# The people Vs OJ Simpson (whole mini series)



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I'm surprised there wasn't a thread already. Is anyone watching this? It got good reviews. I thought the first episode was just ok. I had to laugh seeing David Schwimmer as Robert Kardashian, he looked like Ross with a skunk wig. It took us a second to realize it was John Travolta as Robert Shapiro. I didn't think Cuba Gooding Jr. was believable as OJ, doesn't look anything like him, didn't have any of his mannerisms. I hated how they crowbarred every Kardashian girl name in the first episode, I guess everything Kardashian sells.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

I watched the first one. Agree that Ross makes a lousy Kardashian. But I think them using the names was ok, because the OJ trial seemed to have spawned this bizarre kind of fame.

And OJ is so iconic that I can forgive the choice of Cuba Gooding Jr. At least he's a good actor (whereas David Schwimmer, not so much). The Cato casting seems perfect! 

I think I'll enjoy this because I've forgotten some of the details. Like I forgot he was suicidal and gun-toting in the slow-speed chase.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Just watched last night. Brought back so many memories. I really enjoyed it. I assume they're portraying the evidence discovery as close to the truth as possible, so if true that the Bronco showed up parked erratically, OJ was seen running into the house shortly before 11, there was a trail of blood, there was blood in the Bronco, there were matching gloves, one at each scene, etc., then it will be interesting to see the inner workings of how he didn't get convicted.

Also interesting that Jackie Chiles Johnny Cochran said he had no interest in taking the case because it was a loser. I wonder how accurate that statement is.

Edit: Here's a "fact-checking recap" from Rolling Stone. They say it's fairly accurate that OJ threatened to kill himself in Kim Kardashian's bedroom, and that it's not accurate that Johnny Cochran was initially not involved in the case.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

JFriday said:


> I had to laugh seeing David Schwimmer as Robert Kardashian, he looked like Ross with a skunk wig. It took us a second to realize it was John Travolta as Robert Shapiro. I didn't think Cuba Gooding Jr. was believable as OJ, doesn't look anything like him, didn't have any of his mannerisms.


if you look past the fact that some of the actors don't look exactly like their real life counterparts, then it's more enjoyable. i liked it a lot.

i think cuba was really good... i think there is public oj, and private oj, and private oj is a narcissist and self important and more of a ****** then we care to know. we all loved naked gun oj. and i thought cuba did a good job portraying that.

poor sschwimmer.. he will always be typecast as ross. sad sack, self pitying, whiny ross.

does john travolta really look like that now? is he a victim of too much plastic surgery? or is that a makeup job?



mooseAndSquirrel said:


> I think I'll enjoy this because I've forgotten some of the details. Like I forgot he was suicidal and gun-toting in the slow-speed chase.


look up the espn's 30 for 30 titled 'june 17 1994'. that was the day of the oj chase, but it had 3 or 4 other big sports headlines.. and they put together an hour of storytelling using only news footage (radio and tv)... and they got a hold of telephone communication with the police negotiator and oj in the bronco... amazing compelling stuff. it's streaming on netflix i believe.

the thing i am most looking forward to in this show is the behind the scenes story, all of the stuff that was not in the papers. stuff like chris darden's backstory, and the apparent leading up to his assignment to the oj case... he seems so unqualified so far, and has no confidence in himself... and how he saw johnnie cochran as a mentor.. never knew that.

also, i'm looking forward to seeing the actual timeline unfold.. i don't think i ever fully understood the chronological history of the whole case. when they found what... when they did what...


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I think Travolta had a lot of makeup done to make him look different.

There will be a new 30 for 30 in June about OJ. The review I saw of this show said as good as this series is the 30 for 30 is even better. I think that one covers OJ's whole life.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

I could not help myself. I was addicted to the O.J. stuff when it was happening. I never would have watched this unless I heard them talking about it on the radio. I can not decide if it is awful or worth staying with. John Travolta and David Schwimmer are making me squirm. I think the real life characters the actors are attempting to portray are too vivid in my mind to be able to watch someone else as them. Even Marcia Clark is not sitting right with me. What is compelling me to watch are all the evidence we, the public did not know because it was not allowed in at the trial. Unvelievable how the clues all pointed to O.J. immediately.. It must have been enormously frustrating for any of the authorities knowing he was guilty, but not being able to get him convicted. I still do not know how those lawyers who sat at his table can live with themselves. I mean he slaughtered the mother of his children just steps away from where they slept.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

I see OJ. I see OJ, and he looks scared


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

and i would be scared cuz there's cops all deep in this.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

Thank you, Mr. Higgins


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> Thank you, Mr. Higgins


An' Bobba Bouey to y'all!


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I thought it was very good. 

It was indeed weird seeing Schwimmer in that role. I had no problems wiping away Ross when I saw him in Band of Brothers -- he was excellent in that. So clearly it depends on the role.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

...and Travolta - I can not decide if he is awful or good. (I loved him as Bill Clinton in Primary Colors, thought it was great.) Hard to play people who are still walking around in front of cameras. (kudos Tina Fey)
Was Simpson always that angry, or is that embellished?


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Funny thing is I thought Cuba was almost a dead ringer for Marcus Allen, Simpson's friend, and was rumored to have an affair with Nicole Brown

-smak-


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

jilter said:


> I could not help myself. I was addicted to the O.J. stuff when it was happening... <snip> ... I still do not know how those lawyers who sat at his table can live with themselves. I mean he slaughtered the mother of his children just steps away from where they slept.


I discovered this video about a month ago, and it tells a compelling story which could shine a different light on the O.J. story:



Spoiler



It might reveal the real killer, though O.J. is still implicated as possibly hiring him to kill Nicole and stage the scene as an accident when Ron Goldman unfortunately happened to unexpectedly show up.


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

Watched about 23 minutes, I am so creeped out. I can not watch anymore.
Did you view the whole film? If yes -
Do you believe it is viable Glen was the killer of Nicole and Ron?


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

smak said:


> Funny thing is I thought Cuba was almost a dead ringer for Marcus Allen, Simpson's friend, and was rumored to have an affair with Nicole Brown
> 
> -smak-


good one


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

JFriday said:


> There will be a new 30 for 30 in June about OJ.


...a multiple part documentary, right? I clarified someone's post on FB about _this_ show, then someone else mentioned ESPN and I mentioned the orig 30 for 30.. then they clarified about this new June multi-part documentary?



jilter said:


> I could not help myself. I was addicted to the O.J. stuff when it was happening.


Yeah, wow, that was back when I was a contractor and shared an office.. Listened to it all day long at work on the radio..


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

jilter said:


> Watched about 23 minutes, I am so creeped out. I can not watch anymore.
> Did you view the whole film? If yes -
> Do you believe it is viable Glen was the killer of Nicole and Ron?


Yes, actually. The whole bit about the connection to Nicole was a complete surprise to me when I first found this video (there was no thumbnail image of Nicole and Ron before you clicked to play the video). If the presentation has any validity, I find it quite compelling. But you really need to watch the last half or third of the documentary to get to that part.

I was also hooked on the trial back in the day and actually videotaped the entire trial. I still have a box with the VHS tapes along with an old VCR. Heck, I've still got an old typewriter from even further back in the day!

My biggest problem with casting Cuba Gooding Jr. as O.J. is that his voice is way too soprano for O.J.'s deep bass voice. But I am really liking this presentation.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

getreal said:


> Yes, actually. The whole bit about the connection to Nicole was a complete surprise to me when I first found this video (there was no thumbnail image of Nicole and Ron before you clicked to play the video). If the presentation has any validity, I find it quite compelling. But you really need to watch the last half or third of the documentary to get to that part.
> 
> I was also hooked on the trial back in the day and actually videotaped the entire trial. I still have a box with the VHS tapes along with an old VCR. Heck, I've still got an old typewriter from even further back in the day!
> 
> *My biggest problem with casting Cuba Gooding Jr. as O.J. is that his voice is way too soprano for O.J.'s deep bass voice. But I am really liking this presentation.*


This. It kinda took me out of it. His voice is just way too high. That said, i enjoyed it. I wasn't a junkie on the trial but I remember a lot of it well. Not living in California a lot of these people were not well known to me at the time and I wasn't sure about their relationships to OJ. Did his friends actually call him "Juice"? Was Kardashian really a lapdog toward OJ?

As an aside. About 4 months before the whole thing came down, my son who was 10 at the time had to do a book report on a sports hero and did OJ. The thing I took from it is that we were probably the ONLY people I knew who know who Al Cowlings (AC) was as my son "talked" about him as OJ's childhood friend in his book report


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

mattack said:


> ...a multiple part documentary, right? I clarified someone's post on FB about _this_ show, then someone else mentioned ESPN and I mentioned the orig 30 for 30.. then they clarified about this new June multi-part documentary?
> 
> Yeah, wow, that was back when I was a contractor and shared an office.. Listened to it all day long at work on the radio..


Yes the ESPN one is a 5 part documentary.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I thought last nights episode was better than the first one. They still had to crowbar in the katdashian kids though. I has hoping they played the baba booey call.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

JFriday said:


> I thought last nights episode was better than the first one. They still had to crowbar in the katdashian kids though. I has hoping they played the baba booey call.


That pandering to the KKK (Kardashian Klan Klip) was completely obnoxious and did nothing to help move the story along. UGH! :down:


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

getreal said:


> That pandering to the KKK (Kardashian Klan Klip) was completely obnoxious and did nothing to help move the story along. UGH! :down:


This. I didn't see in the credits, but perhaps they have put some money in the production of the show? They have no reason to be in the show after the first appearance (which you could argue can show that indeed Robert Kardashain is THAT Kardashian for those of us who didn't know).


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> This. I didn't see in the credits, but perhaps they have put some money in the production of the show? They have no reason to be in the show after the first appearance (which you could argue can show that indeed Robert Kardashain is THAT Kardashian for those of us who didn't know).


You could argue that the whole experience was what got them hooked on reality TV publicitiy.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

Yes. This was a turning point in American celebrity. Kato Kaelin became a celebrity. The Kardashian kids are just the evolution of celebrity culture after the OJ media circus.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I found this in an article.

