Support NeoGAF

[undrtakr900]

Race played but only so much of a role. Quit believing it was the only factor. The Defense punched a lot of holes in the prosecutor's attack like Forensics contaminating the DNA evidence, getting the Police to admit to getting a sample of OJ's blood and taking it to the crime scene, as well as having an extremely racist cop who was first on the scene who the defense were able to catch perjure on the witness stand and later plead the fifth to all other pertinent questions like whether he planted the glove on OJ's property. Also the prosecution made a huge mistake making OJ try on the gloves and they didn't fit.

Also and this fact seems to be forgotten, there were two white women on the jury as well who would've likely identified with Nicole the most, yet the rendered not guilty verdicts.

They asked him if he "tampered with any evidence" and he plead the fifth, which usually means "yes, but I don't want to get caught in a perjure...again"

As a black juror knowing the history of cops planting evidence(even though this case wasn't necessary), I can understand why they chose "not guilty"

 

[LifEndz]

What really stuck with me after watching the whole thing was that he killed both of them and then left their bodies like that while his children were right upstairs. Can't even imagine how fucked up I'd be if I saw something like that happen to a parent. Thankfully, the kids didn't see their mothers corpse in that condition. Great documentary. Wish he could've got the children or OJ's first wife, but even still it was the most illustrative explanation of what happened and what led the jurors to find him not guilty. Gotta love some people watching and still not understanding how the jurors could reach that conclusion.

 

[undrtakr900]

^^^ Also the prosecutors did a horrible job, and the defense did a good job dissecting the "evidence". Like: using no gloves with evidence, covering the body with a sheet from the house, bringing blood sample back to the crime scene, then blood mysteriously appearing on thegate, glove doesn't fit, racist cop pleads 5th about planting evidence, etc.

 

[LifEndz]

^^^ Also the prosecutors did a horrible job, and the defense did a good job dissecting the "evidence". Like: using no gloves with evidence, covering the body with a sheet from the house, bringing blood sample back to the crime scene, then blood mysteriously appearing on thegate, glove doesn't fit, racist cop pleads 5th about planting evidence, etc.

Biggest mistake was trying the case in that venue. But the DA was up for re-election and feared he'd lose crucial votes if he tried it elsewhere. I love the hypocrisy of it. "Hey, I know you people have had to put up with some...less than exemplary behavior by the LAPD...but would you mind convicting this Aftican American sports icon despite an absolute astonishing amount of sloppy police work? Thanks."

 

[Ric Flair]

So was Cochran a really good lawyer? I was too young to watch the court cases as were happening, what was he actually like in the court room? I remember thinking the defense lawyer from that Netflix documentary was really good, was he comparable to him? The 30 for 30 doesn't really go into that

 

[Lonestar]

They asked him if he "tampered with any evidence" and he plead the fifth, which usually means "yes, but I don't want to get caught in a perjure...again"

As a black juror knowing the history of cops planting evidence(even though this case wasn't necessary), I can understand why they chose "not guilty"

From what I can sort of remember from an article I read a long time ago, that once you plead the 5th, you kind of have to keep pleading it, like you can't pick and choose what you want to testify on or not.

 

[TheSecondSpitter]

They asked him if he "tampered with any evidence" and he plead the fifth, which usually means "yes, but I don't want to get caught in a perjure...again"

As a black juror knowing the history of cops planting evidence(even though this case wasn't necessary), I can understand why they chose "not guilty"

The jury was removed from the courtroom when he pleaded the 5th. I am not sure whether it was even reported at the time. Jurors are also instructed by the judge that they cannot draw any inferences on the credibility of the witness when they plead the 5th.

From what I can sort of remember from an article I read a long time ago, that once you plead the 5th, you kind of have to keep pleading it, like you can't pick and choose what you want to testify on or not.

This too. Although kudos to the prosecution for asking that particular question after he did.

