10 takeaways from the O.J. Simpson documentary

Getty Images

Last weekend, I watched all five parts of ESPN’s O.J. Simpson documentary. Even with high expectations arising from the widespread praise the documentary received, it was riveting.

In 1994 and 1995, after the murders occurred and the trial unfolded, I didn’t understand why things happened they way they did, either because I wasn’t able or inclined to pay extremely close attention to the case or because I hadn’t been practicing law long enough to understand how everything pieced together. Now, seven years after wrapping up an 18-year law practice (yeah, I’m old), I’ve got a much better understanding of how it all fits together, and why the Pro Football Hall of Famer walked away from life behind bars.

So in this sort-of-off-topic post, I’ll share 10 things that became clear to me after reliving in two days a case that was a major part of American life for the better part of two years.

1. He did it.

Part Four of the documentary includes a pair of crime-scene photos that on one hand I wish I’d never seen but on the other hand I’m glad I did.

The image of the damage the killer did to the throat and neck of Nicole Brown Simpson tells me everything I need to know about this case: Simpson did it, clearly, unequivocally, and beyond any plausible or implausible doubt.

The deep, gaping wound that nearly decapitated Nicole Brown Simpson reveals a level of raw passion and emotion that rarely if ever is mustered against a stranger. It was extreme overkill, committed either by someone with mental faculties sufficiently warped that it should have been easy to catch the killer or by someone who personally knew Nicole Brown Simpson and harbored a torrent of emotions that, in the wrong place at the wrong time, manifested themselves in the worst way possible.

In this case, it was both. Simpson had the requisite passion for the victim and, in that moment, the necessary lack of sanity to do what he clearly, undoubtedly did.

2. The Rodney King case contributed directly to the outcome.

The brutal beating of Rodney King, an African-American man, by L.A. police officers in 1991, and their subsequent acquittal by an all-white jury in California state court, influenced the Simpson case in a significant way. District Attorney Gil Garcetti opted to try the Simpson case in a portion of the county that would ensure a more diverse jury. Without the King case, a decision to nudge the case toward a much whiter jury pool may have been made.

The King case also ensured that the predominantly African-American jury in Simpson’s case would be receptive to evidence of potential police misconduct. There indeed was plenty of evidence of potential police misconduct — including the one piece of evidence that, as explained below, ensured an acquittal.

3. The prosecution was outworked.

Great lawyers excel before a judge and a jury. Most cases are won (or lost), however, by the effort expended (or not) away from the courtroom.

Trial work is exhilarating. When court is in session, the trial lawyer serves as the producer, director, writer, and lead actor in a play that unfolds simultaneously with another play aimed at sending a directly conflicting message to the same audience. Throughout the process, the scripts are being constantly rewritten on the fly, with much of the dialogue becoming improvisation.

For most lawyers, the ability to thrive in those moments comes from a willingness to put in hours and hours and hours (and hours) of preparation. Lawyers must have a full mastery of the entire universe of evidence that could be introduced, along with a specific plan for dealing with any evidence that cuts against their preferred message to the jury. Before trial begins, lawyers must think creatively about every possible avenue that the opponent may explore when searching for facts that would support its own message. At trial, lawyers must be ready to act immediately if the case heads down any of the various possible paths that could emerge.

In the Simpson case, the best example of this dynamic came from Barry Scheck’s extensive cross-examination of LAPD criminologist Dennis Fung. Simpson’s lawyers studied hours of tedious, boring video of Fung and his colleagues collecting evidence. Someone eventually spotted an image of Fung picking up a bloody envelope from the crime scene with his bare hands.

The prosecution clearly hadn’t seen it before trial, because Scheck was able not only to point out the flaw in Fung’s procedures but also to set Fung up for the dramatic moment when the video was played, getting him to testify in advance that he didn’t touch the envelope without a glove on his hand.

How about that, Mr. Fung?” Scheck said when the image of Fung grabbing the envelope without a glove on his hand was displayed, before being nudged by Judge Lance Ito into expanding the statement into an actual question. It was the kind of moment that gets tattooed onto the brains of jurors.

Likewise, Simpson’s lawyers compared the photo of a drop of blood collected from a gate at the crime scene three weeks after the murders to a photo of the same gate taken closer in time to the murders. In the earlier photo, there was no blood on the gate, creating suspicion that blood had been added to the gate later, to enhance the case.

Simpson’s lawyers could have found those two photos only be scouring hundreds of images, reviewing each of them carefully and meticulously.

These are just two examples of specific wrinkles in the evidence that Simpson’s lawyers discovered and then devised a way to use. The prosecution either didn’t know about these nuances or wasn’t sufficiently worried about them to have a convincing rebuttal ready to unleash, if needed.

It’s no surprise. For starters, prosecutors don’t get paid by the hour. They’re on salary, so there’s zero financial incentive to grind and grind and grind some more. Likewise, prosecutors are accustomed to running roughshod over court-appointed defense lawyers lacking the ability or the work ethic to do what Simpson’s lawyers did.

Perhaps most importantly, the prosecutors were so confident in the strength of the overall evidence that they believed they didn’t need to spend the time necessary to ensure that Simpson’s team of brilliant, high-priced defense lawyers wouldn’t piece together, methodically but inevitably, enough moments of doubt to create the kind of “reasonable doubt” that circumvents a conviction.

4. Mark Fuhrman wasn’t properly grilled during pre-trial meetings.

Trial preparation consists of more than methodically searching for needles in the opponent’s haystacks. It also requires taking the time to search for potential land mines in your own backyard.

Mark Fuhrman had plenty of them. And the prosecution had reason to know about all of them. However, the prosecution failed to find the worst of them.

Legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, acting on a tip from his former law professor and Simpson defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz, found the first one. Fuhrman had filed a claim for an early pension from the LAPD based on the notion that the impact of the job had caused him to harbor horribly racist thoughts and attitudes. Toobin’s work culminated in a July 1994 article in The New Yorker outlining the defense team’s plans to paint Fuhrman as sufficiently motivated by race to plant one of two bloody gloves from the crime scene at Simpson’s house.

Amazingly, one of Simpson’s attorneys admitted that the defense team was developing this theory, barely a month after Simpson was arrested and six months before the trial began.

“Suppose he’s actually found two gloves at the murder scene,” the attorney told Toobin. “He transports one of them over to the house and then ‘finds’ it back in that little alleyway where no one can see him.”

It was a Babe Ruth gesture to the centerfield wall by Simpson’s lawyers. In response, the prosecution grooved a fastball through the middle of the strike zone and stood back to watch what would happen.