In the 10 episodes, there are over 400 scenes that were written, executive producer Ryan Murphy said. Of those 400 scenes, only four or five of them involve the Kardashian children. That gives you a grasp on how important we felt they were to the story. 

The K kids have as much to do with the story as Al Cowlings kids or Robert Shapiros kids.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

JFriday said:


> I found this in an article.
> 
> In the 10 episodes, there are over 400 scenes that were written, executive producer Ryan Murphy said. Of those 400 scenes, only four or five of them involve the Kardashian children. That gives you a grasp on how important we felt they were to the story.
> 
> The K kids have as much to do with the story as Al Cowlings kids or Robert Shapiros kids.


Thats probably true but I think that the reverse is also true that the OJ story is what propelled them and mama to become who they are today. The interesting question would be if OJ had killed himself in the car would the kids have ever become famous.


----------



## deli99 (Nov 12, 2003)

JFriday said:


> I found this in an article.
> 
> In the 10 episodes, there are over 400 scenes that were written, executive producer Ryan Murphy said. *Of those 400 scenes, only four or five of them involve the Kardashian children*. That gives you a grasp on how important we felt they were to the story.
> 
> The K kids have as much to do with the story as Al Cowlings kids or Robert Shapiros kids.


I read the same thing and I think/HOPE we've reached the fourth or fifth scene.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

zalusky said:


> Thats probably true but I think that the reverse is also true that the OJ story is what propelled them and mama to become who they are today. The interesting question would be if OJ had killed himself in the car would the kids have ever become famous.


I disagree, Kim became famous after she made a leaked sex tape in 2007, 12 years after the trial, 4 years after her dad died. The public didn't know who the kids were until then.

Kris made her name as Bruces manager, nothing to do with Kardashian.


----------



## Gunnyman (Jul 10, 2003)

I had high hopes for this thing but it's pretty bad IMHO. I am probably going to delete the One Pass I set.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

JFriday said:


> I disagree, Kim became famous after she made a leaked sex tape in 2007, 12 years after the trial, 4 years after her dad died. The public didn't know who the kids were until then.


But the Kardashian name was made famous before that. Because of OJ.

If the Kardashian name wasn't known before that, the tape wouldn't have mattered.. The guy in it wasn't really THAT big of a name.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jsmeeker said:


> But the Kardashian name was made famous before that. Because of OJ.
> 
> If the Kardashian name wasn't known before that, the tape wouldn't have mattered.. The guy in it wasn't really THAT big of a name.


Right. Anyone can leak a sex tape. Not everyone can get people to care about it.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

jsmeeker said:


> But the Kardashian name was made famous before that. Because of OJ.
> 
> If the Kardashian name wasn't known before that, the tape wouldn't have mattered.. The guy in it wasn't really THAT big of a name.


All true, but in the scope of the OJ story, the girls are meaningless. The Dad is what matters. So, show the kids once to point to the fact it's the same Kardashians and be done with it. Showing a scene of them watching TV and pointing to Dad is really compelling TV


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

aindik said:


> Right. Anyone can leak a sex tape. Not everyone can get people to care about it.


People care about it? These Kardashians are LITERALLY the BUTT of jokes (pun intended). Why anyone remotely cares about them befuddles me.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> People care about it? These Kardashians are LITERALLY the BUTT of jokes (pun intended). Why anyone remotely cares about them befuddles me.


You're really questioning whether the Kardashians are famous? Of course people care. I didn't say they should care. I said they do.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

If I remember correctly, Kim had some recognition at the time of the tape as a friend of Paris Hilton. Wasn't she on that reality show with Paris and Nicole Ritchie?


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

JFriday said:


> I disagree, Kim became famous after she made a leaked sex tape in 2007, 12 years after the trial, 4 years after her dad died. The public didn't know who the kids were until then.
> 
> Kris made her name as Bruces manager, nothing to do with Kardashian.


I wasn't suggesting this contributed to making any of the kids famous. I am suggesting this helped formed the desire to be in the celebrity eye. Watching all the cameras and watching the people they knew being all over national media at that age could have been intoxicating. It certainly was for the lawyers and the judge.

Had it not happened maybe they would been different people.

That aside I think it reminds us that these families are a bit different than you and I.


----------



## gweempose (Mar 23, 2003)

zalusky said:


> I wasn't suggesting this contributed to making any of the kids famous. I am suggesting this helped formed the desire to be in the celebrity eye. Watching all the cameras and watching the people they knew being all over national media at that age could have been intoxicating ...


I agree. It's not unreasonable to assume that the trial had a huge impact on the psyches of those impressionable young kids. They watched their dad go from relative obscurity to a household name overnight. "Intoxicating" is the perfect word for it.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Or maybe being step daughter to a world famous athlete at the time contributed to wanting to be famous. Those kids grew up living the lifestyle of the rich and famous long before the OJ trial. Kris turned Bruce into a money making machine once she took over as his manager.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

And maybe that's why the keep showing them, because it's the only thing being discussed about the show. Lol.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Good grief. I've been avoiding this thread until I could watch the episode because I didn't want to be spoiled, but you guys aren't even talking about the episode at all. Who cares that there was 2 minutes of the Kardashian kids? Why does that bother everyone?

I thought this episode was excellent. Very tense when they showed the scenes in the Bronco. Very emotional as he was sitting in his driveway still in the car. I remember watching it live on TV. I can't imagine how frustrating that must have been for the cops and the prosecutors. They had to play along with this whole thing because OJ was threatening to kill himself, and because of that we got one of the most iconic moments in live TV history.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Who cares that there was 2 minutes of the Kardashian kids?


More like 10 seconds.

I remember the chase scene like it was yesterday. The Rockets were playing in the NBA Finals, there was a game scheduled that night, and we were in Cancun on a family vacation. We made a point of finding a bar where we could watch the Rockets play (Mexico... no problem bringing 9 & 11 yr old into a bar ).

And what do we get--a split screen with the Rockets in a little box, and a white Bronco filling up the rest of the screen. Rockets won the NBA championship that year!

And I agree, thought it was an excellent episode.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

They don't seem to be portraying the Kardashian kids that positively. Every time I see them, I think it's a little bit of humor to laugh at them and lighten the mood.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

astrohip said:


> I remember the chase scene like it was yesterday. The Rockets were playing in the NBA Finals, there was a game scheduled that night, and we were in Cancun on a family vacation. We made a point of finding a bar where we could watch the Rockets play (Mexico... no problem bringing 9 & 11 yr old into a bar ).


Ha! ... we were in the Bahamas on a SCUBA vacation and were in a bar when it came on as well. I've not watched this because for me the entire spectacle being on TV all the time annoyed me so much I still haven't gotten over it... too soon!


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

Gave up on this. The acting is just too bad.


----------



## wendiness1 (Jul 29, 2005)

I was such an OJ Simpson trial junkie when it was happening. I found it fascinating.

The movie is interesting and I appreciate that it's difficult to play living characters that have become so imprinted in our minds. But I just can't get past Cuba Gooding. No, no, no. He's nothing whatsoever like OJ. As an actor he is, in my opinion, making all the wrong choices.

Why would they have cast him? He's physically a small guy - not a football build, His voice is too high-pitched and squeaky. He is playing angry alot wheras OJ relied heavily on a chuckle-chuckle-one-of-the-guys sort of demeanor. When a bit of anger would slip out he's quickly cover it. I was disappointed in his scene tonight in which he tells Cochran he's innocent. He played it too convincingly. (I don't think OJ was ever that good of an actor) I think Gooding is playing is as OJ believing he's innocent but I don't think OJ was ever that self-deceived. In my opinion, OJ was fully aware that he murdered Nicole and Ron and felt justified in his own mind because Nicole brought it on himself. But knowing that would never be an accepted defense, he maintained his denial. So, to me, Gooding is playing this wrong. He needs to reveal the man behind the mask. Wrong choices.


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

This biopic of the Kardashian kids is good, but there's too much lawyer stuff.


----------



## TiVo'Brien (Feb 8, 2002)

"Harvard"  (I noticed the same thing about Dershowitz, that's why it's so funny.)

Loved the crank call to Johnny Cochran.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

tivoboyjr said:


> This biopic of the Kardashian kids is good, but there's too much lawyer stuff.


:up:


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Nathan Lane as F. Lee Bailey seems like stunt casting to me, even more so than Travolta as Robert Shapiro. He looks more like he's playing F. Lee Bailey in an SNL sketch than in what's supposed to be a docu-drama. 

Also, we get it. Marcia Clark likes to smoke.

Did they still have evening newspapers in Los Angeles in 1994? Because if not, the entire final scene makes absolutely no sense.


----------



## MLR930 (Dec 26, 2002)

aindik said:


> Nathan Lane as F. Lee Bailey seems like stunt casting to me, even more so than Travolta as Robert Shapiro. He looks more like he's playing F. Lee Bailey in an SNL sketch than in what's supposed to be a docu-drama.
> 
> Also, we get it. Marcia Clark likes to smoke.
> 
> Did they still have evening newspapers in Los Angeles in 1994? Because if not, the entire final scene makes absolutely no sense.


Newspaper scene could have been at sunrise when papers are delivered.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

aindik said:


> Also, we get it. Marcia Clark likes to smoke.


Lol. I thought the same thing. They go over the top on the littlest things.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

MLR930 said:


> Newspaper scene could have been at sunrise when papers are delivered.


She had just put her kids to bed.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

astrohip said:


> More like 10 seconds.


I take it back (my quote above was referring to how little we actually see the K kids on this series).

That opening scene with them in the diner was too much. Way too much. I'm not sure why they even have them in this. It's far more likely to drive away the demo that watches this, than rope them in.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

astrohip said:


> I take it back (my quote above was referring to how little we actually see the K kids on this series).
> 
> That opening scene with them in the diner was too much. Way too much. I'm not sure why they even have them in this. It's far more likely to drive away the demo that watches this, than rope them in.


They have the kids in there to show us that the kids have retained absolutely nothing they supposedly learned from their father. Why we care about that, I'm not sure.