So was Cochran a really good lawyer? I was too young to watch the court cases as were happening, what was he actually like in the court room? I remember thinking the defense lawyer from that Netflix documentary was really good, was he comparable to him? The 30 for 30 doesn't really go into that

Cochran was charismatic and was effectively applied what was later known as the "Chewbacca defense".

 

[Dalek]

This old lady juror is something else. Wow.

Yeah, it's disgusting and I can't imagine the horrors the Goldmans deal with on a daily basis. Seeing Carl Douglas basically gloat in episode 3 about how they changed the pictures in OJ's house pissed me off. I can't imagine how that makes somebody like Fred Goldman feel.

I saw this too and it really sickened me. It's one thing to do it-but after all these years to smile and gloat over it was really sick.

 

[undrtakr900]

From what I can sort of remember from an article I read a long time ago, that once you plead the 5th, you kind of have to keep pleading it, like you can't pick and choose what you want to testify on or not.

Ah okay, why is that?
I guess if he picked and choosed, they c could "investigate" three questions he did answer.

The jury was removed from the courtroom when he pleaded the 5th. I am not sure whether it was even reported at the time. Jurors are also instructed by the judge that they cannot draw any inferences on the credibility of the witness when they plead the 5th.

Oh okay, they never mentioned the "no jury" during cross examination in the documentary. (You still remember that from the original trial?)

I was only 10, but I remember once Cochran talking to the press afterwards about how the [cop witness] pled the 5th when asked if he tampered with evidence.

Cochran was charismatic and was effectively applied what was later known as the "Chewbacca defense".

This made my day lols

 

[Krejlooc]

Jurors are also instructed by the judge that they cannot draw any inferences on the credibility of the witness when they plead the 5th.

Actually, almost the exact opposite:

The New York Times reported that Judge Ito ruled the jury could not be told that Fuhrman had plead the fifth because jurors often incorrectly assume that it equals an admission of guilt. Instead, he gave the jury the following instructions: "Detective Mark Fuhrman is not available for further testimony as a witness in this case. His unavailability for further testimony on cross-examination is a factor which you may consider in evaluating his credibility as a witness."

Jurors werent told he pleaded the fifth, but were told he wouldnt answer questions, and were told to judge his credibility based on him not answering.

 

[nhlducks35]

You have to remember, OJ Simpson is innocent until proven guilty. The burden rested with the prosecution to prove he committed the murders beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense was able to poke enough holes to provide reasonable doubt about the evidence about OJ, hence the reason he was voted not guilty.

 

[ezekial45]

Just finished this. Fucking wow, what a ride. There's so much truth here, the director did a brilliant job of showing the contrasts between O.J's rise to fame and the struggles African-Americans went through. The scenes showing the Korean Store shooting, Rodney King, L.A. Riots were heart-wrenching. The Black community suffered through so much during over the decades in L.A. Seeing the smug looks of all the cops and affluent white people declaring victory over the Rodney King case was fucking sickening. I had to pause the video there, it was infuriating.

I do not blame them at all for people seeing the Simpson case as a referendum on the LAPD and White America's treatment of Blacks in the USA. I get it, I agree to several different degrees, but I still wish that Nicole and Ron weren't collateral damage in the whole ordeal. Their families deserved justice as well.

The most shocking scene to me -- in the sense of just how clear it was that OJ divorced himself from the black community -- was when his friend described how OJ was unphased and even happy when a white woman said "That's OJ hanging out with a bunch of niggers."

"That's when I knew he was fucked."

Simpson was a sociopath. And to see him run back to the Black community after abandoning them during his glory days was pretty sickening.

Spoiler

OJ did it.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

Just finished this. Fucking wow, what a ride. There's so much truth here, the director did a brilliant job of showing the contrasts between O.J's rise to fame and the struggles African-Americans went through. The scenes showing the Korean Store shooting, Rodney King, L.A. Riots were heart-wrenching. The Black community suffered through so much during over the decades in L.A. Seeing the smug looks of all the cops and affluent white people declaring victory over the Rodney King case was fucking sickening. I had to pause the video there, it was infuriating.