Here’s what should have happened. As soon as Toobin’s article was published, Garcetti, Marcia Clark, and the rest of the prosecution’s team of lawyers should have summoned Fuhrman for an extended meeting during which Fuhrman would have been pressed aggressively to disclose anything and everything that he has said and/or done that ever could have been characterized as reflecting a racial bias. If done properly, this effort would have resulted in the prosecution knowing about the horribly over-the-top racial remarks made on tape recordings created during Fuhrman’s meetings with a screenwriter.

Instead, the prosecution simply didn’t know about the tapes. Garcetti said so when asked at a press conference about evidence that turned the trial upside down.

“We were not aware of the tapes,” Garcetti said. Asked if Fuhrman should have told prosecutors about the tapes, Garcetti replied, “We were not aware of the tapes.”

Garcetti presumably evaded the question of whether Fuhrman should have told them about the tapes because Garcetti knew that someone would have argued that the prosecutors should have asked Fuhrman the type of questions that would have caused Fuhrman to admit to their existence.

Marcia Clark can blame Fuhrman all she wants for the existence of the tapes, but she should have been aware of them. As the lead prosecutor on the case, Clark should have done everything possible to learn about every shed of evidence that could have supported the obvious plan to create reasonable doubt by suggesting that Fuhrman’s racial biased caused him to try to frame Simpson.

Being aware of the tapes may not have changed the outcome of the case. But the prosecution definitely would have been able to avoid what ultimately became the one specific moment where the case was conclusively lost.

5. Fuhrman’s Fifth Amendment debacle sealed the case.

With F. Lee Bailey masterfully pinning Fuhrman down to a claim that he hadn’t referred to any African-American with the worst racial epithet in the English language, the door was open for Fuhrman’s denial to be contradicted by evidence that he had used the term. Originally, the plan was to have other witnesses testify that Fuhrman used the word. Then came the tapes, and Mark Fuhrman was contradicted by Mark Fuhrman himself.

The defense team then brought Fuhrman back, ready to confront him with the information contained on the tapes. Fearful of a perjury charge, Fuhrman promptly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and declined to answer. It quickly became apparent that Fuhrman would invoke the Fifth Amendment in response to any and all questions. as a result, Fuhrman was asked the one question that, as a practical matter, ensured an acquittal.

“Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?” Fuhrman was asked.

“I assert my Fifth Amendment privilege,” Fuhrman said.

With Simpson’s lawyers required only to prove reasonable doubt, Fuhrman’s refusal to answer the question of whether he planted evidence was all the jury needed to set Simpson free. While it’s possible, as suggested during the documentary, that Fuhrman framed a guilty man, that would have been a very difficult argument for the prosecution to sell.

6. The prosecution lacked anyone who could truly talk to the jury.

The argument that Fuhrman had framed a guilty man may have been easier to sell if the prosecution had at its disposal a lawyer with the ability to talk frankly and persuasively to a jury of non-lawyers. Johnnie Cochran possessed that skill. Marcia Clark, Christopher Darden, nor anyone else representing the State of California could match it.

During the trial, Clark consistently came off as strident, aloof, irritated, and lacking in self-awareness. (She had a much more pleasant demeanor when speaking on camera during the documentary, even though she was inclined to blame everyone but herself for the outcome of the case.) Darden, an African-American who curiously showed up only after a jury consisting primarily of African-Americans was selected, badly wanted, as explained during the documentary, to “out-Johnnie Johnnie.” Darden simply didn’t have the chops to do it.

The only person who may have been able to deliver a conviction would have been Cochran himself, since he probably would have been able to sell to this specific jury the very simple notion that a killer shouldn’t walk away because, as Cochran may have said, “A bad cop tried to trump up a good case.”

7. Judge Ito was trying to make the conviction “appeal proof.”

Plenty of questions have been raised about the decisions of the presiding judge to allow the Fuhrman tapes into evidence and to exclude information regarding Simpson’s clearly incriminating slow-speed getaway. Ito made those decisions, presumably, for one reason: To seal off potential avenues for reversing a conviction of O.J. Simpson on appeal.

The evidence of Simpson’s guilt seemed to be overwhelming. In cases like these, a decision by the judge to make every key evidentiary ruling in the defendant’s favor leaves the defendant with no viable basis for getting a guilty verdict thrown out later by a higher court.

The problem in this specific case is that Ito’s rulings opened the door for an acquittal, with a man who committed two brutal murders eventually set free.

8. Cochran’s closing argument was over the top — like many closing arguments are.

The documentary included some strong opinions about Johnnie Cochran’s closing argument, which contained at one point a comparison of Mark Furhman to Adolf Hitler.

It was over the top, they said. It was unethical, they suggested.

That’s fine, but the prosecution at no point objected to Cochran’s tactics. So they can’t credibly complain now if they weren’t willing to fight Cochran in the moment.

An objection wasn’t made at the time because the prosecution surely realized that attorneys are given very broad discretion when making closing arguments. A decision by Judge Ito to overrule an objection to this specific aspect Cochran’s closing would have only emphasized the point he was making — and it would have given Cochran one final victory just before the jurors retired to deliberate.

9. The system works (sort of), if you have money.

The American system of criminal justice stacks the deck in favor of the defendant, in order to ensure that innocent people don’t get wrongfully imprisoned. This makes it easier for the guilty to avoid responsibility — if, of course, they have the money to purchase the kind of legal representation that takes full advantage of the various aspects of the system that can deliver freedom to those who don’t deserve it.

Simpson had the money to afford $50,000 per week in fees. He was already loaded, and many learned for the first time through the documentary that Simpson generated roughly $3 million more while signing autographs in jail during the trial.

Most criminal defendants don’t have the resources to mount an effective defense, and few if any have the ability to make money for legal fees while being held without bail. As a result, plenty of innocent people end up being convicted because their court-appointed lawyers lack the skill or the motivation (or both) to fight for a verdict of not guilty.

10. Fred Goldman is the reason O.J. Simpson is behind bars today.

The families of the victims brought a wrongful death civil lawsuit brought against Simpson. Ron Goldman’s father, Fred, pushed it aggressively, resulting in a staggering $33 million verdict after that jury determined, under a much lower standard of proof and with Simpson unable to avoid testifying (where he was caught in numerous lies), that Simpson committed the murders. Fred Goldman then made it his mission to get every last cent out of Simpson, which prompted Simpson to do everything he could to protect his property, wherever it may have been.

This eventually included an effort to recover in Las Vegas memorabilia that had been stolen from him. With the grace of the Keystone Cops and the cognitive skills of Lou Costello, Simpson arranged an armed heist that was sufficiently clumsy to allow the powers-that-be in Nevada to put Simpson where he already should have been — behind bars, for a long time.

