Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Telly addicts

The People v OJ Simpson

289 replies

EnthusiasmDisturbed · 15/02/2016 21:19

Anyone else watching ?

OP posts:
APlaceOnTheCouch · 29/03/2016 14:29

Robert Kardashian's doubts were true. He did an interview with Barbara Walters years later and admitted he found the blood evidence difficult to dismiss. He said he still thought OJ should have been acquitted because there was reasonable doubt but when you watch his interview, it's clear he had real issues with what happened and thought the blood was pretty damning.

As a PP said, it was all bread and circuses. Watching it unfold, it's hard to believe that the district attorney's office didn't throw more resources at it. OJ had a team of showboating defenders. Marcia was diligent and meticulous but I wonder why they didn't add someone more able for the defence's game-playing into the prosecution team.

Awholelottanosy · 29/03/2016 21:35

Was just reading the reviews on Amazon of MC's book and one reviewer, who is a prosecutor himself, made this interesting point about the glove debacle.

"Still, one cannot forget prosecutor Chris Darden's ill-advised decision in proceeding to have O.J. try on the bloodied, weathered gloves found at the scene and at his home, rather than waiting for an exact duplicate pair to be delivered by the manufacturer. In light of the fact that the manufacturer had advised the prosecution that the original gloves would have shrunk as much as fifteen percent due to repeated exposure to dampness and extremes of heat and cold, it was downright stupid for Chris Darden to proceed to have the defendant try them on. While Ms. Clark had counseled Chris Darden not to proceed with this demonstration, but rather, to wait for the new duplicate pair, he did so anyway with disastrous results. As the lead prosecutor in the case, however, the fault for this debacle lies squarely with her on this issue, rather than Mr. Darden, because when you are the lead prosecutor, the buck stops with you. Ms. Clark need look no further than herself for this major faux pas and for the ensuing creation of Johnnie Cochran's famous, catchy sound bite, "If the glove doesn't fit, then you must acquit". Never mind that the new, duplicate glove fit O. J. to perfection!"

lorelei9here · 30/03/2016 12:07

Just caught up with this last night

The glove thing is such a shame - did Darden really think it was a good idea to have OJ try the original pair on, even advised that they would have shrunk?

If true, then a major piece of incompetence, surely? If he knew they would have shrunk then it was obviously a crazy thing to ask. From the way the episode is written it's not clear though, because Marcia didn't give that as her reason for not wanting to do that?

I think it's a great demonstration of why not to have court cases on TV but that's a whole separate thread.

gingerbreadmanm · 30/03/2016 12:25

Absolutely loving this programme, can't believe that it is only on once a week. I was too young when this originally happened to really know much about it it is quite clear from the programme though why nothing was ever proved. The quick mock up they did when they were in the bar of how OJ could have been set up looked quite believeable. I have read elsewhere that OJ covered for someone very close. Could that be possible?

I really like Marcia and she did look a lot different this week with the straight hair, as everyone else said, it is disgusting how her personal life was brought into this so much.

i know it's only a programme but if cuba is representing OJ's behaviour correctly i can't believe humans can behave like that. Not once has he shown any kind or remorse or any kind of guilt that he did it. Shame this weeks episode was shorter.

lorelei9here · 30/03/2016 12:53

Ginger "it is quite clear from the programme though why nothing was ever proved"

I was thinking the exact opposite! The glove is proof surely - with all the DNA?

Cel982 · 30/03/2016 13:05

Yeah, ginger, surely that scene in the bar showed how ludicrously unlikely it was that he had been set up?! I don't think anyone familiar with the case, on either side, could genuinely think he's innocent.

There's a good interview with Marcia Clark here: www.vulture.com/2016/03/marcia-clark-people-v-oj-simpson-episode-six.html
She agrees that there were always rumours about herself and CD, and refuses to confirm or deny...

MsBojangles · 30/03/2016 13:17

I'm absolutely hooked, was a little to young to follow the case when it happened so am finding it all quite fascinating.

Is there any truth to the rumours that it was OJ's son that did it or are they just the usual conspiracy theory nonsense?

gingerbreadmanm · 30/03/2016 13:59

msbo thats what i was thinking?

I dont know about the glove i guess they were his gloves they proved nicole purchased them didnt they?