I do not blame them at all for people seeing the Simpson case as a referendum on the LAPD and White America's treatment of Blacks in the USA. I get it, I agree to several different degrees, but I still wish that Nicole and Ron weren't collateral damage in the whole ordeal. Their families deserved justice as well.

The most shocking scene to me -- in the sense of just how clear it was that OJ divorced himself from the black community -- was when his friend described how OJ was unphased and even happy when a white woman said "That's OJ hanging out with a bunch of niggers."

"That's when I knew he was fucked."

Simpson was a sociopath. And to see him run back to the Black community after abandoning them during his glory days was pretty sickening.

Spoiler

OJ did it.

Me too. But I keep going back to this: there are thousands of victims around the country who don't get justice every year, and what the OJ case clearly illustrates is that the criminal justice system is not designed to grant these victims and their families what they so rightfully deserve.

Just because this one time the rich and powerful beneficiary of a broken system was a black man doesn't change that.

 

[TheSecondSpitter]

Actually, almost the exact opposite:



Jurors werent told he pleaded the fifth, but were told he wouldnt answer questions, and were told to judge his credibility based on him not answering.

Wow. Not where I live.

 

[Jerm411]

Just binged watched the last 3 parts (took me a while to catch up) and yeah this is insanely good....must watch.

Cringed so hard at Darden having OJ try on the gloves (with latex...WTF) and having it completely backfire when it wasn't necessary at all.

It's crazy at how bad the prosecution botched the case when it was laid out to them on a silver platter...from the venue selection to leaning heavy on a POS like Fuhrman without vetting the living hell out of him beforehand, etc. What a clown show....

Ito made some....curious...decisions as well...like taking the jury to the Rockingham property for no apparent reason when he had to have known it would've been skewered to hell by the defense.

A shit show all around....no one comes out looking good. The jurors and their 3 1/2 deliberations....holy shit, also the fact that basically they were tired and wanted to go home so that's that. Man.....

 

[Dominican Power]

Imagine how fucking pretty OJ would of been sitting today if he would of just let Nicole live her fucking life. Though, who's to say he wouldn't have snapped eventually and done some other shit to tarnish his rep.

 

[ScientificPizza]

Imagine how fucking pretty OJ would of been sitting today if he would of just let Nicole live her fucking life. Though, who's to say he wouldn't have snapped eventually and done some other shit to tarnish his rep.

Yeah, this was my thought too. Like all he had to do was let her go. It's honestly tragic, obviously more for the victims than anyone else, but it was just such an unnecessary fall.

I remember seeing the If I Did It book in a store when it first came out and being fucking shocked that it existed. I'm glad this touched on it, because for a long time I found it hard to believe that it existed at all and wasn't just some elaborate con.

I'm not American and I was five when the trial and everything was happening (actually the murder took place the day before my 5th birthday) so I've only ever really lived in a world where OJ Simpson is known as the murderer who got away with it. It was really eye opening seeing just how big of a deal he was and how important the trial truly was. The context of the civil rights movement was something I never knew, I had always assumed that people were unanimously shocked by the decision.

The weirdest thing for me watching this was thinking that if I was who I am now at that time I probably would have been on OJ's side as well.

 

[Crisco]

Imagine how fucking pretty OJ would of been sitting today if he would of just let Nicole live her fucking life. Though, who's to say he wouldn't have snapped eventually and done some other shit to tarnish his rep.

Domestic abusers don't do that. The obsession, pride, jealousy, rage, lying, it's all part of their personality. Remember, he'd been beating her up and cheating on her for nearly a decade, and it would have been no different with whatever relationship followed.