Absent the commitment with which Fred Goldman pursued Simpson, Simpson may never have been in the position to act so brazenly, desperately, and recklessly. Few fathers have worked more diligently to honor the memory of their sons, and anyone who believes in true justice should be grateful to Fred Goldman for applying the same kind of zeal used by Simpson’s lawyers to secure his freedom 20 years ago to push him until he squandered it.

101 responses to “10 takeaways from the O.J. Simpson documentary

  1. Before I read the post, you want to write that it was too long and that he clearly two people.

    Here’s one takeaway that I have, Marguerite, O.J.’s first wife may have been found.

    Joe Bell, the featured Simpson friend in the documentary, told The Dan LeBatard Show that she’s in the Bay Area. A lot of people are wondering “What happened to Marguerite?”

  2. Thanks for sharing Florio …

    Is this case studied in law schools these days? This has to be the most famous court case of all time, even 20+ years later…

  3. The Rodney King case contributed directly to the outcome
    _________________________________

    Exactly! Especially the back lash and rioting in Los Angeles after the first Rodney King trial.

    Those jury members were part of that same community and were probably in fear of further violence in their own backyards.

    I wasn’t there and we may never know for sure. I will not second guess a Jury of twelve from the outside looking in, but it sure didn’t feel right.

  4. I always knew the Rodney king case played a role in the final verdict. That and the Korean store owner who shot the girl in the back in the head. Add these to the mistrust and abuse many in the black community had experienced at the hands of LAPD and the fact that Johnny Cochran was a well known civil rights attorney only made this easy for him to exploit.

  5. Excellent summary. Even if you have no interest or are sick of hearing about OJ, this documentary is a must-watch. It’s just as much a commentary on the social climate of America at the time as it is about OJ.

  6. Mike, your analysis is spot on. Tragically, you show a favoritism for a flawed process over justice.

  7. There are absolutely no facts that prove OJ did it just as there are absolutely no facts that prove OJ didn’t do it.

    It is just as plausible to say that OJ went to Nicole’s house for whatever reason, maybe even to beat her again and found the bodies. Knowing he could be/would be blamed for the murders, he left the scene when what he should have done is immediately called the police.

    That scenario alone explains virtually every bit of evidence that was actually found and not planted.

    BTW, I’m white

  8. 5. The episodes leading up to the trial regarding the background of the LAPD in the past and the background of OJ’s career were important to establish the distrust of the cops by the black community and the aura around Simpson as a football player and celebrity.
    4. Chris Darden might of been brought in to the prosecution team to give some racial balance but his decision to have OJ try on the glove during the proceedings has to be one of the most epic failures in the history of law.
    3. Furhman was another disaster and turned the whole trial upside down and raised enough reasonable doubt in the jury’s mind. Lange and Vanatter had their faults as well during the investigation but Fuhrman finding the glove would seem right place right time but just the wrong person to have discovered it especially with the skeletons in his closet.
    2. Ron Goldman-damn wrong place wrong time. Just returning a pair of glasses to Nicole and walks right into the worst possible moment by pure accident.
    1. OJ mini series on FX and OJ five part documentary on ESPN. Think we’ve had our fill of the Juice for a long long while.

  9. Nice work, Florio. I watched the jury’s verdict being read in a friend’s Applebee’s in the deep South. After following the case on Court TV, I had to agree that there was enough reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case that any reasonable jury would have to vote to acquit.

    Too bad there wasn’t a choice for the jury to find for second degree.

    As I understand it, Florida’s Citrus council still has $1 million bux on offer if he changes his name to Snapple.

  10. There were a lot of “you gotta be kidding me moments” in the series.

    The trainer telling him weeks ahead of time to stop taking his arthritis medicine and admitting it in an interview?

    Dershowitz persuading OJ’s friend that Fuhrman couldn’t have framed him (admitting OJ’s guilt).

    And, yes, cutting her throat to the point the blade contacts the vertebrae shows a significant level of emotion behind the killings.

    It’s only now that I’m able to relate to the fathers outrage. As it occurred, I wasn’t moved. Today I see better why he was so incensed at the beat-down the dream team put on the state.

    I’m also struck by the percentages of whites/blacks who believe he was guilty/innocent. We’re no better off today than we were 20 years ago. Possibly worse with the prejudice exuding from the white house the past 7 years.

  11. The last point about Fred Goldman finally getting justice on OJ was one I really hadn’t thought about. The determination to basically hound him into reckless and stupid behavior after OJ had luckily beat the system did lead to his downfall at long last. Kudos to Fred!

  12. Spot on. The prosecution lost that case. Furhman shouldn’t have even been on the force. I think the defense played the hand they were given, and did just what they were supposed to do. Defend their client, and plant seeds of reasonable doubt. The defendents blood being carried around instead of being booked. The cops were just as bad as the prosecution.

  13. And OJ was a douche bag who proved to be his worst enemy.

    Oh,and I don’t use the word, but there’s a huge diffence when that slur is used with hate towards said group of people.

  14. I agree on all points after seeing the ESPN series, the F/X series, and reading Marcia Clark’s book.

    I disagree on points 1 & 3. On number 1, while the injury inflicted on Nicole was harsh, it doesn’t prove he did it especially since a murder weapon was not found.

    On number 3, the prosecution was outsmarted by the defense and the LA police and investigators did a horrible job of collecting evidence and not processing it with an anal-retentive process. They were sloppy. They had OJ’s blood everywhere but the defense negated it by pointing out how the botched it.

    I am 99% sure he did it. Rosey Grier should do us all of favor and tell us with OJ told him in jail.

  15. Sadly, the defense didn’t need to do all that hard work and the prosecution was wasting there time. Right after the verdict I saw one juror interviewed and she stated “I felt from the very beginning he was innocent”.

  16. Well-done piece hard to argue with virtually everything in it.

    However, there should have been a Number Eleven:

    11). L.A. D.A. Garcetti made a fateful error in judgement to move the trial from Santa Monica to Downtown L.A..

    Simply put, the move to Downtown completely altered the makeup of the jury pool. OJ had lived in West L.A. for decades (he even makes the point that he was a senior member of his neighborhood and if the newbies had an objection to him being there post-acquital that THEY should be the ones to move). The crime occurred there. With a largely white jury Johnnie Cochran’s appeals would have fallen largely on deaf ears.

    Everything that happened afterwards with the jury selection on through to the trial and jury deliberations all pale to that one fateful decision.

  17. It’s conjecture, but I believe the Simpson and Goldman families had to approve releasing the level of gore shown in the documentary. Please re-read #1 above and consider what it took to let that be shown nationwide the first time.