----------



## Gerryex (Apr 24, 2004)

Am I crazy but at the very end when Marcia Clark is reading in the newspaper that Jonnie Cochran was joining OJ's legal team did she say: Mother F-er! If so this was the first time I heard that on a non-premium channel!!

Gerry


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Gerryex said:


> Am I crazy but at the very end when Marcia Clark is reading in the newspaper that Jonnie Cochran was joining OJ's legal team did she say: Mother F-er! If so this was the first time I heard that on a non-premium channel!!
> 
> Gerry


Yes.

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/17/people-oj-simpson?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter


----------



## Dubbadown (Dec 6, 2002)

Gerryex said:


> Am I crazy but at the very end when Marcia Clark is reading in the newspaper that Jonnie Cochran was joining OJ's legal team did she say: Mother F-er! If so this was the first time I heard that on a non-premium channel!!
> 
> Gerry


No.


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/louie/comments/25f25k


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

wendiness1 said:


> I was such an OJ Simpson trial junkie when it was happening. I found it fascinating.
> 
> The movie is interesting and I appreciate that it's difficult to play living characters that have become so imprinted in our minds. But I just can't get past Cuba Gooding. No, no, no. He's nothing whatsoever like OJ. As an actor he is, in my opinion, making all the wrong choices.


:up:

This is the biggest problem for me as well. All I see is Cuba. Not OJ.

Same thing with Travolta as Shapiro. The others I'm OK with. Even Schwimmer as Kardashian is fine.

I'm enjoying it so far. Was the name "Dream Team" first coined with this trial?


----------



## zeppo2 (Mar 26, 2005)

gossamer88 said:


> :up:
> 
> This is the biggest problem for me as well. All I see is Cuba. Not OJ.
> 
> ...


 No. The "Dream Team" name came from the 1992 USA men's Olympics Basketball team, which was just a couple years prior to the trial.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

zeppo2 said:


> No. The "Dream Team" name came from the 1992 USA men's Olympics Basketball team, which was just a couple years prior to the trial.


Yep. IIRC, 1992 was the first Olympics in which professionals were (officially) allowed to participate.


----------



## mooseAndSquirrel (Aug 31, 2001)

Thanks god I bailed before Nathan Lane. That's a crazy choice.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

astrohip said:


> I take it back (my quote above was referring to how little we actually see the K kids on this series).
> 
> That opening scene with them in the diner was too much. Way too much. I'm not sure why they even have them in this. It's far more likely to drive away the demo that watches this, than rope them in.





aindik said:


> They have the kids in there to show us that the kids have retained absolutely nothing they supposedly learned from their father. Why we care about that, I'm not sure.


They put them in because, Kardashian kids = ratings. Once they showed them in the first episode, I knew they'd beat us over the head with them. Annoying.

I agree, Gooding is the wrong person to play OJ. He does seem too small and too high pitched. I think a better choice would have been the actor who played Jackie Robinson in the movie 42. (I'm too lazy to look up the actor's name).

I also think that David Schwimmer is playing Ross playing Kardashian, although I don't remember too much about him.

Still it's entertaining in a macabre sort of way, which is kind of how the whole OJ case was to begin with.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

madscientist said:


> Ha! ... we were in the Bahamas on a SCUBA vacation and were in a bar when it came on as well. I've not watched this because for me the entire spectacle being on TV all the time annoyed me so much I still haven't gotten over it... too soon!





JFriday said:


> Yes.
> 
> http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/17/people-oj-simpson?xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter





Dubbadown said:


> No.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/louie/comments/25f25k


I sure heard it. In fact I played it back twice to make sure. I wonder why they made the decision to use it? Shock value? IMO it was unnecessary, but I'm sure the whole point was to get publicity for the show.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Dubbadown said:


> No.
> 
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/louie/comments/25f25k


That's not Mother F*****.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I wonder why they made the decision to use it?


Obviously to show the link between the Kardashians and their potty mouths.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Saw on the Today Show that Nicole Brown Simpson's sister is upset at David Schwimmer for not contacting them. He apparently spoke with Kris Jenner.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

gossamer88 said:


> Saw on the Today Show that Nicole Brown Simpson's sister is upset at David Schwimmer for not contacting them. He apparently spoke with Kris Jenner.


Didn't he contact Kris to get an inside on Robert Kardashian? How would they be able to give that?


----------



## jilter (Oct 4, 2002)

wendiness1 said:


> i was such an oj simpson trial junkie when it was happening. I found it fascinating. The movie is interesting and i appreciate that it's difficult to play living characters that have become so imprinted in our minds. But i just can't get past cuba gooding. No, no, no. He's nothing whatsoever like oj. As an actor he is, in my opinion, making all the wrong choices. Why would they have cast him? He's physically a small guy - not a football build, his voice is too high-pitched and squeaky. He is playing angry alot wheras oj relied heavily on a chuckle-chuckle-one-of-the-guys sort of demeanor. When a bit of anger would slip out he's quickly cover it. I was disappointed in his scene tonight in which he tells cochran he's innocent. He played it too convincingly. (i don't think oj was ever that good of an actor) i think gooding is playing is as oj believing he's innocent but i don't think oj was ever that self-deceived. In my opinion, oj was fully aware that he murdered nicole and ron and felt justified in his own mind because nicole brought it on himself. But knowing that would never be an accepted defense, he maintained his denial. So, to me, gooding is playing this wrong. He needs to reveal the man behind the mask. Wrong choices.


+1


----------



## forecheck (Aug 5, 2000)

3 episodes in and I am loving it. I followed things pretty closely when it was happening but still there are many things I didn't know about.

While I don't care about the Kardashian kids, I did enjoy the little knock on them that Ross gave: "We are Kardashians, and in this family, being a good person and a loyal friend is more important than being famous. Fame is fleeting. It's hollow. It means nothing at all without a virtuous heart."


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

gossamer88 said:


> Saw on the Today Show that Nicole Brown Simpson's sister is upset at David Schwimmer for not contacting them. He apparently spoke with Kris Jenner.


Why would he contact her? My sister doesn't know any of my friends except for meeting them at my wedding. Why would she think she knows more about the guy than his ex-wife?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

midas said:


> Why would he contact her? My sister doesn't know any of my friends except for meeting them at my wedding. Why would she think she knows more about the guy than his ex-wife?


While I don't agree with them being mad at Schwimmer, I don't think they wanted him to contact them to get information for playing the role. I'll bet they just wanted him to get their blessing to be in this movie that deals with their sister and her death.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Here's the piece on the Today Show:

http://www.today.com/video/sister-o...-criticizes-o-j-simpson-tv-drama-625317955996


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> While I don't agree with them being mad at Schwimmer, I don't think they wanted him to contact them to get information for playing the role. I'll bet they just wanted him to get their blessing to be in this movie that deals with their sister and her death.


If that's true she should come down from her high horse. Does she think she's the Godfather?


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Steveknj said:


> I also think that David Schwimmer is playing Ross playing Kardashian, although I don't remember too much about him.


That is the curse of Friends for Schwimmer as he is playing Ross, doing an impression of Kardashian. He will never get off that typecast.


----------



## jsmeeker (Apr 2, 2001)

rifleman69 said:


> That is the curse of Friends for Schwimmer as he is playing Ross, doing an impression of Kardashian. He will never get off that typecast.


I watched Band of Brothers. I don't think I really saw Ross. But I was never a real regular watcher of 'Friends'


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

rifleman69 said:


> That is the curse of Friends for Schwimmer as he is playing Ross, doing an impression of Kardashian. He will never get off that typecast.


My problem with the show is the voices. They sound like Schwimmer and Travolta and nothing like the real guys. It takes me out of the moment. I don't mind the makeup. As much as Cuba Gooding does not look like OJ at least he makes a vocal attempt with the raspy voice.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

rifleman69 said:


> That is the curse of Friends for Schwimmer as he is playing Ross, doing an impression of Kardashian. He will never get off that typecast.





jsmeeker said:


> I watched Band of Brothers. I don't think I really saw Ross. But I was never a real regular watcher of 'Friends'


That's it. I think that Schwimmer doesn't have to be type cast. I just think it's his acting in this role. He certainly never gave off a Ross vibe in Band of Brothers.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

zalusky said:


> My problem with the show is the voices. They sound like Schwimmer and Travolta and nothing like the real guys. It takes me out of the moment. I don't mind the makeup. As much as Cuba Gooding does not look like OJ at least he makes a vocal attempt with the raspy voice.


I like Travolta, generally speaking... However, in this role, he always seems to be speaking with his teeth clenched, and it just sounds awkward and unnatural...

I am enjoying the series so far (I am only 2 episodes into it)...

I never really followed the trial and the personalities while it was happening, and I find it fascinating to see it all unfold in front of me again (but this time, with my attention)...

I a lot of it sensationalized? Sure, I presume so... But I don't care...it's entertaining, and if it has a modicum of truth, I still find it fascinating...


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

rifleman69 said:


> That is the curse of Friends for Schwimmer as he is playing Ross, doing an impression of Kardashian. He will never get off that typecast.


I actually think this kind of thing is true of most actors, previously and current.. People often latch onto what they first saw the actor do, but really, it's the actor almost always being "themselves".

It's true of the couple of movies I've seen of Humphrey Bogart, to Harrison Ford (who I really like), to yes, especially many sitcom actors. (Matthew Perry is "always Chandler", even in the other shows I've liked him in past Friends.)

There're really only a few actors, like Anthony Hopkins and Meryl Streep, who can really change into different roles.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

mattack said:


> I actually think this kind of thing is true of most actors, previously and current.. People often latch onto what they first saw the actor do, but really, it's the actor almost always being "themselves".
> 
> It's true of the couple of movies I've seen of Humphrey Bogart, to Harrison Ford (who I really like), to yes, especially many sitcom actors. (Matthew Perry is "always Chandler", even in the other shows I've liked him in past Friends.)
> 
> There're really only a few actors, like Anthony Hopkins and Meryl Streep, who can really change into different roles.


When I first watched Nurse Jackie I thought I'd never unsee Carmella Soprano, but I eventually did. Totally forgot about her. I never expected Edie Falco to be able to do that, but she did, at least to me.

