. He essentially said that the State did not prove its case.

---

That guy was a minority on that jury.

Why do you think the very first shot of this whole series was the Rodney King beating?

yeah except.....

the stupid thing about this nonsense of Furhman framing OJ is....

a. you would have to believe that Furhman decided on the spot to frame a nationally famous and beloved celebrity because he is black....

b. by stealing evidence from one crime scene and planting at another.....without being discovered by a dozen plus other cops

c. while having no idea whether OJ has a rock solid alibi or not

and

d. having no clue whether someone else (the real perp) would be found or turn themselves in within hours/days


He would look awfully stupid, and be ruined for such a lame brained and spontaneous decision.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

I respect your opinion but disagree. I think the State did a pretty good job proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes it's all "speculation" when the perpetrator gets rid of the murder weapon, but that is why we have trials.

The stars just aligned perfectly for OJ. Brilliant and conniving lawyer in Cochran. 2 years removed from Rodney King riots and racial tensions with LAPD still very high. OJ was beloved by the media and by the public. Jury was very strategically selected. His legal team knew exactly how to capitalize on every single weakness in the State's case. They were good at what they did.

But Clark was fighting a losing battle. She was the 90s version of Atticus Finch-- took a high profile case in a community where the odds are heavily against her.

I was too young in 1995 to remember how it went all down, but just watching reactions from the verdict-- it is baffling. Seeing people celebrate like their team just won the Superbowl. The difference in white vs. black reaction to the verdict was absolutely stunning. It just went to show that there was something very far beyond the subject matter of the case. Cochran made this about race, and sticking it to the cops. And it worked.

Let's also not forget- didn't the jury only deliberate for a few hours? In a case as enormous of this, that is an awfully short time. I obviously don't know for sure but it definitely seems like people's minds were made up before opening statements were made.

quote:

---

yeah except.....

the stupid thing about this nonsense of Furhman framing OJ is....

a. you would have to believe that Furhman decided on the spot to frame a nationally famous and beloved celebrity because he is black....

b. by stealing evidence from one crime scene and planting at another.....without being discovered by a dozen plus other cops

c. while having no idea whether OJ has a rock solid alibi or not

and

d. having no clue whether someone else (the real perp) would be found or turn themselves in within hours/days


He would look awfully stupid, and be ruined for such a lame brained and spontaneous decision.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

---

Have you ever watched the Movie Training Day?


One of my favorite lines is from Alonzo/Denzel Washington when him and Jake are about to serve the fake warrant to Macy Gray.
"We the Police, We can do what the **** we want"

Police corruption happens precisely because people don't think that Cops would frame someone, or that cops would plant evidence to give them a stronger case.


The LAPD has had a long history with corrupt cops. The moment Fuhrman was made out to be a liar and a racist then all of his credibility went out of the window. If I'm on that jury and the cop that found the evidence is proven to have lied under oath and then asserts the 5th amendment to cover himself? His credibility and everything associated with it are now gone.

Without a murder weapon, eye witness or confession we are now just back to speculating.

quote:

---

I respect your opinion but disagree. I think the State did a pretty good job proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes it's all "speculation" when the perpetrator gets rid of the murder weapon, but that is why we have trials.

The stars just aligned perfectly for OJ. Brilliant and conniving lawyer in Cochran. 2 years removed from Rodney King riots and racial tensions with LAPD still very high. OJ was beloved by the media and by the public. Jury was very strategically selected. His legal team knew exactly how to capitalize on every single weakness in the State's case. They were good at what they did.

But Clark was fighting a losing battle. She was the 90s version of Atticus Finch-- took a high profile case in a community where the odds are heavily against her.

I was too young in 1995 to remember how it went all down, but just watching reactions from the verdict-- it is baffling. Seeing people celebrate like their team just won the Superbowl. The difference in white vs. black reaction to the verdict was absolutely stunning. It just went to show that there was something very far beyond the subject matter of the case. Cochran made this about race, and sticking it to the cops. And it worked.

Let's also not forget- didn't the jury only deliberate for a few hours? In a case as enormous of this, that is an awfully short time. I obviously don't know for sure but it definitely seems like people's minds were made up before opening statements were made.

---

Solid post, but I will disagree with your first paragraph.
I don't think the state "did a pretty good job proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. "

Why?

Because we don't really know what happened. We think we know what happened, but there was no eye witness to the crime.

I watch the First 48 all the time. The Prosecution will typically have a very hard time convicting someone if there is no murder weapon, no eye witness and no confessions.

Full Disclosure. I have read the book from the Dallas detective that thinks that OJ's son did it. I think it is a very plausible theory considering that OJ's son was a butcher, worked with knives, and had mental issues.