    The timing of the release isn’t an accident. O.J. Simpson is scheduled for release from prison as early as next year. I believe the families are setting the scene for O.J. to become the biggest pariah and target for hatred in American criminal history, with hopes of a demise like Jeffrey Dahlmer’s.

    I’ll be shocked if he gets out of prison alive. I’ll be even more shocked if he is released and lives a year.

  18. It’s an awesome documentary and a nice follow up Mike.

    You have to hand it to Simpson’s lawyers. They certainly earned every penny of that $50K/week. Their job was to keep OJ out of prison and they did. I do agree that there was “reasonable doubt” based on Fuhrman but the problem I have with acquittal is that they didn’t disprove that he did it. I think that’s what we were all hoping for…just prove he DIDN’T do it rather than he might have but was set up. That’s what I think left such a bad aftertaste in all of this. Why didn’t they show hard evidence of his whereabouts during the time of the murders? That’s all I wanted…PROVE to me he didn’t do it…cause it still looks like he did…even 20 years later.

  19. (01) No question about it then. No question about it now. Simpson *obviously* killed Ron and Nicole.

    (02) Simpson *repeatedly* kept changing his story to questions that would be easy and straightforward for an honest and innocent man to answer once.

    (a) For example, the police asked Simpson how he got cuts so deep on his hand that they went to the bone, and Simpson implausibly replied, “I really don’t know.” Realizing this answer was not plausible, Simpson later said that he had cut his hands out of grief in a Chicago hotel room – by shattering a glass in his hand out of grief that the mother of his two children had been murdered “by the killer or killers.” Now if the latter was the case, why would Simpson have said, “I really don’t know” when initially asked? How could Simpson have “forgotten?” The answer is he didn’t. He was lying.

    (b) A second example is all the times Simpson lied when asked another question that would presumably have been an easy question for an honest and innocent man to respond to. Simpson said in one instance that the reason was he’d overslept. Another was that he was in the shower. Still another was that he was “chipping golfballs.” Again, honest people don’t keep changing their stories — when holes are subsequently identified in their previous response(s).

    (03) The killer wore an *extremely* rare pair of Bruno Magli shoes, that involved both the specific brand and Simpson’s specific size (i.e., size 12). However, Simpson responded that he would never have purchased such an “ugly ass” pair of shoes. But the facts show multiple photographs and video footage of Simpson wearing that exact pair of shoes. Again, honest and innocent men don’t lie about questions like that – if they’re searching for truth about who killed the mother of their children.

    (04) The DNA evidence was overwhelming. The odds were 1 in 300,000,000 that it was Simpson’s blood found all over the crime scene, the bloody gloves and his Bronco. There weren’t even 300,000,000 people in the U.S. at the time.

    (05) The leather gloves: the defense team made a big deal how the leather gloves “did not fit.” What a softball question for the prosecution to counter, but astonishingly, the prosecution failed miserably. The leather gloves had been drenched in blood. ANYONE who has any common sense at all knows that moisture applied to leather shrinks the leather. Anyone who has ever used a leather glove to play racquetball, tennis, baseball, softball, etc. realizes that a glove that fit perfectly prior to getting all sweated up — becomes a bit of a struggle to put on the next time. You literally have to work your hand into the glove, by reason that moisture shrinks leather. But the prosecution, again having no clue, blew it by not pointing out that simple reality. The prosecution could have also added – that would have meant the “killer” was no bigger than a garden gnome if his hands would have fit into those leather gloves as they were when all shrunken up due to natural effects of the moisture. This would have ALSO been a good time for the prosecution to point out how the defense was utilizing tricks and tactics designed to mislead the jury – created doubt in the jury’s mind about the veracity of the defense team itself. But as we all know, the prosecution dropped the ball on that angle too.

    (06) Many many many in the African-American community were aware Simpson was responsible for the killings, but considered the verdict righteous in their views — as a form of payback — for many of the truly grievous wrongs inflicted upon them over many many years.

    Those are just a few points, on a topic that could be expounded upon indefinitely. But Simpson obviously “did it,” and he got away with murder.

    Finally, much credit to the makers of that compelling documentary – and to Florio for his strong and accurate summation of a number of the key points.

  20. Is a 9 hour docu-drama to rationalize why the jury was comprised of a bunch of ignorant dopes?

    “World is proven flat after exhaustive debate against evidence of thr contrary”

    ….well, you had to be there at the time to understand thats just the way people thought at the time. No, not really… .the jury were retarded and were not interested in their civic duty of justice

  21. Wait a minute. Mr. Florio is convinced of guilt by crime scene photos? He can magically determine the identities of criminals and motivations of people by viewing pictures?

    What about the timeline Mr. Florio? How did Simpson have time to commit the murders?

  22. Great column. On point 5. Fuhrman didn’t plead 5th in front of jury. They may have heard through leaks but Ito only allowed a few sentences of the tapes to go into evidence as impeachment and jury wasn’t present for Fuhrman Rd 2. So the “did you plant or manufacture evidence” question was for public consumption hoping it would leak through the sequestered wall.

  23. 1.What was OJ’s motive? OJ could get 1000 women better looking than Nicole, and the women I saw him with were better looking. Again what was the motive? He could not live without this blond white woman? Please!!!!!

    2 Nicole best friend Faye Resnick said in her book they were doing 1000 dollars a week in cocaine.People that use and sell drugs get killed every day. Johhny Cochran’s investigators found a ton of seedy behavior by Nicole that OJ told Johhny not to disclose in the trial because he did not want his kids to hear about their mother. That was stated in his book

    3 .Are you sure Ron was not the target and Nicole heard the commotion and walked into a massacre of Ron Goldman and got killed because wrong place wrong time? Nobody said anything about what dirt he may have been in. Who was supplying Nicole with the cocaine? How do we know he or Nicole did not owe somebody money for the dope.

    4 Who did OJ daughter hear arguing with her mother? You know she has heard them arguing before and would know his voice

    5 Why did LAPD bring a sock into the courtroom with blood in the same spot on both sides of the sock, which is impossible with your ankle in the sock while wearing pants! Dr. Henry Lee destroyed that garbage which would make any sane person think if they lied about that mess what else they lied about?. Johhny Cochran said Dr. Henry Lee won the case for them by using science to impeach LAPD evidence.

    6. LAPD cops has been caught lying and planting evidence before and after that case, Google LAPD Rampart Division.

    . 7 How do we know they did not remove the shoes from oj house and tramp around the scene. They rode around with his blood for 8 hours which was a violation of their own policies. So what did they do, try to frame OJ?. Like I said before what was the motive?