As far as the actual case, it really seems like the prosecution looked at the cornucopia of blood evidence and history of domestic violence and took it as almost a given that they'd win. They never considered the big picture until it was too late, while the defense was on it from day one. I fault the judge and jury the most, total dereliction of their duty.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Incredible series.

 

[lightskintwin]

Domestic abusers don't do that. The obsession, pride, jealousy, rage, lying, it's all part of their personality. Remember, he'd been beating her up and cheating on her for nearly a decade, and it would have been no different with whatever relationship followed.

As far as the actual case, it really seems like the prosecution looked at the cornucopia of blood evidence and history of domestic violence and took it as almost a given that they'd win. They never considered the big picture until it was too late, while the defense was on it from day one. I fault the judge and jury the most, total dereliction of their duty.

No fault to the prosecution, police, or forensics? They provided the reasonable doubt that the defense exposed.

 

[Crisco]

No fault to the prosecution, police, or forensics? They provided the reasonable doubt that the defense exposed.

I did say the most, but all that doubt was based on, if not outright lies, at least a gross distortion of the facts. Which is fine, that's the defense's job, but it's also the judge and jury's job to cut through all that bullshit and focus on what's actually material to the case. The judge allowed the case to turn into the trial of Mark Fuhrman, while the jury didn't care at all about the evidence and just wanted racial payback.

 

[lightskintwin]

I did say the most, but all that doubt was based on, if not outright lies, at least a gross distortion of the facts. Which is fine, that's the defense's job, but it's also the judge and jury's job to cut through all that bullshit and focus on what's actually material to the case. The judge allowed the case to turn into the trial of Mark Fuhrman, while the jury didn't care at all about the evidence and just wanted racial payback.

It wasn't lies, police and forensics did infact contaminate a lot of evidence and it was caught on camera. Matter of fact there is evidence to suggest the police did plant some evidence like blood. The prosecution did make a calculated error by having OJ try on the gloves and it didn't fit. Mark Fuhrman was a huge liability to the prosecutor's case as he was first on the scene and discovered key evidence and his incredibly racist views on tape gave credence to the possibility of conspiracy. There's a Frontline documentary I watched years ago where everything they know about the case is presented to an Ivy League Law classroom and the consensus was "They framed a guilty man". LOL

I wish I could find that documentary online, because I think you'd enjoy that too.
Here's a clip from it.
The O.J. Simpson Race Issue from PBS Documentary

 

[Crisco]

It wasn't lies, police and forensics did infact contaminate a lot of evidence and it was caught on camera. Matter of fact there is evidence to suggest the police did plant some evidence like blood. The prosecution did make a calculated error by having OJ try on the gloves and it didn't fit. Mark Fuhrman was a huge liability to the prosecutor's case as he was first on the scene and discovered key evidence and his incredibly racist views on tape gave credence to the possibility of conspiracy. There's a Frontline documentary I watched years ago where everything they know about the case is presented to an Ivy League Law classroom and the consensus was "They framed a guilty man". LOL

I wish I could find that documentary online, because I think you'd enjoy that too.
Here's a clip from it.
The O.J. Simpson Race Issue from PBS Documentary

Ummm, they never showed any evidence was contaminated or mishandled, just that it might have been due to protocol not being followed in all cases. And there certainly was no evidence that police planted evidence, that was total fabrication by the defense. As far as the jury was concerned, there was never any concrete reason not to believe the blood evidence, which was incontrovertible.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Ummm, they never showed any evidence was contaminated or mishandled. They just showed that it might have been due to protocol not being followed in all cases. And there certainly was no evidence that police planted evidence, that was total fabrication by the defense.

The detective returning to the crime scene with OJ's blood, the CSI guy grabbing shit with his bare hands, the blood drops magically appearing on the fence a month later, none of these are lies or fabrications....the defense doesn't have to prove anything, that's the prosecutions job, all they have to do is introduce reasonable doubt.