I haven't read the book in a while, but his theory is that OJ's son killed Nicole and Ron Goldman. He calls his Dad saying something really bad has happened to Nicole, the kids are here, and you need to come immediately. OJ goes to the crime scene and upon finding the two dead bodies he helps his son dispose of some of the evidence.

Ironically the blood is one of the reasons I give the detective theory such credence. He makes a very solid point. If OJ murdered not one, but two people by knife, in a fit of sudden rage......then he should have been covered in blood.

There should be way more blood in the Bronco. More blood at his estate. The detective makes the point that the small drops of blood that were found in his Car, or on his sock are consistent with someone that was at the crime scene.......but not proof that this person actually did it.

He thinks the LAPD zeroed in on OJ and never really investigated anyone else.

Whether Clark believed all the jury consultants' data, she was bound to get a mostly black jury regardless. and in 1994 LA no black jury was going to send a successful black man who made it to jail - they wanted a reason to acquit and Cochran gave it to them

Darden made the decision to have OJ try on the gloves - NOT Clark. He went against their strategy and blew it.

To believe Furman planted the glove means you have to disregard a dozen statements and photos that there was only one glove at Bundy. How did he move a 2nd glove, that no one else saw, in full view of all these other cops to spontaneously frame the man he helped avoid a domestic violence rap 2 years earlier?

If you think OJ's son did it...i don't know what to say. OJ and means, motive, opportunity and the physical evidence was overwhelming. Witness saw him fleeing the scene. 2 witnesses corroborate each other at his sudden appearance at Rockingham. There was evidence he cleaned up at Rockingham and the VICTIMS' blood was there.

only problem i really have with the idea of OJs son doing it is....someone like that doesn't just do it once and never have another incident.

with OJ the idea is it was a crime of passion, hence a onetime thing.

not the same as some nutjob who explodes over something trivial cuz he is not on his meds,,,,he would have had more than just the one incident. unless of course he has been sufficiently medicated ever since (unlikely). thats not a crime of passion...thats someone unstable and likely to have more issues.

however, i could buy OJ willing to take the heat knowing he could get off and thus keeping the attention of the real culprit in order to protect his kid. especially if he knew the glove would not fit and they could cast enough doubt on other elements.

THe glove "didn't fit" because he had latex gloves on underneath snug-fit gloves soaked with blood, and he flexed his thumbs to make it even worse.

The intent was to have him try on the exact pair of Bloomingdales gloves (that Nicole had bought him) in the exact size - Darden got the wrong gloves from Bloomies and decided to have him try on the murder gloves at the spur of the moment (and at Bailey's prodding according to Toobin). Colossal mistake.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So many mistakes made. So many. I would have nailed that sob and gone straight for him. I wouldn't have been scared of the Cochran race cars crap. I would have addressed it head on and shoved the facts up there collective asses!

She screwed this case. Darden would have done a better job as the lead

---

Yeah, that would have worked. Except the judge allowed it all to happen. Cochran tried early and often to stall and frustrate the prosecution and Ito let it all go (the hair sample is a perfect example of this). If Ito had shut that down early, you maybe don't see quite the circus. Not to mention letting TV camera's in the courtroom.

---

Ito was a joke. Horrible

quote:

---

only problem i really have with the idea of OJs son doing it is....someone like that doesn't just do it once and never have another incident.

with OJ the idea is it was a crime of passion, hence a onetime thing.

not the same as some nutjob who explodes over something trivial cuz he is not on his meds,,,,he would have had more than just the one incident. unless of course he has been sufficiently medicated ever since (unlikely). thats not a crime of passion...thats someone unstable and likely to have more issues.

however, i could buy OJ willing to take the heat knowing he could get off and thus keeping the attention of the real culprit in order to protect his kid. especially if he knew the glove would not fit and they could cast enough doubt on other elements.

---

The Book goes into great detail about Jason Simpsons past with Domestic violence and being off of his meds.
The detective says that if all these things were known about Simpsons son then he should have been a prime suspect from the start. He says the LAPD only focused on OJ.

The book also talks about the prevailing wisdom that OJ killed Nicole because it was a "Crime of Passion".
That is pure speculation. We don't really know. We only believe this because we want to prove that OJ did it.

The book talks about how OJ had caught Nicole giving guys blowjobs while he was spying on her in the bushes, and didn't kill anyone. Apparently Nicole had always been was a hollywood Party Girl type that OJ already knew banged a lot of guys. He shared her with some of his USC teammates like Marcus Allen.

The popular opinion is that OJ was the jealous ex. But the detective states that OJ knew his ex got around and was just addicted to the sex.

Your last paragraph is the Detective big theory. That OJ stumbled onto the crime scene when his Son called him for help. OJ and his lawyers knew that his son did it and that OJ took the heat for his sons actions.

I thought Sarah Paulson was really great tonight. This is her Emmy submission for sure.