    8. OJ Simpson at 55 yrs old going to kill a physically fit 25 yr old man and not get a scratch on him? I call BS there.

    9 The manner they were killed, suggests who did that has killed before.

  24. Mike: Your assessment of the trial is ‘spot on’ with one exception which could have been included in point 1)!! Ron Goldman was just as ‘overkilled’ as Nicole and what that poor defenseless human being had to go through was brutal! OJ stabbed him repeatedly in the neck and other parts after the abdomen wound. Just like the entire trial and media coverage of what occurred: Ron Goldman’s murder was overlooked so many times and seemingly just not as newsworthy as Nicole’s. What a shame and you nailed it with Fred Goldman’s pursuit of the civil case! Best doc I have ever seen!

  25. I will add one other point to one of the ‘trial changing’ results — the glove. Not one person in the doc or for the prosecution’s case ever questioned or objected to OJ having on a plaited glove while trying on the ‘evidence’ glove…? How could this not be factored into their consideration in ‘enabling’ him to try that glove on with another one already on…Inexplicable IMO

  26. Not having cable….I missed it…HOPING to see it sometime though.
    ONE point that I do not know if it was ever brought up but I think it contributed to the outcome…and that was the very speedy trial and Cochran’s push for it. Usually, a case like this will be many months or a year to the tail, so the prosecution and defense has a lot of time to prepare. With this early quick trial, I believe OJ’s defense team KNEW the prosecution would have to rush to get it all together and KNEW they would bungle it. THAT happened….OJ walked.

  27. I was in 7th or 8th grade at the time. I watched the trial every day. I wish I hadn’t. When the verdict was announced, my teachers all started crying and running from classroom to classroom crying with joy and thanking god. I had to sit there and watch grown adults who were teaching me, celebrating a guy who murdered two people getting off. I never was the same in school after that.

  28. Hence the crying sentence and “grown adults” as if here are any other kind of adult usage

  29. Still troubled by the fact that O.J had both purchased a pair of gloves EXACTLY like the ones found and also owned a pair of shoes that left bloody footprints at both the crime scene and his house. Less than 300 pair of those shoes were sold in the entire country.

  30. Some good comments in here on top of one of Mr. Florio’s best pieces. However, the commenter who suggested that Mr. Goldman was just after Mr. Simpson’s money was way off the mark.
    Maybe I was whooshed badly but wow.

  31. mchappypants says:
    Jun 24, 2016 1:50 AM
    Sadly, the defense didn’t need to do all that hard work and the prosecution was wasting there time. Right after the verdict I saw one juror interviewed and she stated “I felt from the very beginning he was innocent”.
    —————–
    Oh, good, because legally he SHOULD be assumed innocent at the beginning of the trial. Any other presumption would have violated Simpson’s constitutional right to due process.

  32. Unless you were there, you don’t know. The evidence supported both arguments and for Florio to assume defense attorney’s are ” lacking the ability or the work ethic ” is a slap in the face to hard working defense attorney’s and for those with great abilities. A percentage yes. How much who knows but that’s in every profession.

  33. For those of you who may still doubt Simpson’s guilt, read “Outrage” by Vince Bugliosi. The former L.A. County District Attorney, one of most successful prosecution lawyers of all time, said he could have convicted Simpson on the blood evidence alone. Called it a “slam dunk”.

    Ron Shipp said a couple weeks ago that he thinks Simpson will, before he dies, admit his guilt.

    Several of the Simpson jurors have recently admitted they reached their verdict not on the evidence, but rather to make a statement concerning the LAPD’s horrible record of racial profiling.

    This has to be one of the most unbelieveable miscarriages of justice – not to mention a fantastically botched job by the prosecution – in the history of American jurisprudence. But I will agree that Ezra Edelman has created a truly important piece of history, one that I will no doubt watch again.

  34. purpleandgoldforever says:
    There are absolutely no facts that prove OJ did it just as there are absolutely no facts that prove OJ didn’t do it.

    –It’s statements like this and other’s I’ve read, that make me hope my fate will never be determined by a jury of my “peers”.

  35. As for being outworked , how much money should a prosecutorial team (i.e. the taxpayer) spend on one case?
    If the defendant has great lawyers, it’s hard to win, and it requires extra expense to win. It’s hard to do that over many cases, since there is a limited budget.

  36. Given that it was made clear that Goldman and the perpetrator were in a huge fight, I cannot understand how OJ didn’t have cuts and bruises all over.

    With that being said, all evidence points to him but I do not understand how this is possible. Anyone who has ever been in a fight know’s what your hands are like afterwards.

    OJ is where he belongs, though.

  37. With the climate and the jury, there could have been video with his face clearly seen committing the murders and he would have been acquitted. There was no way that jury was going to convict him. Yet people think of OJ as some sort of hero because he murdered two people and got away with it. Says a lot about the values in this country.

  38. satchseven says:
    Jun 24, 2016 6:28 AM
    8. OJ Simpson at 55 yrs old going to kill a physically fit 25 yr old man and not get a scratch on him? I call BS there.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++

    For starters, there are plenty of people who will kill because “if I cant have you no one can”. So there is always that. Secondly, OJ was 44, not 55. Personally, if I am putting money on a street fight, I am going to take the 44 year old NFL HOF football player with a knife over the unarmed 25 year old regardless of level of fitness. I don’t care how ripped his abs were, they weren’t going to work as body armor to deflect a knife stabbing into his abdomen…

  39. >>>The killer wore an *extremely* rare pair of Bruno Magli shoes, that involved both the specific brand and Simpson’s specific size (i.e., size 12). However, Simpson responded that he would never have purchased such an “ugly ass” pair of shoes. But the facts show multiple photographs and video footage of Simpson wearing that exact pair of shoes.<<<

    OJ was the sideline reporter during the 1993 Cowboys Vs. Dolphins Thanksgiving game that featured Leon Lett's infamous botched missed-field goal recovery that led to a Fins comeback win. It was a wild finish to a game that took place about 6 months before the murders. During the game, you can clearly see OJ wearing the Bruno Magli shoes and gloves (although the latter might be a different pair). At the end of the game, he was rebuffed as he tried to get an interview with exiting players and starting yelling profanities — caught off-camera on the live audio feed and a sign of his quick temper. Nicole was with him on the sideline during that game, too.

  40. The day OJ was acquitted by a jury that had no interest in focusing on the actual evidence but instead acquitting one of ‘their own’, I lost complete faith in our court system and our justice system. I don’t wish the court system today on my worst enemy. Courts are full of incompetent lawyers and judges who have no clue what they’re doing. Innocent people get sent to prison all the time and the guilty get off scot-free. Like many things in our country, the whole system is screwed up and beyond repair at this point.