OTOH, Little Steven van Zandt is Silvio even when he's not acting at all.


----------



## TiVo'Brien (Feb 8, 2002)

So Robert Shapiro wanted to plea bargain the case down to manslaughter? I never knew this. That's the thing about this show - I like the little details that are coming out.

I had to laugh (but felt bad for) at the focus group's opinion of Marcia Clark. I was wondering if they were going to say what I was thinking and they did!


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

I read an article about this series, that one of the things that's supposed to be brought out, that wasn't really talked about back in 94 and 95, is the kind of sexist double standard that Marcia Clark had to deal with. Apparently Sarah Paulson went to talk to Marcia Clark about it while they were in production. This is starting to come out here with the suggestions that she change her hair and her wardrobe, and that she's a "*****." (Yes, I know it was a woman in the focus group who said she was a *****.)


----------



## Jayjoans (Jan 23, 2003)

I followed the actual trial somewhat closely, and I didn't remember an issue arising with Judge Ito's wife and her apparently knowing Mark Fuhrman.

Google has shown me what I missed back in August 1995.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

aindik said:


> I read an article about this series, that one of the things that's supposed to be brought out, that wasn't really talked about back in 94 and 95, is the kind of sexist double standard that Marcia Clark had to deal with. Apparently Sarah Paulson went to talk to Marcia Clark about it while they were in production. This is starting to come out here with the suggestions that she change her hair and her wardrobe, and that she's a "*****." (Yes, I know it was a woman in the focus group who said she was a *****.)


I'm pretty sure it was talked about because she distinctly changed her hair during the trial.

-smak-


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

smak said:


> I'm pretty sure it was talked about because she distinctly changed her hair during the trial.
> 
> -smak-


What I meant was not talked about was what is now perceived as the inherent sexism in the suggestion that she change her hair and wear skirts.

Also mentioned in the article was the sexist manner with which Ito treated her, including in front of the jury.

This is the article. It may be spoilery:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/02/marcia-clark-redeemed-c-v-r.html


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

MikeekiM said:


> I like Travolta, generally speaking... However, in this role, he always seems to be speaking with his teeth clenched, and it just sounds awkward and unnatural...
> 
> I am enjoying the series so far (I am only 2 episodes into it)...
> 
> ...


I think Travolta is trying to emulate the chin up, little upper face mmovement of the real Shapiro. Not effectively, of course.

(the YT tag doesn't seem to work)


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

zeppo2 said:


> (the YT tag doesn't seem to work)


Here...(you only use the video code #)


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

zalusky said:


> My problem with the show is the voices. They sound like Schwimmer and Travolta and nothing like the real guys. It takes me out of the moment. I don't mind the makeup. As much as Cuba Gooding does not look like OJ at least he makes a vocal attempt with the raspy voice.


this is so not fair....

every biopic is not going to be exactly true to the subjects. the vast majority of the actors probably have minimal resemblance to the subjects. they just have the luxury of us not knowing who they are. you think bradley cooper really was a spot on impersonation of chris kyle? or is it that we had no idea who chris kyle was, so cooper had the freedom to portray him as best he could?

that being said, i feel like paulson is nailing marcia clark. and johnnie cochran was a caricature in real life anyways, so he's easy to imitate.

but i'm not letting the other take away from the show.. i am loving this series.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Some of the "impressions," for lack of a better word, are great. Cochran, Darden, Clark, Ito are all really good. The impressions of OJ, Robert Shapiro, and F. Lee Bailey are terrible.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

aindik said:


> Some of the "impressions," for lack of a better word, are great. Cochran, Darden, Clark, Ito are all really good. The impressions of OJ, Robert Shapiro, and F. Lee Bailey are terrible.


I think Travoltas impression of Shapiro resembles the video posted above.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I'm not really worried about how well (or not well) the actors are at playing the real-life people. I'm just fascinated by the machinations and the decisions, most of which are based on some pretty-well researched source material.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I'm not really worried about how well (or not well) the actors are at playing the real-life people. I'm just fascinated by the machinations and the decisions, most of which are based on some pretty-well researched source material.


That's how I look at it. I remember the OJ stuff, but there's so much behind the scenes stuff that I never knew about and what went into the decisions that everyone made, and if true, it's really interesting.


----------



## zalusky (Apr 5, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> That's how I look at it. I remember the OJ stuff, but there's so much behind the scenes stuff that I never new about and what went into the decisions that everyone made, and if true, it's really interesting.


While that would be interesting there seem to be a lot of scenes that they must be creatively writing like between OJ and Shapiro private meetings or the conversations inside the Bronco between AJ and OJ.

I look at a lot of these scenes and say how do we really know thats how it played out.

The more public scenes like where Marcia is called a ***** I can easily see.

So I have to pick and choose.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

zalusky said:


> While that would be interesting there seem to be a lot of scenes that they must be creatively writing like between OJ and Shapiro private meetings or the conversations inside the Bronco between AJ and OJ.
> 
> I look at a lot of these scenes and say how do we really know thats how it played out.
> 
> ...


I think this is based on a book. Well we don't know, obviously, if everything in the book is true, but, I would imagine that's where the source material is coming from, based on interviews and so forth.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Correct. The show is primarily based on the book "The Run of His Life" by Jeffrey Toobin. But I've heard interviews with the writers and they've also mentioned how nearly everyone involved wrote books, including some of the jurors. So there is lots of source material out there.

As for some of the private conversations that we couldn't possibly know what was really said, of course there has to be some creative license with that stuff. But even with that private conversation between Cochran and OJ from the most recent episode, while we don't know if the conversation actually happened, what we do know is that in the early court appearances, OJ looked downtrodden and defeated. Then suddenly, he started appearing in court looking like the confident man he had been prior to the murders. There's lots of speculation as to what caused this, but it seems to have coincided with the time when Cochran took over control of the Dream Team. So it's not a stretch for the writers to write a scene where Cochran told OJ that he needs to look and act like a winner if he wants the public, and especially the jury, to see him that way.

Here's a great recap of the latest episode, going over the plot points that matched with reality:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/02/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-4-recap


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

aindik said:


> What I meant was not talked about was what is now perceived as the inherent sexism in the suggestion that she change her hair and wear skirts.
> 
> Also mentioned in the article was the sexist manner with which Ito treated her, including in front of the jury.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure it was sexism in the fact that her change was based on actual events in the field, ie jury consultants finding that people didn't like her.

Now, people may not have liked her looks, and that could have partially been based on sexism, but the position that she would change a few things to help people like her more isn't really sexist imo.

-smak-


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

aindik said:


> Some of the "impressions," for lack of a better word, are great. Cochran, Darden, Clark, Ito are all really good. The impressions of OJ, Robert Shapiro, and F. Lee Bailey are terrible.


Yah, especially Darden, the guy looks and sounds exactly like him.

Cochran and Clark are also very good, but I'm very familiar with the actors, so they don't get as much lost in their roles as some of the others.

But they both are excellent.

-smak-


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

smak said:


> I'm not sure it was sexism in the fact that her change was based on actual events in the field, ie jury consultants finding that people didn't like her.
> 
> Now, people may not have liked her looks, and that could have partially been based on sexism, but the position that she would change a few things to help people like her more isn't really sexist imo.
> 
> -smak-


I think the sexist part is nobody asked Robert Shapiro to change his hair. Nobody asked Johnny Cochran to wear less flashy suits. Sexism on the part of the mock jury, or the real jury, counts, too.

The two of us are on kind of interesting sides in this discussion, btw.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

It's sexist in that a male being aggressive in the courtroom is viewed as powerful and an effective advocate for his client. A woman being aggressive in the courtroom is viewed as a ***** and unlikable.


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

aindik said:


> I think the sexist part is nobody asked Robert Shapiro to change his hair. Nobody asked Johnny Cochran to wear less flashy suits. Sexism on the part of the mock jury, or the real jury, counts, too.
> 
> The two of us are on kind of interesting sides in this discussion, btw.


I guarantee you, if jury consultants didn't like Johnny Cochran's suits, he would be at Men's Wearhouse stat.

-smka-


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

smak said:


> I guarantee you, if jury consultants didn't like Johnny Cochran's suits, he would be at Men's Wearhouse stat.
> 
> -smka-


Sure he would. But they didn't care about his suits. Or about his appearance at all. That's the point.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I somehow doubt that Cochran shopped at Men's Warehouse. Maybe I'm wrong...


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

The OJ trial commentators comments about Shapiro & Cochran's "power ties" were the first time I had heard about such a thing.


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

things i learned in this weeks episode (march 1 i believe)

how darden ended up assistant lead... don't remember the courtroom heart attack

details behind the juror site visit... if the point is to see oj's house, how is it ok to change everything about it. 

how much turmoil and infighting was going on in the oj camp. i always wondered how it shifted from kardashian to shapiro to cochran. 

mark furhman is a white supremecist.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

A bit of breaking news on this now 21 year old story.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/us/oj-simpson-property-knife/index.html


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

bruinfan said:


> things i learned in this weeks episode (march 1 i believe)
> 
> how darden ended up assistant lead... don't remember the courtroom heart attack
> 
> ...


the ADA didn't have a heart attack in the courtroom, that's hollywood. He fell ill during a meeting with chest pains and took time off.

The home and contents were evidence after the police returned them to the owner. They could have torn the house down or done anything at that point.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> the ADA didn't have a heart attack in the courtroom, that's hollywood. He fell ill during a meeting with chest pains and took time off.


Thanks - I thought it was odd that I didn't remember the court room heart attack either.

I must say - it's been getting better as it goes along... (the show that is...)


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> Thanks - I thought it was odd that I didn't remember the court room heart attack either.
> 
> I must say - it's been getting better as it goes along... (the show that is...)


Agree. It's finding its groove now that it's in the courtroom.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

I just got caught up on the series this weekend. I think the casting is fantastic with the glaring exception of Cuba as OJ. Every other cast member so resembles their real life counterpart that it's extremely jarring to me every time Cuba speaks as OJ. He doesn't look like OJ and he certainly doesn't sound like OJ.