Oh it was ridiculous but it is doing a good job of showing how some people would have doubts. From the first episode i thought he had definitely done it but then there are moments where i question things. I guess i go back and forth.

Would that actually be allowed to happen where sharpo tried on the gloves?

lorelei9here · 30/03/2016 15:05

Ginger, I wondered that too - and surely they'd have been in a sealed bag?

I must look up this Vanity Fair thing....I keep wondering about the accuracy of stuff.

lorelei9here · 30/03/2016 15:08

Ms - I hadn't heard that theory either. I suppose after what Marcia said about no evidence of anyone else's blood, it doesn't make sense?

Sarah Paulson doing a sterling job as Marcia, I reckon.

Awholelottanosy · 30/03/2016 23:18

Cel thanks for posting that interview, fascinating! This interview with the actress who played Marcia is interesting too

www.vulture.com/2016/03/sarah-paulson-marcia-clark-people-v-oj-simpson.html

Awholelottanosy · 30/03/2016 23:19

And her hair was a perm! ( I didn't know that )

APlaceOnTheCouch · 31/03/2016 11:19

Apparently Shapiro did try on the gloves. I can't remember where I read it but it said the prosecution always intended for OJ to try on the new gloves that were identical to the ones found at the scene. They all knew there would be issues if he tried on the scene gloves that had been soaked in blood and chemicals. The article implied it was Judge Ito's fault that OJ tried on the ones from the scene instead.

A private investigator came up with the theory that it was OJ's son who committed the murders partly iirc because he had a previous caution or conviction for an assault with a knife. The PI also felt the son's alibi didn't check out. I don't know how his theory explains the DNA unless it was only a partial match for OJ and would be closer to his son's?

Personally I still think it was OJ.

gingerbreadmanm · 03/04/2016 16:36

Looking forward to the next episode. The interview was a fab read and gave me a bit more insight to the case and flagged up bits i had overlooked when watching the series.

notquitehuman · 03/04/2016 21:08

There are theories around that OJ's son was the killer. Warning about this link - it contains some gruesome crime scene photos: theunredacted.com/oj-simpson-a-killer-in-the-family/

However, the guy who wrote the book was pretty dodgy by the sounds of it. He literally dug through Jason's garbage and found out private medical details. I don't think there was ever enough to arrest him.

Notgivingin789 · 04/04/2016 21:24

What is happening with the Jurors?

Notgivingin789 · 04/04/2016 21:27

This is just turning into some kind of game now.

gingerbreadmanm · 04/04/2016 22:02

Really enjoyed it. Never really thought about it before but didnt realise how intense it was for the jurors. Did you think the one who complained about them being treat differently was working for someone?

Oj was so smug in the mock up he truly thought he was untouchable.

Awholelottanosy · 04/04/2016 22:07

Tonight's episode was unbelievable! Had no idea all that stuff went on with the jurors. The pressure they must have been under would have been immense. So stressful

Did any of them write about it? I know in the UK you're not allowed to, but the US system is v different.

gingerbreadmanm · 04/04/2016 23:11

Im not sure. They threw people off tonight though as it looked like they intended to write a book so maybe not.

Awholelottanosy · 04/04/2016 23:37

Here's some info about the jurors. And yes some of them did write about it!

www.chatsports.com/top-news/a/who-was-oj-simpson-trial-jury-meet-12-people-who-found-him-not-guilty-26948

coldcanary · 05/04/2016 01:01

Just caught up - that was Brutal! How anyone got through that trial in one piece is beyond me, even Ito seems to be losing the plot.
What was the significance of the jury wearing black?
Glad they gave David Schwimmer something constructive to do this week, he was good at showing the slow realisation that Simpson might not be 'good old Juice'.

gingerbreadmanm · 05/04/2016 09:43

I thought they showed that well with Rob Kardashian too however Davids attempt at crying were amusing!

At first i thought the black thing was a play on the race divide but the juror who is apparently a dead cert for convicting OJ and is white also wore black so i think it was just a demonstration to show that they had had enough.

just going to read the link above now thanks awhole

Armi · 05/04/2016 18:01

I'm a bit shocked that people on this thread think OJ really might have been innocent!!!

coldcanary · 05/04/2016 18:23

I can see how he got off at the time, the defence battered the evidence and discredited witnesses to the point that finding him guilty must have been a distant hope for the prosecution.
He did it though I reckon.

Swipe left for the next trending thread