I knew about some of this stuff with her but it's hard not to think about any normal person being put in a spotlight like that especially when they aren't used to being public. Thought the episode was really good, seems like they keep getting better as we get along.....
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/07/31/oj-simpson-parole/2603497/ According to the 2013 article above, he's already received parole on the big charges against him. The reason he's still in jail is because he's serving out the sentence for other crimes he committed. He also apparently has been a model prisoner. In short, I would be VERY surprised if he's not released on parole in October 2017.
This show has really got me fascinated in the case. I knew little about it prior, but now I'm hooked and find myself reading tidbits and actual testimonies. I'm also digging the 90's nostalgia this show evokes. The scene where Fuhrman is walking into the courtroom with the Portishead jam in the background had me puuuuumped. Does anyone know how many episodes are left?
This is what I remember most when it comes to the OJ Simpson case. The white supremacist, LAPD officer who "found" the evidence at OJ's estate pleading the 5th when directly asked, "Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?" People are so hard on the jury. So insistent it was a black solidarity thing or that evidence didn't matter to this jury. But when the officer who found the evidence that most links the defendant to the actual crime pleads the 5th when asked if he committed heinous acts of setting up someone, then that is game-set-match. In the context of the times -- after the riots and after the public finally recognized the horrible corruption in LAPD, Fuhrman was a godsend for people who wanted LAPD exposed for what it was: I always figured OJ was guilty as sin, knowing his horrible history of domestic violence. But hard to convict after Fuhrman. On Oprah, Darden would later call Fuhrman a "more disgusting figure than OJ Simpson."
Not watching this at all. However, the prosecution lost this case because they and the LAPD made several crucial (and dumb) mistakes: 1. The coroner wasn't called or didn't show up for hours after the bodies were discovered by which time it was not possible to establish a reliable time of death. From what I remember, the timeline they used was somewhat of a stretch since OJ had a car waiting for him around the same time and he flew to Chicago later that same evening. 2. When OJ came back and voluntarily went in to the talk with the police the next day, he was interviewed for 5 hours without counsel present. During that time, they took blood samples from OJ but did not enter them into evidence. Instead, they carried the vials of blood around with them. As a result, the police could not establish a proper chain of custody for the original blood samples when OJ's blood "appeared" in various places. Cochran used this to dispute the DNA evidence that while it was OJ's blood, the police couldn't prove it actually came from the crime scene and the other places blood samples were supposedly collected. 3. Once Mark Furman took the 5th, Cochran was able to advance the "theory that the LAPD had planted evidence in order to bolster their case. Then there was the disaster with the blood-stained gloves that the killer allegedly wore. Remember, the LAPD could not establish a chain of custody for the blood samples as explained above. This bolstered the defense's attempts to create "reasonable doubt" because it cast doubt on the veracity of the LAPD's investigation. What I believe? I really don't know. I have a hard time believing that OJ with his bad back and knees could have pulled off such a savage attack alone much less doing so with such skill and precision on the timeline offered forth by the LAPD. I do believe that the LAPD made up their minds after listening to Nicole Brown's 911 calls that OJ had to be the killer and looked to make the evidence conform to that belief. Which is not the way to conduct a murder investigation. I didn't give much credence to the "racial" aspects of the case because it was a given that the public would identify this case as such given the racial climate in the country at that time.
Muy Interesante. http://www.eonline.com/news/738102/...e-ripped-from-reality-fx-series-gets-creative "This series is not a documentary," Toobin, who's a consultant on the series, has explained. "It is not a word-for-word recreation. But in terms of the essential truths of the events, in terms of the insights into the characters, it is brilliant and everyone will learn a lot and be entertained a lot." That's for damn sure. But since you're watching a show based on a true-story-plus-embellishments, we're here to separate the facts from the flourishes. And don't worry about us stealing any thunder from the plot, because what's true is still truly unbelievable.
Hell of an episode for a lot of reasons. First, the fact the gloves were so rare AND it could be proven Nicole actually bought them was something I didn't know. Second, the way they show Marcia Clark laying out how ridiculous and impossible it would be for the cops to frame OJ in the way it was suggested was brilliant. (Incidentally, the person she was speaking to in that bar scene...Byron... who was Darden's friend who was having the birthday was played by an actor named Sam Sarpong. Mr. Sarpong committed suicide last October just weeks after filming this.) Third, during that bar scene they talk about OJ's real life NBC TV movie "Frogmen" where he learned how to use a knife and kill from behind. This is a true fact and in actuality, he was trained by former SEALS while filming. The pilot never made it to TV. One other tidbit....the actor playing Alan Dershowitz (Evan Handler) in the show also co-starred in the movie "Frogmen" with the real O.J. Simpson in 1994. And lastly, the "glove" scene played out mostly like they showed it (including F. Lee Bailey's "balls of a field mouse" taunt. A couple of major diversions though... 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.
At that time my only reference to criminal trials would have been Tyson, Menendez, Rodney King cops and William Kennedy Smith; Tyson beat his wife and OJ did as well, so I certainly didn't expect him to walk.
This show just gets more impressive with each passing week. Can't wait to watch the last few episodes, really nuts to see how badly the prosecution bungled or got out maneuvered by the defense.
I've been reading these fact checks after each episode...great reads for anyone interested..... http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-7-recap#5
I thought Cuba did a more believable job of not fitting the gloves than Juice did. <iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/__reD_phfbg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Nice to see the Harvard students laughing about their professor's successful attempt at introducing irrelevant BS and distract a jury in an effort to let a murderer avoid punishment. How hilarious! This on the heels of all the lawyer jokes in Better Call Saul was quite fitting.
why couldn't prosecution bring in another exact pair of same size to make OJ try on as well to prove they were shrunk?
not watching the show, but watched that scene live. I thought it wasn't that the gloves shrunk, but they are designed to be very tight-fitting driving gloves. Tight enough that you could easily make them look very difficult to put on. Also, I didn't get the whole "if gloves don't fit, you must acquit." If they aren't his, that doesn't mean they are another murderer's, right? However if they are his, that's very compelling evidence. Did it come down to that was the only remaining compelling evidence?