I vividly remember watching the White Ford Bronco chase on TV. I remember thinking and hoping that OJ was innocent before the trial started. I don't remember the exact moment that I realized that my childhood football hero was a murderer, but I do remember being shocked when the verdict was read. He was so obviously guilty, even to me as a huge fan of The Juice, that I just couldn't understand how he wasn't convicted.

This series has so far exceeded my expectations. I for years have wanted to know the behind the scenes story of the 'Dream Team'. I read Marcia's book, but it was just one side of the story. I think this show is giving me the story that I've long wanted to know.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Just watched episode 5. I don't remember the co-prosecutor having a heart attack. I googled. He did suffer chest pains during a meeting and that is why he bowed out. 

Furhman did collect Nazi memorabilia. And the house make-over? That was true. How in the hell did they get away with that?!!


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Did they at least have a flashback scene where they show OJ killing his ex-wife and a waiter?


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

I'm loving this series -- it's the best thing on TV right now. So well done.



mooseAndSquirrel said:


> Gave up on this. The acting is just too bad.


I couldn't disagree more. Many (if not most) if these performances are excellent.



Steveknj said:


> They put them in because, Kardashian kids = ratings. Once they showed them in the first episode, I knew they'd beat us over the head with them. Annoying.


I've watched 7 episodes so far, and they've only spent a few seconds (in total) on the Kardashian kids. And I think it was an appropriate wink to the audience. Nothing to do with "ratings," other than making a compelling presentation of a 20 year old case, and connecting the dots to current pop culture.

This has been an excellent mini-series. I can't wait to watch the next episode. It's just so, so good.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

busyba said:


> Did they at least have a flashback scene where they show OJ killing his ex-wife and a waiter?


From what I've read, it's a deliberate decision on the part of the producers not to reenact the murders. Not bc they'll reveal who did it (in the eyes of the producers) but because it's too gruesome. It was (according to them) out of respect for the Brown and Goldman families.

I think the acting WAS ridiculous early on. It's gotten better. I think the reason for that is that the real life diminishing of Robert Shapiro's role as time went on has corresponded to a diminished role for John Travolta as the miniseries has gone on. His performance is one of the most ridiculous.

By contrast, the roles of Marcia Clark and Chris Darden have increased, and those portrayals are excellent.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

Is anyone else having recording issues with this show? I had a couple of episodes where my DVR (not TiVo) cut off the last 10 minutes or so. Even though the episode lengths have been inconsistent, my DVR is accurately reflecting the length of the episode but will still stop abruptly before it is over. This only seems to be happening with the initial airing of an episode. If I pick up a repeat, they have been fine.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

My TiVo recordings have been fine. Each episode is somewhere between 1:10 and 1:20, and either the guide data has been accurate, or my default buffer has caught the rest. None of my recordings have been cut off.


----------



## forecheck (Aug 5, 2000)

goblue97 said:


> Is anyone else having recording issues with this show? I had a couple of episodes where my DVR (not TiVo) cut off the last 10 minutes or so. Even though the episode lengths have been inconsistent, my DVR is accurately reflecting the length of the episode but will still stop abruptly before it is over. This only seems to be happening with the initial airing of an episode. If I pick up a repeat, they have been fine.


I am using the DirecTv Genie and had the last 10 minutes cut off of the episode that ended with Furhman with his Nazi medals, but besides that one, they have been recorded fine.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

My TiVo always records the episode re-run that's around 2 am and I've have a couple episodes where the recording caught 20-30 minutes of the end of something else and then the first half of the episode I wanted. In those cases, I've just found a copy of the show via magical means. I've never had a recording say it was going for 1:12 and then stop sooner than that.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

The shows are available on demand via FX Now on the various platforms (including AppleTV).


----------



## danielhart (Apr 27, 2004)

forecheck said:


> I am using the DirecTv Genie and had the last 10 minutes cut off of the episode that ended with Furhman with his Nazi medals, but besides that one, they have been recorded fine.


I had the same issue with thar same episode on my genie. I also recall the same thing happening for an episode of fargo. Maybe it's an fx thing.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

danielhart said:


> I had the same issue with thar same episode on my genie. I also recall the same thing happening for an episode of fargo. Maybe it's an fx thing.


I think it is an FX thing. I've had similar issues with episodes of American Horror Story.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

forecheck said:


> I am using the DirecTv Genie and had the last 10 minutes cut off of the episode that ended with Furhman with his Nazi medals, but besides that one, they have been recorded fine.


Yup, I missed the end of that one and I think one where Marcia Clark has something happen with her hair because the next episode starts with her telling her boss not to mention her hair again.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Poor Marcia Clarke. I feel bad for her. And Sarah Paulson is doing a great job making her sympathetic.

About the glove...Christopher Darden getting played like that. I wonder if that really happened. 

And I'm pretty surprised at the F-bombs.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

gossamer88 said:


> About the glove...Christopher Darden getting played like that. I wonder if that really happened.


There was a Dateline special about the OJ trial a few weeks ago and according to Marcia Clarke, it was Darden's idea to do the demonstration with the gloves. They didn't elaborate as to whether or not he was goaded into doing it though. She also went on to say something about that not being the reason they lost the trial (or something along those lines).


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

I had no idea there was (at least initially, with the late night dance, and when they went on that road trip?) any romantic tension between Marcia Clarke and Chris Darden.

This sort of thing must have been shared by Marcia or Chris though? Was this common knowledge with regards to the gossip surrounding this case? 

Was this all covered in the Jeffrey Toobin book too?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Marcia Clark (the real one) also noted that OJ is mugging for the camera like a clown, while wearing the gloves that, undisputedly, were used to brutally murder his ex-wife (whether by him or not) and had her blood all over them.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Fofer said:


> I had no idea there was (at least initially, with the late night dance, and when they went on that road trip?) any romantic tension between Marcia Clarke and Chris Darden. This sort of thing must have been shared by Marcia or Chris though? Was this common knowledge with regards to the gossip surrounding this case? Was this all covered in the Jeffrey Toobin book too?


I vaguely remember hearing rumors. When you could see the connection happening between them my wife asked if that happened. I sure I heard the rumors well after the trial.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Fofer said:


> I had no idea there was (at least initially, with the late night dance, and when they went on that road trip?) any romantic tension between Marcia Clarke and Chris Darden.
> 
> This sort of thing must have been shared by Marcia or Chris though? Was this common knowledge with regards to the gossip surrounding this case?
> 
> Was this all covered in the Jeffrey Toobin book too?


Marcia Clark's comments, in 2016, are basically "Chris and I agreed not to comment on the nature of our relationship."


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Marcia Clark was on The Ellen Degeneres Show last week and Ellen asked her several times if they ever made out. It became a running joke for the appearance. Clark apparently is now a fiction mystery writer. Who knew?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Fofer said:


> I've watched 7 episodes so far, and they've only spent a few seconds (in total) on the Kardashian kids. And I think it was an appropriate wink to the audience. Nothing to do with "ratings," other than making a compelling presentation of a 20 year old case, and connecting the dots to current pop culture.
> 
> This has been an excellent mini-series. I can't wait to watch the next episode. It's just so, so good.


They were prevalent in the first two to three episodes (one conversation I recall was them talking with their dad about Uncle Juice being in trouble). To their credit, they haven't shown up in the last few episodes.

I agree, this is is a fun series. How much is fact and how much is fiction, who knows? But I'm enjoying rehashing this stuff 20 years or so later.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

goblue97 said:


> Is anyone else having recording issues with this show? I had a couple of episodes where my DVR (not TiVo) cut off the last 10 minutes or so. Even though the episode lengths have been inconsistent, my DVR is accurately reflecting the length of the episode but will still stop abruptly before it is over. This only seems to be happening with the initial airing of an episode. If I pick up a repeat, they have been fine.





forecheck said:


> I am using the DirecTv Genie and had the last 10 minutes cut off of the episode that ended with Furhman with his Nazi medals, but besides that one, they have been recorded fine.





danielhart said:


> I had the same issue with thar same episode on my genie. I also recall the same thing happening for an episode of fargo. Maybe it's an fx thing.


I think this happened the first episode, and since then I've padded a few minutes and I haven't had an issue since.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

aindik said:


> Marcia Clark's comments, in 2016, are basically "Chris and I agreed not to comment on the nature of our relationship."


Nearly all the plot points in the series so far are based on real life reports or facts from the case... so this nuance must have come from some source? It plays a very big part in episode 7. I don't think the writers just made it up? And Marcia and Chris agreed to not talk about the nature of their relationship.

So I'm wondering what source material (or from whom) it came from.


----------



## jschuman (Feb 20, 2001)

Vanity Fair does a fact-check of each episode, very entertaining articles if you're watching the series: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-7-recap

Most of the BIG things in the courtroom are true (which makes sense since the whole trial was broadcast) while they've obviously had to take some liberties with private conversations between individuals.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

jschuman said:


> Vanity Fair does a fact-check of each episode, very entertaining articles if you're watching the series: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-7-recap


Thanks for that -- it explained the sources of the particular storyline I was asking about.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

gossamer88 said:


> Just watched episode 5. I don't remember the co-prosecutor having a heart attack. I googled. He did suffer chest pains during a meeting and that is why he bowed out.





jschuman said:


> Vanity Fair does a fact-check of each episode, very entertaining articles if you're watching the series: http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-7-recap


That's exactly where I read the part about the heart attack scene.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

And what about the part when, during recess, Shapiro saunters up to the witness stand and tries the bloody glove on for size? Did that actually happen? I'm no lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but that seems like it would be a big violation of court procedure. Like tampering with evidence or something?

How that whole thing went down is crazy. With rubber gloves on underneath, "trying" to put on a glove that's been drying in blood for months, especially with bent fingers, is OBVIOUSLY not going to fit anyone!

The whole exercise was ridiculous. And yet, crazily enough, it worked wonders for the defense.

Or perhaps these jurors had already made up their minds regardless...



goblue97 said:


> There was a Dateline special about the OJ trial a few weeks ago and according to Marcia Clarke, it was Darden's idea to do the demonstration with the gloves. They didn't elaborate as to whether or not he was goaded into doing it though. * She also went on to say something about that not being the reason they lost the trial (or something along those lines)*.


