No beef with Travolta here. Doesn't phase me, he blends into the character IMO along with everyone else. Except for Cuba Gooding Jr. - he's still the only thing out of place for me. It's almost jarring when he's on screen compared to everyone else. The guy is nothing at all like OJ Simpson.
I actually like Travolta playing Shapiro now. But nothing bothered me more the first 2 episodes. I thought he was way overdoing it.
The thing about the cop framing OJ using his dna is just so far fetched that I did not think anyone would believe that. DNA science was 99.999% accurate, but apparently there are jury who did not believe the science of dna, American education system FTW. I did not really care too much about OJ because I never saw him play, but I guess lots of people really loved him.
People respect DNA as amazing evidence today, due to shows like CSI. Actually, now juries demand it. But it was very new back then.
If evidence was planted, in any way... which is the crux of the doubt the defense raised in this case... the jury would not convict him. If they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty... the jury is compelled to find him innocent. The problem is that the key witnesses the state had (Furhman and Fung) were both man-handled severely by the defense in a way that they were basically a liability for the prosecution. A case built mainly on the testimony of those two was not going to hold up... regardless of all the other celebrity/race factors.
I always thought OJ was known for being charming, measured, confident. In almost every scene Cuba is acting like an emotional basket case. And confused about everything going on around him.
But wasn't that just a part of the myth of OJ? That deep down, he was an overly emotional, reckless, and ultimately abusive person? The rest of the stuff was for the camera. And given his post-trial incidents, I can't really say his portrayal is that far off.
So was the key to last nights episode the question asking "Do you intend to exercise your 5th amendment privelage to every question?" Because right after they asked him if he planted evidence in the case which if he would have answered no then he would have perjured himself again, right?
My impression was that if he answered no to that question rather than pleading the 5th, then it inferred that the answer to the previous questions was obviously yes.
I was wondering the same thing and apparently there is a sequence to using the 5th. You can answer questions, then plead the 5th. But then if you answer any questions after taking the 5th, you can't go back to the 5th. If you answer any questions after you've pled it, you them have to answer all of them. No flip-flopping.
That jury was predisposed to believe all the evidence was planted, no matter how impossible or far fetched. For a conspiracy like you describe to be true, they (meaning the jury) would have to believe the following. 1. You must believe that the cops and evidence gathering team somehow colluded in the first hours of the morning to "get" Simpson (for whatever reason). 2.You must believe this conspiracy somehow planted Simpsons blood and bloody footprints from a spare set of Bruno Magli shoes at the murder scene. 3. You must believe they somehow conspired to plant the blood of both victims AND Simpson in Simpsons Bronco, more blood on his socks, and in Simpson's driveway. 4. You must believe they had access to a stocking cap that had Simpsons hair in it and planted it at the murder scene. 5. You must believe Furhman took a piece of evidence (the bloody glove) from the murder scene without being noticed and planted it on Simpson's estate. 6. You must believe they were able to accomplish planting all this evidence while never drawing any suspicion from anyone at the scene not in the "conspiracy". 7. You must believe they came up with this plan all in an incredibly brief period of time in the early morning hours of 6/13/94 KNOWING if they were caught they could all not only lose their jobs but potentially their freedom. All to just...get OJ? The guy who was reportedly very friendly to police? The guy who had invited cops several times over to his mansion prior to the murders for tennis and barbecues? IMHO, the above does not rise to the level of "reasonable" doubt.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ftfDs4VVM9E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I agree its entirely implausible.. and I'm totally on board with you as far as what is the most likely/simplest explanation... but in the moment (and moment being 9 months removed from the murder, and a tired/worn out jury having to hear mundane testimony day-in/day-out), the defense (with the help of the prosecutions 2 star witnesses) made them believe that the LAPD and the state was tainted, corrupt, and incompetent. That jury ended up believing THAT, beyond reasonable doubt.... and thus concluded that they could not find Simpson guilty. I'm not defending Simpson... I'm providing the basis as to why things happened the way they did... its unfortunate that he got acquitted due to a narrative that shouldn't have been there, but its also unfortunate that the LAPD and the state couldn't keep themselves from falling over each other.
They really did an amazing job with this show. Even though we all knew the outcome, I was still on the edge of my seat.
Truly one of the better seasons of television I've seen. Also...Courtney B Vance should be a lock for best actor Emmy. Sarah Paulson has a pretty solid shot as well. Those closing statements were terrific acting from both of them.
The thing is, it was no secret the LAPD might be corrupt. The case was almost like a confirmation for the jury. So I liken it to a "make up" call in basketball. The jury wanted to punish the LAPD for all the years of being corrupt.
We are also talking this happening less than 5yrs after the Rodney King incident so the public believe that the LAPD could pull off some **** against a black man was pretty high back in 1994. It was also the early years of DNA testimony and the majority of people didn't understand how accurate it was they just heard big words and it went over most of their heads.