  41. “Fuhrman’s refusal to answer the question of whether he planted evidence was all the jury needed to set Simpson free.”

    The jury never heard it. That entire exchange happened outside their presence.

    Ito instructed the jury that Furhman wasn’t available to be recalled as a witness, and they could consider his lack of appearing as a factor in his credibility.

  42. satchseven says:,
    Don’t expect people to use their minds on this. They’d rather deal in the racial aspects of the trial and their own preconceived biases. I say this because when it happened, I thought he did it, but I saw those crime scene photos years ago, and no one can tell me how you nearly decapatate one person, stab another all in his feet and come out with barely a scratch on you and not be covered in blood, not just drops here and there. Yeah, OJ snapped because of the gay guy who he’d actually hung out with in the past with Nicole was at her house after never snapping when she screwed around with who her friends called the “younger better OJ (their words, not mine),” in Marcus Allen. Not to mention he had known his daughter and her friends, including the infamous Kardashian girls, would be there that night. GFOh. People that believe nonsense like this are just as loopy as the people who believe he was justified in getting off because of past racial injustices in LA. As to Florio’s first point of the emotion of the killing, there is a very compelling person that neither the prosecution or LAPD ever looked at seriously in OJ’s son Jason who OJ just happened to hire lawyers for in the wee hours of the morning the day after the murders, who had a strange relationship with his stepmother who was barely older than him and who he went regularly clubbing with when he lived with them, who had mental illness history and a history with making domestic threats with knives, and who actually has several pictures from that time period wearing the infamous ski cap that OJ supposedly went there and committed the murders in. Oh, and who lied about his alibi that night. Imagine that, but if you’re stupid and already have your mind made up, little things like that wouldn’t be compelling to you.

  43. mclennon99 says:

    It’s an awesome documentary and a nice follow up Mike.

    You have to hand it to Simpson’s lawyers. They certainly earned every penny of that $50K/week. Their job was to keep OJ out of prison and they did. I do agree that there was “reasonable doubt” based on Fuhrman but the problem I have with acquittal is that they didn’t disprove that he did it. I think that’s what we were all hoping for…just prove he DIDN’T do it rather than he might have but was set up. That’s what I think left such a bad aftertaste in all of this. Why didn’t they show hard evidence of his whereabouts during the time of the murders? That’s all I wanted…PROVE to me he didn’t do it…cause it still looks like he did…even 20 years later.
    ——————————————————————

    IT’s not the defense’s job to PROVE he didn’t do it. It’s up to the prosecution to absolutely prove he did. The job of the defense is to raise the question that “maybe” he didn’t. I think they did that, although I wholeheartedly believe he did do it.

  44. I will say this. I wasn’t really surprised that he was not convicted. All the defense had to do was cast reasonable doubt and he did that so the verdict was correct. However, most people probably realized he was the culprit. I don’t have a problem with that. I have a problem with him being declared a hero because he committed murder and got away with it.

  45. OJ was sentenced far too harshly for what he did in Vegas. The judge took it upon herself to hand down payback for the acquittal in the murder case. Whether you think he did it or not or whether you believe he finally got what he had coming to him, she overstepped her bounds in that sentencing.

  46. When I lived in LA, I drove from OJ’s house to the crime scene.
    The timeline cuts awfully close for someone to kill Nicole and Ron, then jump in his car back to his house…clean up and then get in a limo to go to the airport.
    I can’t say it was premeditated.

  47. Oh, and the people saying they couldn’t believe LAPD would have planted evidence. Are you high? Outside of NOPD, I can’t think of a more corrupt police department in the country. These idiots all saw their 15 minutes of fame because they saw that they had a famous suspect. The probability of them planting evidence didn’t have anything to do with race, but rather it had to do with that you had scumbags like Fuhrman working the case who shouldn’t have even been on the force. However, had it been insert popular white famous person, Fuhrman would have planted the same evidence imobecause that’s how he rolled. It just gave Cochran and his team the angle to show to the jury what kind of scum Fuhrman was and how he operated. Simpson clearly went there that night, but I’m sorry, but if you do what happened to those people, you’d need an auto detail to clean more than just a few specks of blood that got left behind out of the car that he would have been covered in. Imo, his son snapped because of the cancellation of dinner at his restaurant. He went over and got into a confrontation with his stepmother that led him to irrationally attack her, and Ron Goldman just stepped into the wrong place at the wrong time. OJ of course was told, and he goes to see. Then, of course he freaks out because the woman that he had ruined his first marriage for and was still screwing regularly btw after their divorce was there with her head chopped off, and he has the knowledge that his son was responsible for it. I mean you have OJ and Nicole regularly still hooking up and were even out to dinner that night, but OJ snapped over the waiter guy who is way out of their tax bracket and who he’d hung out with before, but Marcus Allen, not a reaction at all. Riiight.

  48. markprzyb says:
    Jun 24, 2016 10:31 AM

    IT’s not the defense’s job to PROVE he didn’t do it. It’s up to the prosecution to absolutely prove he did. The job of the defense is to raise the question that “maybe” he didn’t. I think they did that, although I wholeheartedly believe he did do it.

    ——————————————————————
    I understand that and you’re right but why didn’t they have an answer for the shoe prints, the limo driver’s testimony etc. That’s my point…just give me something solid that debunks their solid evidence. I think he did it too but being a Bills fan here in Buffalo, I’d love to think he didn’t.

  49. Good post- makes me want to watch the documentary.

    OJ got off because his “Dream Team” of Attorneys pulled off a great, theatrical performance and played the race card at the perfect time….The Prosecution just didn’t have the ability to overcome it.

    I was in 10th grade at the time so correct me if I am wrong/only partially correct but I remember that Fuhrman was basically a fall guy; he was on tape dropping the “N bomb” but he was consulting with a Screenwriter (you gotta love Hollywood) who was writing the screenplay for a cop movie…He was playing a perpetrator who was saying the word a whole bunch of times for that scene and it was on tape. This was several years prior to the trial and once it was introduced into evidence he was already trapped. Clark/Darden should have prepped him and NOT had him plead the 5th. They could have clarified everything on cross examination. From what I remember he was a highly thought of Police Officer prior to the whole debacle, both by White and Black cops.

  50. Gil Garcetti said in a interview with Rich Eisen that it wasn’t his decision to have the trial in downtown LA. Garcetti said it was a decision that was made by the court, but that he simply was the one who announced it. He also claims that there would have been no difference in the makeup of the jury because a trial in Santa Monica would have drawn from the same jury pool as downtown LA.