Has she ever gone on record to give her opinion, then, about the reason they lost the trial?


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Fofer said:


> And what about the part when, during recess, Shapiro saunters up to the witness stand and tries the bloody glove on for size? Did that actually happen? I'm no lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but that seems like it would be a big violation of court procedure. Like tampering with evidence or something?
> 
> How that whole thing went down is crazy. With rubber gloves on underneath, "trying" to put on a glove that's been drying in blood for months, especially with bent fingers, is OBVIOUSLY not going to fit anyone!
> 
> The whole exercise was ridiculous. And yet, crazily enough, it worked wonders for the defense.


I thought the same thing, especially afterwards when nobody touched the gloves with rubber gloves on afterwards.


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

Fofer said:


> And what about the part when, during recess, Shapiro saunters up to the witness stand and tries the bloody glove on for size? Did that actually happen? I'm no lawyer (nor do I play one on TV) but that seems like it would be a big violation of court procedure. Like tampering with evidence or something?
> 
> How that whole thing went down is crazy. With rubber gloves on underneath, "trying" to put on a glove that's been drying in blood for months, especially with bent fingers, is OBVIOUSLY not going to fit anyone!
> 
> ...


If you read the article posted above, it IS true. Cochran tried them on also.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Mikeyis4dcats said:


> If you read the article posted above, it IS true. Cochran tried them on also.


I read it, but wish there were more details. Like, how did they get away with it? Was no one watching? No bailiff there to prevent them?

I dunno, maybe that sort of thing is normal in court cases and I'm just being naive, but on a case of this magnitude that seemed really... strange to me.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Fofer said:


> I read it, but wish there were more details. Like, how did they get away with it? Was no one watching? No bailiff there to prevent them?
> 
> I dunno, maybe that sort of thing is normal in court cases and I'm just being naive, but on a case of this magnitude that seemed really... strange to me.


I agree. I'm not a criminal lawyer so I don't know what the rules are, but that seemed very unbelievable to me that the gloves would just be left on the stand during a lunch break for anyone to walk up and touch. And while I'm sure that part was fictional, if OJ was forced to wear latex gloves to protect the integrity of the evidence, when and how were Shapiro and Cochran allowed to try the gloves on without latex gloves? Were they given time to examine the prosecution's evidence in private?


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> I agree. I'm not a criminal lawyer so I don't know what the rules are, but that seemed very unbelievable to me that the gloves would just be left on the stand during a lunch break for anyone to walk up and touch. And while I'm sure that part was fictional, if OJ was forced to wear latex gloves to protect the integrity of the evidence, when and how were Shapiro and Cochran allowed to try the gloves on without latex gloves? Were they given time to examine the prosecution's evidence in private?


It doesn't matter (much) if later analysis found Shapiro or Cochran's prints or DNA on the gloves. OJ, not so much. 

So, I think the latex gloves were to protect him, not the integrity of the evidence in general.

But also to protect the prosecution from claims by the defense that OJ's prints on the glove are from the trial.


----------



## astrohip (Jan 7, 2003)

goblue97 said:


> Is anyone else having recording issues with this show? I had a couple of episodes where my DVR (not TiVo) cut off the last 10 minutes or so. Even though the episode lengths have been inconsistent, my DVR is accurately reflecting the length of the episode but will still stop abruptly before it is over. This only seems to be happening with the initial airing of an episode. If I pick up a repeat, they have been fine.


Same here. DirecTV Genie cut off the last ten minutes twice. I've since padded 1/2 hour, and the problem is gone. My TiVo on Comcast never has this issue.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Hmm. My DirecTV DVRs (non-Genie) have never had this issue. Wonder why that is?


----------



## bruinfan (Jan 17, 2006)

my thought is that once the evidence has been processed, and there is mutually no need to collect more, then preserving the evidence stops being a priority. So if they "find OJ's prints" on the glove once they have been released, it's not a question that the evidence has been tampered. EVeryone is touching the evidence.

of course, 100% of my lawyering experience is through tv and movies... so there. but i've seen plenty of shows that have murder weapons being touched without gloves.


things i've learned the last 2 eps:
the genesis and evolution behind marcia clark's hair and look
chris darden is conflicted about oj being black and the sexual tension thing.
johnnie cochran is not a good guy... the whole domestic violence thing
rob kardashian is a star f'er
OJ likes to use football metaphors

did they finish the mark fuhrman being white supremecist story line?


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

bruinfan said:


> things i've learned the last 2 eps:
> ...
> rob kardashian is a star f'er
> ...


I guess it's hereditary.


----------



## jschuman (Feb 20, 2001)

DevdogAZ said:


> I agree. I'm not a criminal lawyer so I don't know what the rules are, but that seemed very unbelievable to me that the gloves would just be left on the stand during a lunch break for anyone to walk up and touch. And while I'm sure that part was fictional, if OJ was forced to wear latex gloves to protect the integrity of the evidence, when and how were Shapiro and Cochran allowed to try the gloves on without latex gloves? Were they given time to examine the prosecution's evidence in private?


it seemed pretty unbelievable to me as well, but again, it totally happened. Even MORE unbelievable is that it appears that *nobody* on the _prosecution_ side tried on the gloves! Wouldn't they want to make sure they would fit before having OJ try them on? If Shapiro could make the determination that they wouldn't fit couldn't Darden do the same? That's bad lawyering.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

jschuman said:


> it seemed pretty unbelievable to me as well, but again, it totally happened. Even MORE unbelievable is that it appears that *nobody* on the _prosecution_ side tried on the gloves! Wouldn't they want to make sure they would fit before having OJ try them on? If Shapiro could make the determination that they wouldn't fit couldn't Darden do the same? That's bad lawyering.


If the show is to be believed, Darden is the only person on the prosecution side who knew, going into court that day, that they were going to have OJ try on the gloves.


----------



## jschuman (Feb 20, 2001)

aindik said:


> If the show is to be believed, Darden is the only person on the prosecution side who knew, going into court that day, that they were going to have OJ try on the gloves.


The show is not to be believed in that respect. From http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-7-recap:



> *Marcia Clark was against having O.J. try on the gloves in front of the jury, even though Darden was for it.*
> 
> False. The prosecution had always planned to have Simpson try on the glovesbut a duplicate pair of the exact ones found at the scene (extra-large Isotoners) that they ordered from the manufacturer, not the bloodied glove from evidence and not with a latex glove underneath. And it was Judge Ito who made the crucial call to have Simpson try on, with latex gloves underneath, the actual blood-soaked (and possibly shrunken) crime-scene glove, not the duplicates the prosecution had intended.


I suppose Ito threw a curveball in there at the last moment, and IANAL, but still seems pretty negligent not to _know_ that the actual glove would be a tight fit at that point.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Whether or not they _knew_ they would fit seems immaterial, given the later, larger context.

I'd bet that a duplicate pair of the exact same gloves would have been a perfectly fine fit.

But the original pair of gloves that:
-has been soaked in blood for months
-worn over another pair of rubber gloves (?!?!?!)
-with the suspect actively trying to make them appear to not fit, by bending fingers and aping "discomfort"

...would not.

As was said earlier, O.J. should have been wincing instead that he's handling the gloves of the "real killer" who decapitated his wife. Not acting like a clown!

That the prosecution didn't aggressively complain about this false parade was TERRIBLE lawyering.

WTF?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

But you can clearly see him tweaking his fingers to make the gloves look like they don't fit..


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Right, so why didn't the prosecution capitalize that, and mention it, specifically?

IT DIDN'T FIT, SO NO ACQUIT!


----------



## crazywater (Mar 7, 2001)

mattack said:


> But you can clearly see him tweaking his fingers to make the gloves look like they don't fit..


And Marcia Clark makes the point that if it was so difficult to get the gloves on OJ certainly has no problem taking them off as you can see in the actual clip of the trial on YouTube.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

I had no idea there was such an issue with the jury. I can totally understand why the jury was going stir crazy being cooped up in the hotel for all those months without much access to the outside world. But the games that Cochran and Clarke were playing to manipulate the makeup of the actual members of the jury was new to me.

Here's the Vanity Fair fact-check/recap:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-8-recap

Rolling Stone's fact-check/recap:

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/reca...ode-8-our-fact-checking-recap-20160322?page=2

Vulture's fact-check:

http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-8-fact-checked.html


----------



## smak (Feb 11, 2000)

Fofer said:


> Right, so why didn't the prosecution capitalize that, and mention it, specifically?
> 
> IT DIDN'T FIT, SO NO ACQUIT!


I'm pretty sure I remember somebody (Darden or Ito) telling OJ to straighten his fingers out.

-smak-


----------



## Jayjoans (Jan 23, 2003)

At the time, I thought I remember that OJ was also taking medication that caused him to retain water. My recollection is that the defense had an inkling the glove trick might come up and they had him double up on those meds.

No mention of that though, so maybe I dreamt it.

EDIT: 
I didn't dream it.
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-06-23/news/mn-16337_1_o-j-simpson-murder-trial


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

crazywater said:


> And Marcia Clark makes the point that if it was so difficult to get the gloves on OJ certainly has no problem taking them off as you can see in the actual clip of the trial on YouTube.


that's what I mean, in real life, he is contorting his fingers when putting on the gloves to MAKE them not fit..


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

FYI:

On Sunday, April 3 from 9am -9pm ET/PT, the Esquire Network will air its first-ever 12-hour special, a broadcast marathon recapping the trial from opening arguments to final verdict, featuring archival footage straight from the courtroom of the 1995 murder trial of actor and sports hero/retired professional football running back Orenthal James "O.J." Simpson, accused of the brutal deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson, his ex-wife and the mother of their children, and her friend Ronald Goldman, on the evening of June 12, 1994.