 

[Crisco]

The detective returning to the crime scene with OJ's blood, the CSI guy grabbing shit with his bare hands, the blood drops magically appearing on the fence a month later, none of these are lies or fabrications....the defense doesn't have to prove anything, that's the prosecutions job, all they have to do is introduce reasonable doubt.

Again, we're talking about science and DNA here. Even allowing that it was mishandled, the chances that the blood found at the crime scene, on OJ's clothes, at his house, etc.... came from anyone other than the victims or OJ himself was basically zero.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Again, we're talking about science and DNA here. Even allowing that it was mishandled, the chances that the blood found at the crime scene, on OJ's clothes, at his house, etc.... came from anyone other than the victims or OJ himself was basically zero.

We are talking about a climate with LA in the early 90s where corruption was common place. YOu can't remove that from the context. I absolutely think OJ did it, but I also believe Fuhrman and Vanalden could have pulled some shady shit to try and ensure a conviction. The defense didn't "lie". They didn't have to. They just had to point out the inconsistencies and mistakes the LAPD did, and let the climate the very same LAPD allowed to fester do the rest. It was a case of chickens coming home to roost.

 

[lightskintwin]

Ummm, they never showed any evidence was contaminated or mishandled. They just showed that it might have been due to protocol not being followed in all cases. And there certainly was no evidence that police planted evidence, that was total fabrication by the defense.

Ok, that's what i meant. By putting a dirty blanket over Nicole's dead body, using their bare hands handling the evidence the defense showed the potential of contamination that forensics had to admit could alter the results and render them meaningless.

It'd be better if you watched the documentary that actually shows you the conflicting pictures and videos however here's an interview from it. They literally break everything down from a legal standpoint in a Harvard Law School classroom.
Frontline Interview with Alan Dershowitz, member of the Simpson defense team, Alan Dershowitz is a professor at Harvard University Law School.

I recommend reading the whole interview but here's some excerpts.

i think this basically sums it up

What was the prosecution's theory?

The prosecution's theory was very simple: mountain of evidence. How can you explain the blood on the glove, the blood on the socks, the blood on the floor, the blood on the gate? It was a circumstantial case with overwhelming evidence, and a case that the prosecution easily could have won if they hadn't made so many mistakes.

Number one, they relied on lies. They overstated their case. They planted evidence. They didn't have to, but they did. They put on a policeman who was a Nazi lover and a perjurer and an evidence planter. That made our day, as the defense. And the defense decided to do something very simple: put on only truthful expert witnesses; put on no one who was in any way really controversial.

So the defense presented a credible case, [and we were] able to show that the prosecution's case was full of lies. That doesn't mean that ultimate truth was on one side or the other, but the defense got the jury to focus on the lies of the prosecution rather than on the innocence or guilt of the defendant.

What was the defense's theory?

The theory of the defense was when you find a certain amount of lying and evidence planting on the other side, you can't trust any of the evidence, so the mountain wasn't enough to convict if a few of the hills and valleys were corrupted. And it was summarized by our expert witness [Dr. Henry Lee], who said, "If you find a cockroach in a bowl of spaghetti, you don't look for another cockroach before you throw out the whole bowl of spaghetti." And the argument was, you couldn't trust anything these policemen said or did because we proved that they lied about certain things and planted at least some evidence.

 

[Crisco]

Ok, that's what i meant. By putting a dirty blanket over Nicole's dead body, using their bare hands handling the evidence the defense showed the potential of contamination that forensics had to admit could alter the results and render them meaningless.

It'd be better if you watched the documentary that actually shows you the conflicting pictures and videos however here's an interview from it. They literally break everything down from a legal standpoint in a Harvard Law School classroom.
Frontline Interview with Alan Dershowitz, member of the Simpson defense team, Alan Dershowitz is a professor at Harvard University Law School.