  51. I haven’t seen all of the documentary yet, but remember back from the trial thinking my biggest takeaway then was the jury refusing or too stupid to weigh the actual evidence presented. And yes, Rodney King’s beating did play an integral role.

  52. One thing that I hadn’t considered before but was mentioned by someone in the documentary … I forget who.

    I always assumed OJ took a knife over to Nicole’s to kill her but someone said something like “If Nicole hadn’t answered the door with a knife in her hand she would still be alive.”

    So it makes more sense to me that OJ went over to confront her and/or beat her up again but when she answered the door with a knife he just went berserk at her daring to threaten his dominance.

  53. Nicole was killed quickly and professionally. Ronald Goldman was tortured with taunting cuts to his face and fought for life. I have always felt that Goldman may have been the target. When you consider Michael Nigg and Brett Canter were also murdered, you can’t discount that. Judge Ito had no say in what the DA’s did regarding the Bronco Chase. The DA’s opted not to use it. Garcetti always said that the reason why the trial was held downtown was because of the damage done to the Santa Monica courthouse from the earthquake. The DA’s wanted a black jury. They were already knew their case was weak and they wanted the jury to be blamed. Mark Fuhrman was well known by the DA’s in July 1994. As Fuhrman said on the tapes, ‘If I go down, the glove goes down and the case goes bye-bye and Clark knows it!’. That glove was always going to be questioned no matter who found it.

  54. You wanna know why he was acquitted? The Jurors were bored and tired….after watching the FX and ES_N versions I’m exhausted, and that was what 15 hours? Could you imagine 6-8 months of these tedious bull?

    He’ll pay the price in Hell, and will have many of his attorneys with him….F. Lee Bailey, the recently DIS-Barred Attorney!!

  55. I was in 7th or 8th grade at the time. I watched the trial every day. I wish I hadn’t. When the verdict was announced, my teachers all started crying and running from classroom to classroom crying with joy and thanking god. I had to sit there and watch grown adults who were teaching me, celebrating a guy who murdered two people getting off. I never was the same in school after that.
    *****************************************************
    In their minds that’s not what they were celebrating…..when folks think justice doesn’t work for people who look like them and then one day in the biggest trial of the century they see it change….if you ask them today they will see the trial differently…..

  56. I really think it’s sad that to this very day race still plays such a large role in society. I mean how pathetic is it that so much emphasis from both the prosecution and defense teams is put on where to hold a trial because the majority of jurors will be black or white. That right there tells me today’s judicial system is more of an illusion than seeking the truth. This goes for both blacks and whites but if verdicts are based on skin color rather than evidence, we’ve failed miserably as a nation. We truly have.

  57. The defense put on a very compelling case. They found major flaws with every piece of evidence. The timeline just didn’t work. All of the lead detectives lied and got caught. The verdict was not colored based. The jury could have been all white and the verdict would have been the same. They had no choice.

  58. I had my doubts all these years whether OJ did it or not. Many of the people around me felt like he was complicit; even to the point of maybe putting his own son (not the one by Nicole, but the older one) up to doing it.

    After seeing those photos and wishing I hadn’t, I fully agree here. That swung the pendulum for me. There was a lot of material testimony shown in the documentary that wasn’t made public at the time. So that just went to show how so many people had their minds made up about Simpson’s guilt or innocence based upon “other things” and not the facts of the case. Had we known about these things, anyone with a rational mind and a semblance of understanding of the legal process would have believed Simpson to be guilty. I never came across this case years later in law school, either, but it should be in the casebooks for sure.

    Then again, this and that show on FX are all being done to ensure that the minds of those on the parole board are slanted towards keeping him in prison, even if his conduct behind bars has been worthy of parole.

  59. He did not do it.

    Ron Goldman fought for his life. Besides a small cut on his knuckle, OJ who was stripped naked by the LAPD had zero bruising on his body.

    Ron Goldman was a 3rd degree black belt. He had defensive wounds on his hands and multiple bruising on his hands and arms from striking someone.

  60. Not an OJ fan, not a Bills fan, but I still think there was reasonable doubt. As for Mr. Goldman, I understand the anger over his son’s murder, but its hard to take anyone with a handlebar mustache seriously. Dude, you’re not Bruce Wayne. Move on and stop trying to be the Dark Knight of Justice.

  61. davew128 says:
    Jun 24, 2016 3:16 PM
    Not an OJ fan, not a Bills fan, but I still think there was reasonable doubt. As for Mr. Goldman, I understand the anger over his son’s murder, but its hard to take anyone with a handlebar mustache seriously. Dude, you’re not Bruce Wayne. Move on and stop trying to be the Dark Knight of Justice.

    Dude…have one of your kids horrendously murdered and see if you could ever “move on”.

  62. The one thing I learned from the documentary was that the LAPD was a complete mess and out of control. The blood evidence was overwhelming and yet the defense was able to show cause for reasonable doubt because of the racism within the department and the poor collection of the evidence. Everything fell in place for O.J. to get out of being convicted.

  63. helicopterpilot13 says:
    Jun 24, 2016 3:08 AM
    Fred Goldman was after O.J.’s money. It had little to do with anything other than greed. His son was gone. What need did Goldman have with money??
    ———————————

    Greed? Goldman’s goal was to bring the truth to light through a civil trial, where Simpson could not hide it. The resulting judgement kept him from continuing to be ‘OJ’. Goldman couldn’t take Simpson’s life but he could destroy his lifestyle. It was the closest he could legally come to justice.

  64. Time has made my memory of what game it was but I believe it was the Miami at Dallas game on Thanksgiving when it snowed in Dallas, 1993…..OJ missed an interview at the end of the game and they left his mic on by accident.

    The tirade he went into that no one was supposed to hear was funny at the time. But when I heard his ex wife was killed and OJ was a possible suspect, I knew he was guilty. The pure anger in his voice over missing an interview after a game told me all I needed to know.

    He is bat poop crazy.

  65. I was around OJ as a kid. It was a couple years post his football career. He was a grotesque human being. Completely bloated by fame. To my ten year old self he was someone I didn’t even want to be I the same room with despite my love of sports Heroes. But worse than OJ were the men around him. Emasculated twits, who danced for OJ to any tune he sang. No self esteem, no masculine authority. Everyone acted like they were waiting for OJ to decide it was time to him to extend the privilege of fellating him. It was those people as much as OJ himself that were responsible for Nicole’s murder. They loved his boorish behavior because they had no masculine Power themselves and wanted to borrow his. When you see those men talking in the documentary you realize they all would have done him a divorce by leaving his life earlier. But they were too emasculated to walk away.

  66. I thought the most impactful comment in the entire documentary was from the mouthy juror with a 6th-grade education: “our verdict was pay-back for Rodney King … 90% of us voted that way … I sure did”.