Viewers will relive the most intriguing, controversial and poignant moments from the trial, including opening statements from both the prosecution and the defense, key witness and police testimonies, the infamous "gloves" moment, closing statements and, finally, the stunning verdict that was delivered on October 3, 1995. No re-enactments, voice-overs, dramatics or theatrics can replace the facts and the polarizing figures who were in that courtroom every day during the trial. It took the jury only four hours to reach their verdict, but viewers will have 12 hours to come to their own conclusion, when Esquire Networks airs "The Real O.J. Simpson Trial" on Sunday, April 3 from 9am - 9pm ET/PT.

Footage from the trial will include:

9am-10am: "The Kickoff"- Opening Statements by prosecutors Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden and "Dream Team" defense lead, Johnnie Cochran.

10am-11am: "Dead-Ball, Foul Play"- Opening Statements continue and new witnesses not disclosed by the defense allow state prosecutor Marcia Clark an additional opening statement.

11am-12pm: "The F Word" Former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman testifies.

12pm-1pm: "I Plead The Fifth" Defense witnesses testify. Fuhrman makes a stunning return. F.Lee Bailey enthralls the media.

1pm-2pm: "Take Care of The Hands That Take Care Of You" A particular pair of gloves holds the courtroom's attention.

2pm-3pm: "Is Kato Your Middle Name?" Struggling actor and Simpson guest-house occupant, Brian "Kato" Kaelin begins a multi-day appearance.

3pm-4pm: "Never Live With Someone That Won The Heisman" Testimony continues with Brian "Kato" Kaelin.

4pm-5pm: "Did We Just Have An Earthquake: Thumps On The Wall" Brian "Kato" Kaelin wraps up his time on the stand then faces the waiting media.

5pm-6pm: "Running Back" Closing arguments by prosecutors Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, defense team Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck.

6pm-7pm: "Milking the Clock" Closing arguments by prosecutors Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, defense team Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck.

7pm-8pm: "Play To The Whistle" Closing arguments continue. Rebuttals by the prosecution.

8pm-9pm: "If It Don't Fit, You Must Acquit" Closing arguments, rebuttal and the verdict of the trial of the century.

About Esquire Network

Read more at http://thefutoncritic.com/news/2016...149115/20160324esquire01/#KFK8bGHOVeFL54FZ.99


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Wow. Coattails much?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> FYI:
> 
> On Sunday, April 3 from 9am -9pm ET/PT, the Esquire Network will air its first-ever 12-hour special, a broadcast marathon recapping the trial from opening arguments to final verdict, featuring archival footage straight from the courtroom of the 1995 murder trial of actor and sports hero/retired professional football running back Orenthal James "O.J." Simpson, accused of the brutal deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson, his ex-wife and the mother of their children, and her friend Ronald Goldman, on the evening of June 12, 1994.
> 
> ...


I'll probably watch a little of this (definitely won't invest a whole 12 hours to it though). It will be interesting to compare the real stuff with the FX series.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Sounds interesting, but I don't get the Esquire Network. It's on a "preferred tier" of my cable subscription. Hmm, I wonder if I can subscribe for a few days just to record this.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

Fofer said:


> Sounds interesting, but I don't get the Esquire Network. It's on a "preferred tier" of my cable subscription. Hmm, I wonder if I can subscribe for a few days just to record this.


I know with DTV you used to be able to do this but now you have to wait a month to cancel.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Marcia Clark says that scene with Shapiro and the glove never happened:



> The FX series gets some things wrong, she notes, like the moment when Simpson attorney Robert Shapiro tries on the infamous glove in the courtroom, unseen by the judge. "Never happened," she says. "Could never happen. They would never leave evidence out like that, and no one can touch [it] unless the bailiff is there, the judge, everybody.


A Conversation With Marcia Clark: Rape, Scientology Flirtation and When She Last Saw O.J. - The Hollywood Reporter


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Fofer said:


> Marcia Clark says that scene with Shapiro and the glove never happened: A Conversation With Marcia Clark: Rape, Scientology Flirtation and When She Last Saw O.J. - The Hollywood Reporter https://apple.news/ABh7hkq3pQCmTUQXHg0qv0w


Yeah, in one of the fact check articles posted here, it said that the defense team asked for the glove to be brought to a room where they were meeting and that's when they tried it on and hatched the plan to have OJ try it on in court. It also said that Marcia was always on board with having OJ try on the gloves, so it wasn't Darden going against her orders.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

The most recent episode was excellent again. There were some really tense courtroom scenes with the lawyers yelling at each other. I'll be very interested to read the fact check articles for this one.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> The most recent episode was excellent again. There were some really tense courtroom scenes with the lawyers yelling at each other. I'll be very interested to read the fact check articles for this one.


It was interesting how the Fuhrman tapes were such a hot potato and that at one point, it seemed in the best interest of all parties NOT to have them released. In the end, it seemed the defense was not happy about Ito's decision to just allow the two sentences to be played in court, but it of course worked out in the end for them.


----------



## TiVo'Brien (Feb 8, 2002)

Does anyone know if the jury ever said they were influenced by Fuhrman's racism? As in, "Yeah, we didn't trust the investigation because it must have been a police conspiracy since Fuhrman is a racist who manipulated the crime scene."


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Finally started watching this on Monday and I'm all caught up.

Fascinating.

I was a casual observer during the actual trial and I had forgotten what a circus this really was (if this was make believe, nobody would believe it).

I've been reminded of many things, and learned a lot of things I never realized.

For some reason, I thought OJ trying on the gloves was one of the last things of the trial and Furhman being a racist was one of the first developments. Clearly I remembered that backwards.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

TiVo'Brien said:


> Does anyone know if the jury ever said they were influenced by Fuhrman's racism? As in, "Yeah, we didn't trust the investigation because it must have been a police conspiracy since Fuhrman is a racist who manipulated the crime scene."


I don't know for sure what the jury thought, but I'd have to guess that Fuhrman's decision to plead the Fifth when faced with obvious evidence of perjury, plus his pleading the Fifth on Cochran's question about whether any evidence was planted or manipulated on this case certainly must have had some impact on the jury.

But this was only one piece of the evidence. It seems the defense team was masterful at causing the jury to question nearly everything. Barry Scheck destroyed that crime scene specialist for TWO WEEKS! The gloves didn't fit. The DNA was called into question. The motives and practices of the LAPD were dragged through the mud.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't know for sure what the jury thought, but I'd have to guess that Fuhrman's decision to plead the Fifth when faced with obvious evidence of perjury, plus his pleading the Fifth on Cochran's question about whether any evidence was planted or manipulated on this case certainly must have had some impact on the jury.
> 
> But this was only one piece of the evidence. It seems the defense team was masterful at causing the jury to question nearly everything. Barry Scheck destroyed that crime scene specialist for TWO WEEKS! The gloves didn't fit. The DNA was called into question. The motives and practices of the LAPD were dragged through the mud.


Also, the acquittal was somewhat payback for Rodney King.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> The most recent episode was excellent again. There were some really tense courtroom scenes with the lawyers yelling at each other. I'll be very interested to read the fact check articles for this one.


The Vanity Fair article for the last episode pretty much says most of what happened did happen.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

gossamer88 said:


> The Vanity Fair article for the last episode pretty much says most of what happened did happen.


Yeah, I read that. The biggest discrepancy was that Darden's outburst that almost got him charged with contempt was not related to the tapes, which happened in August. It was related to the questioning of a witness that happened in February.

Vanity Fair Fact Check:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-9-recap

Rolling Stone Fact Check:

http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/reca...on-episode-9-our-fact-checking-recap-20160329

Vulture Fact Check:

http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-9-fact-checked.html


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> ... Barry Scheck destroyed that crime scene specialist for TWO WEEKS! The gloves didn't fit. The DNA was called into question. The motives and practices of the LAPD were dragged through the mud.


I remember first seeing Barry Sheck and his partner Peter Neufeld talking about The Innocence Project on shows like Larry King Live, & 20/20 way before the "Trial of the Century". It was fascinating how they talked about using new forensic technology (DNA) to reverse judgments which had previously convicted innocent people for murder. I also clearly recall how surprised I was to see them become recruited to work for OJ's defense team and using similar arguments about the statistical certainty of DNA evidence to confuse the jury.

When a statistic was used by the prosecution (e.g., 1 in 150 million people) to make the case that nobody else could have had the same genetic markers, the defense now used that same statistic to confuse the jury by saying things like if the population of the US is 300 million, then according to their own stats, that means that there could be one more person in the U.S. (i.e. the REAL killer) who could have the same genetic markers. And with there being 6 BILLION (1996 stats) people in the WORLD, there could be up to 35 other people with the same genetic markers who could have been on Gretna Green (Nicole's residence) in L.A. on the evening of the murders!


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Then that jury was really stupid. 

35 out of 6 billion. With one of those 35 sitting right in front of them in the courtroom?

C'mon.

They're either really stupid, or simply uninterested in the specifics of this case. I contend this jury decided OJ wouldn't be called guilty of murder, long before the trial actually ended. Their minds were made up regardless. Not necessarily that he didn't do it... but that he wouldn't be found guilty of it.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Fofer said:


> They're either really stupid, or simply uninterested in the specifics of this case. *I contend this jury decided OJ wouldn't be called guilty of murder, long before the trial actually ended. Their minds were made up regardless. Not necessarily that he didn't do it... but that he wouldn't be found guilty of it.*


There's a reason Cochran and company put so much emphasis on trying to get black jurors. They believed the same thing you are saying.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

Well, Cochran and company made sure of it. They steered the conversation and preyed upon racial sensitivities in order to drive the "not guilty" narrative.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

I remember the Furman testimony. It was devastating. Even though most of white America thought O.J. did it, it was obvious that an acquittal was a real possibility. And it convinced most of black America that he didn't do it.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

It either convinced most of black America that O.J. didn't do it -- or it convinced them to get even angrier about obvious systemic racism, at least in the LAPD -- and that it was time for a change. 

At that point, the case was no longer about "who killed Nicole and Ron," as much as it was "the LAPD bungled this case, and there are racist cops, so let's be sure to free O.J."


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

Fofer said:


> At that point, the case was no longer about "who killed Nicole and Ron," as much as it was "the LAPD bungled this case, and there are racist cops, so let's be sure to free O.J."


It was also payback for all the times they were wrongfully accused, beaten (Rodney King cops beaters for example were acquitted), setup, and of course racially profiled.