I recommend reading the whole interview but here's some excerpts.

i think this basically sums it up

I guess my biggest problem with the whole "contamination" argument is you can't contaminate DNA by touching it with your bare hands or throwing a blanket on it. Hell, it's being collected from an inherently contaminated environment in the first place, and the whole point of DNA profiling is its reliability as a forensic tool even under less than ideal conditions. I mean, they can pull DNA off a pair of woman's underwear that have been washed and tell you the last 3 people she slept with. If anything, the prosecution should have explained the actual science better and shown how implausible it was that anything could have resulted in false matches.

 

[Dalek]

Jesus Christ-episode 5 brings back memories. The announcement being made worldwide and seeing the varied reactions-I remember this.

The juror saying her white neighbors stopping talking to her.

This really drives home how complex this case was and what it meant to America. Above all the tabloid fodder and sensationalism-it was a defining moment in America.

Holy shit at this home video footage of OJ the day he came home after winning. How did they get this footage?

Edit: this Las Vegas story has never made any sense to me at all-I'm entirety confused even after watching this. Even that guy who was described as The Librarian who was in the room says he had no idea what they were doing there!

 

[uncelestial]

So was Cochran a really good lawyer? I was too young to watch the court cases as were happening, what was he actually like in the court room? I remember thinking the defense lawyer from that Netflix documentary was really good, was he comparable to him? The 30 for 30 doesn't really go into that

You can see what I think is the quintessential Cochran clip in the the ESPN doc series when Cochran stands up and says that he is offended on behalf of all black people that the prosecution thinks the Fuhrman "nigger" tapes will cloud the jury's judgement.

It shows Cochran's ability to make a convincing moral case while theatrically overstating his own personal emotions.

It was also acted out very well in the FX series.

In short: Yes, he was a fucking brilliant lawyer. The Jackie Chiles character played on his reputation for hucksterism but he was really, really good at what he did.

 

[gray_fox224]

Just finished it tonight. An amazing documentary. I was too young to understand the entire context of the Simpson trial.

 

[Grenouille]

wth this guy saying he isnt white??

 

[Ninja Scooter]

He was a lifelong abusive sociopath. It does seem a little strange to say you feel empathy for him.

I definitely feel sympathetic towards the black communities that dealt with the LAPD's bullshit for decades, but OJ just used them for his benefit.

 

[metalslimer]

Black America's response was about right considering the circumstances. People like OJ and all of the people around him who only used the black community when it was convenient for him was sickening.

 

[GlenChivas]

Watched it when it originally aired but was wondering what the odds are that it ends up on Netflix like other 30/30s ?

 

[Dalek]

Black America's response was about right considering the circumstances. People like OJ and all of the people around him who only used the black community when it was convenient for him was sickening.

I always remember what OJ said out loud when he came back home to his neighborhood after being acquitted and seeing those crowds.

 

[TheOfficeMut]

Another half hour until I finish the third part on Hulu and I have to say I am so happy I decided to watch this. Last week I watched the mini-series The People v OJ Simpson and this was a great followup.

 

[Daffy Duck]

That was some powerfully TV.

Being born in 82 I had no real idea how bad things were for black people in America despite knowing of things but never spelt out like this.

Everything made me so sad.

Also it's obvious he did it, but coming off the back of making a murderer do I think it possible LAPD planted evidence, absolutely yes, I think that's something that very well could've happened. I am amazed at the incompetence shown by the LAPD collecting the evidence.

Still feeling sick at those crime scene photos...that's some brutal scene.

 

[beelzebozo]

this is the only 8 hour documentary that i'd recommend as an annual rewatch. it is that complex and good. how did edelman get this footage??

 

[Dalek]

this is the only 8 hour documentary that i'd recommend as an annual rewatch. it is that complex and good. how did edelman get this footage??

There's a lot that I wonder about. The footage in OJs house when he comes home after being acquired in particular.

 

[SpaceWolf]

Just got around to finishing this. Amazing documentary. I'd fully recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the opportunity to check it out yet.