    Hey jury … you completely defied the judge’s instructions to discuss the evidence.

  67. citizenstrange says:
    Jun 24, 2016 12:40 PM

    One thing that I hadn’t considered before but was mentioned by someone in the documentary … I forget who.

    I always assumed OJ took a knife over to Nicole’s to kill her but someone said something like “If Nicole hadn’t answered the door with a knife in her hand she would still be alive.”
    ———————————————–
    Good point there … that was OJ himself who made that statement in jail. I believe he said it to his agent (the guy who later said “I’ve paid a high price in my life for my role in getting OJ off with murder”).

  68. Do you want to believe that Furhman wanted to frame OJ? Fine.
    Do you want to believe that he an LAPD police had framed other people before? Fine.

    But please point out to me another instance where the police have tried to frame someone by removing a piece of evidence from the crime scene and move to another area. Any examples would do,

    In the documentary an OJ unidentified friend asked one of the many questions that made the hypothesis absurd:
    How did Furhman know that OJ did not have an alibi? He could have been a restaurant or on the limo when the murders were committed.
    Other questions to ask:
    How did Furhman know that the killer’s blood (assuming it was not OJ) was not on the glove?
    How did Furhman know at the time he removed the glove that OJ had gone back to his house? Instead of running to San Francisco to confess to his mother? Or hanging himself from a tree after writing a confession? In both cases Furhman would have been exposed.

    There are lot of reasons to doubt Fuhrman. Police sometimes plant evidence. But they have control of the evidence they plant and they do not remove a piece of evidence from a crime scene to try to frame somebody because that is likely to backfire.

    Whatever you think of the LAPD and Fuhrman that glove could not have been planted.

  69. I haven’t seen the whole series yet. What I have seen makes it seem pretty obvious he was guilty, but that the prosecution went in way overconfident and left big openings for Cochran & Co. to walk through.

    I was working as an admin assistant at one of Charlotte’s big banks during the trial, and I remember the entire floor stopping work and crowding into the break room to watch when the verdict came down. That group of people was probably about 70% white, 25% black, and 5% Latino. When we heard “not guilty,” we ALL gasped in disbelief. We all headed back to our work tasks mumbling, “Wow, he got away with it.” Later, on reflection, I was still certain of his guilt, but could understand he got off; his lawyers did their job and did it to perfection.

    As for the later crime around the stolen memorabilia, I’ve always held that he got such a strong sentence not as a makeup for the murders, but because a handful of untrained monkeys could have pulled off the heist better than OJ and his posse could. Total dolts.

  70. The glove was planted, no question. The DA’s could not explain how the glove got back there. There was zero evidence of anyone being back there besides Fuhrman. If the noise Kato had heard had any thing to do with the murders, then he was meant to hear them.

  71. 5 26
    Report comment
    DitkasHair says:
    Jun 24, 2016 1:38 PM
    You wanna know why he was acquitted? The Jurors were bored and tired….after watching the FX and ES_N versions I’m exhausted, and that was what 15 hours? Could you imagine 6-8 months of these tedious bull?

    He’ll pay the price in Hell, and will have many of his attorneys with him….F. Lee Bailey, the recently DIS-Barred Attorney!!
    —————————————————–
    Good point about the jurors but I’ve always wondered how they could get tired of it all knowing they’re on the most famous jury in history, it’s the top story on every network news show most days and that the entire WORLD is wondering what your decision will be. Guess I’d have to go through it to understand how they felt but knowing all that, I’d be giving it my all every day.

  72. there is a very compelling person that neither the prosecution or LAPD ever looked at seriously in OJ’s son Jason who OJ just happened to hire lawyers for in the wee hours of the morning the day after the murders, who had a strange relationship with his stepmother who was barely older than him and who he went regularly clubbing with when he lived with them, who had mental illness history and a history with making domestic threats with knives, and who actually has several pictures from that time period wearing the infamous ski cap that OJ supposedly went there and committed the murders in. Oh, and who lied about his alibi that night. Imagine that, but if you’re stupid and already have your mind made up, little things like that wouldn’t be compelling to you.*** I ALWAYS THOUGHT HIS SON DID IT!!! No one followed up on that! Why???!

  73. I see I am not alone in thinking the son did it. That was my thought all along up until the documentary. I still think OJ had a hand in it somehow or another. But even if OJ didn’t physically do it himself, he made this bed with all his antics over the years, so I don’t even feel sorry for him that they threw the book at him in Las Vegas.

  74. If OJ did it why did he hire a defense attorney for his son 4 days after the murder. Ron Goldman was a 3rd degree black belt. I seriously doubt OJ would’ve been able to over power him considering his physical decline etc etc etc. Being off meds and anger with his mom may have set Jason Simpson over the deep end.

  75. So if Fuhrman had not taken the 5th when asked if he had ever planted evidence before and said no he had not, would OJ have been convicted? To me, that was when the trial officially ended. They could have let OJ go home, dismissed the jury and called it a day.

  76. The most alarming moment in this documentary for me was the realization the jury thought all of Nicole’s problems were of her own doing. The jury didn’t resent Simpson for dating a white blond woman, they resented the white blond woman. The jury was loaded with fools.

  77. So if Fuhrman had not taken the 5th when asked if he had ever planted evidence before and said no he had not, would OJ have been convicted? To me, that was when the trial officially ended. They could have let OJ go home, dismissed the jury and called it a day.

    0 0
    it didnt matter what Furman said or didnt say the guy wasnt getting convicted. I dont think the jury was smart enought o understand the DNA evidence anyhow. just goes to show that racism is alive and well in theblack community.

  78. Carl Douglas turned my stomach with his smug admission of “lawyering” that turned the case.

    The whole swollen hands and admission of the “blackness” of the defense was sickening.

    Douglas should have been ashamed of himself, but instead reveled in his behavior.

    As an educated individual, you’d think he’d be appalled by the admission of the old juror on “winning one for our side”, but his comments suggest, he’d be happy with that jurors comments.

  79. There’s no doubt in my mind that O.J. is suffering from CTE. I’m not making excuses for his actions, but I guarantee you after he passes and they examine his brain, they will find it. Another Junior Seau situation.

  80. If this happens today, with the DNA evidence, he is probably convicted. No one understood that stuff before 5 versions of C.S.I. were on CBS.

  81. What about the jurors??

    Deliberate for just 3.5 hours?? Only the prosecution messed up??

    What the whole jury did was tragic as the families cried with credible conviction of O.J.’s deeds before and the during the case. Frankly, I’d rather respect Marcia Clark for blaming others instead of the jury.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!