----------



## MikeekiM (Jun 25, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> I'll probably watch a little of this (definitely won't invest a whole 12 hours to it though). It will be interesting to compare the real stuff with the FX series.


I'll probably watch it all...one hour at a time, and over an extended time...


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

getreal said:


> I remember first seeing Barry Sheck and his partner Peter Neufeld talking about The Innocence Project on shows like Larry King Live, & 20/20 way before the "Trial of the Century". It was fascinating how they talked about using new forensic technology (DNA) to reverse judgments which had previously convicted innocent people for murder. I also clearly recall how surprised I was to see them become recruited to work for OJ's defense team and using similar arguments about the statistical certainty of DNA evidence to confuse the jury.
> 
> When a statistic was used by the prosecution (e.g., 1 in 150 million people) to make the case that nobody else could have had the same genetic markers, the defense now used that same statistic to confuse the jury by saying things like if the population of the US is 300 million, then according to their own stats, that means that there could be one more person in the U.S. (i.e. the REAL killer) who could have the same genetic markers. And with there being 6 BILLION (1996 stats) people in the WORLD, there could be up to 35 other people with the same genetic markers who could have been on Gretna Green (Nicole's residence) in L.A. on the evening of the murders!


I'm in the middle of a Grisham book called "The Innocent Man" about a real life case in Ada, OK where two men were wrongly convicted of murder, one getting the Death Penalty, the other got Life. The one who got Life, hired Sheck and The Innocence Project to work with the DNA evidence. DNA testing wasn't available in the mid 80s when the original trial took place, but it was what ended up getting both off (the one who got the Death Penalty was within a week of being executed). Great book, highly recommend it.


----------



## TiVo'Brien (Feb 8, 2002)

Anyone know of an article that tells how the LAPD CSI practices changed as a result of the OJ case?

ETA: Answering my own question: 
http://www.lacriminaldefensepartners.com/lessons-learned-evidence-gathering-mistakes-simpson-case/


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Not guilty?!? Are you kidding me?!?



I remember watching the delivery of the verdict live and being glad he got off, not because I believed he didn't do it, but because I bought into the defense tactics of pointing out all the mistakes made by the LAPD.

This series has helped me better understand why reaction to the verdict was so divided on racial lines.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> Not guilty?!? Are you kidding me?!?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did the producers get actual insight from the jurors? I was surprised that it was 10-2 right off. It also seemed that the African American jurors they showed speaking up during the verdict process had decided because of the injustices that LAPD had done to their community and not based on the facts of the case. I also wonder what convinced the 2 voters to change their votes? Maybe they just realized they weren't going to sway the others minds. I'm not sure I would have given up that fast myself, after spending all that time on the trial.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

I really enjoyed this series. ESPN is coming out with a 5 part documentary about OJ as part of their 30 f0r 30 series that is supposed to be as good or better than this one. It covers OJ's whole life not just the trial. I believe it airs sometime in June.


----------



## Fofer (Oct 29, 2000)

DevdogAZ said:


> Not guilty?!? Are you kidding me?!?


 Spoiler alert!


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

JFriday said:


> I believe it airs sometime in June.


Maybe their plan is to kick it off on the anniversary of the Bronco chase.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

I can't believe that it's been 20 years since this case. I was a 1L at the time of the verdict, and was quite surprised and like most white people, upset over it. I followed it very closely.

But it doesn't seem that long ago. But 20 years before the OJ trial would be something like Watergate. The time difference between now and the OJ trial seems a lot shorter than from the OJ trial to Watergate. I guess it has to do with how old I was at the time.


----------



## spartanstew (Feb 24, 2002)

Steveknj said:


> Did the producers get actual insight from the jurors? I was surprised that it was 10-2 right off.


I'm pretty sure that's been in a couple of the books written. I've heard it before somewhere.



Steveknj said:


> It also seemed that the African American jurors they showed speaking up during the verdict process had decided because of the injustices that LAPD had done to their community and not based on the facts of the case.


Yep, exactly. I also wonder if the one black male juror really gave OJ the thumbs up sign as he was leaving the courthouse.



Steveknj said:


> I also wonder what convinced the 2 voters to change their votes? Maybe they just realized they weren't going to sway the others minds.


Bingo. When a couple of them said, "there's no way we'll be voting guilty", they just felt they were outnumbered, would never change some of their minds and had already been there too long.

I didn't realize OJ and Kardashian had a falling out due to this.


----------



## JFriday (Mar 20, 2002)

goblue97 said:


> Maybe their plan is to kick it off on the anniversary of the Bronco chase.


Or the murders.


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> I was a 1L at the time of the verdict


Hey, me too! 

My CrimLaw/CrimPro professor was a former prosecutor who was a regular consultant for one of the local news channels, so he had done a lot of TV spots during the trial. I vividly remember how upset he was after the verdict - he reined it in pretty well, but you could tell he was livid.


----------



## aindik (Jan 23, 2002)

Turtleboy said:


> I can't believe that it's been 20 years since this case. I was a 1L at the time of the verdict, and was quite surprised and like most white people, upset over it. I followed it very closely.
> 
> But it doesn't seem that long ago. But 20 years before the OJ trial would be something like Watergate. The time difference between now and the OJ trial seems a lot shorter than from the OJ trial to Watergate. I guess it has to do with how old I was at the time.


It's been 15.5 years since Bush v. Gore. That one shocks me more. I guess bc I was a 2L during that.

I was a freshman in college when the OJ verdict happened. Summer after senior year in high school when the murders happened.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

spartanstew said:


> Yep, exactly. I also wonder if the one black male juror really gave OJ the thumbs up sign as he was leaving the courthouse.


It wasn't a thumbs up. It was a "black power" salute, and yes, it was really given and it was given by a juror who was a ex-Black Panther.

Other Fact Checks:

Vanity Fair Episode 10 Fact Check

Rolling Stone Episode 10 Fact Check

Vulture Episode 10 Fact Check


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Has there been any more progress towards finding the real killers?


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

busyba said:


> Has there been any more progress towards finding the real killers?


OJ was scouring every golf course in Florida, but I think his efforts have been significantly hampered since he's been a guest of the State of Nevada.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

DevdogAZ said:


> OJ was scouring every golf course in Florida, but I think his efforts have been significantly hampered since he's been a guest of the State of Nevada.


What about the LAPD? Surely this is still an open case, since OJ obviously didn't do it. A jury said so.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

busyba said:


> what about the lapd? Surely this is still an open case, since oj obviously didn't do it. A jury said so.


Surely you can't be serious?


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

gossamer88 said:


> Surely you can't be serious?


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

What I found fascinating was when they obviously tried to duplicate the TV feed from the courtroom. So many of those shots really brought back memories.


----------



## getreal (Sep 29, 2003)

spartanstew said:


> ... I didn't realize OJ and Kardashian had a falling out due to this.


Shapiro and F. Lee Bailey also had a falling out. Shapiro even testified against FLB at his disbarment hearings. I seem to recall Shapiro never speaking with Johnnie Cochran again as well.

More re: Dream Team Feud from CNN in 1995.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

DevdogAZ said:


> OJ was scouring every golf course in Florida, but I think his efforts have been significantly hampered since he's been a guest of the State of Nevada.


And speaking of OJ's current residence, I was shocked to see that he'll soon be eligible for parole.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

getreal said:


> Shapiro and F. Lee Bailey also had a falling out. Shapiro even testified against FLB at his disbarment hearings. I seem to recall Shapiro never speaking with Johnnie Cochran again as well.
> 
> More re: Dream Team Feud from CNN in 1995.


It was completely unprofessional for Shapiro to go on TV immediately after the verdict and do an interview complaining about the "race card." And I agreed with him.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

hummingbird_206 said:


> And speaking of OJ's current residence, I was shocked to see that he'll soon be eligible for parole.


I'm not surprised. By 2017 he will have been in prison 9 years. I always thought the sentence of 33 years for what he got busted for was way too long.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> It was completely unprofessional for Shapiro to go on TV immediately after the verdict and do an interview complaining about the "race card." And I agreed with him.


Because it wasn't true, or just because he shouldn't have pointed it out?


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

busyba said:


> Because it wasn't true, or just because he shouldn't have pointed it out?


It was true. He shouldn't have pointed it out. It was disloyal to his client.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Turtleboy said:


> It was true. He shouldn't have pointed it out. It was disloyal to his client.


As far as I can recall (which may not necessarily be accurate), he didn't speak poorly of his client, just his co-counsel.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

Still not appropriate. It was disloyal to the team. It would be like Gronkowsi giving an interview about Brady deflating the balls.

But in Shapiro's case, he wasn't doing it out of any moral revelation. But because-keeping with the football analogy- he was jealous that he went from the starting QB to third string. 

Also, he needed to go back to his white, Jewish community, so he was trying to rehabilitate his image among those people. Jonnie Chocran became a hero to his community, and Shapiro was a pariah.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I guess it's not entirely surprising that for a lawyer, being honest is a horrible transgression.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

busyba said:


> I guess it's not entirely surprising that for a lawyer, being honest is a horrible transgression.


It's not so much that he shouldn't have been honest. It's that attorneys have certain ethical responsibilities to their clients. For example, a public defender has to be a zealous advocate for his/her client, even if s/he knows or strongly suspects that the client is guilty. And when you're working as co-counsel with someone else to represent the same client, you all become part of the same team. Once the verdict is rendered, the attorneys aren't released from that obligation and can't go out and start badmouthing the client or each other. It's just not appropriate or professional for an attorney to publicly undermine his client and/or co-counsel.


----------



## goblue97 (May 12, 2005)

Turtleboy said:


> about Brady deflating the balls.


What? When did this happen?


----------



## Mikeyis4dcats (Oct 2, 2003)

I thought this was really well done.

I'm underwhelmed with the subject matter for next year, but that was probably inevitable.


----------



## gossamer88 (Jul 27, 2005)

FYI, this is coming to Netflix Feb. 2nd.


----------



## opus472 (Jul 4, 2007)

Who Gives the Best Performance in The People v. O.J. Simpson?


----------

