ESPN 30 for 30: O.J. Made in America (1 Viewer)

[Zegras11]

Just finished number 4.  Cochran is such a slime to use the race card the way he did and certainly set things back against the very thing he thought he was helping to fix.

Man, Furman and the forensic were so ####### horrible.  

Like DD, I remember watching the NBA Finals when the car chase broke out about 3 miles from my house.  So surreal for me. 

Was a huge OJ fan due to my best friend on my street who had an older brother that was the tackle for OJ at SC. 

 

[Raider Nation]

As an aside, Marcia Clark has a pretty good plastic surgeon. She looks way better than she did 20 years ago.

 

[Joe Summer]

As an aside, Marcia Clark has a pretty good plastic surgeon. She looks way better than she did 20 years ago.

You'd think that the surgeon would have thrown in the mole for free.

 

[shader]

I don't fault the jurors at all.  I think the Not Guilty verdict was a very logical verdict.  That's what happens when you have amazing high-paid lawyers versus a bumbling prosecution/police department.  There's a reason that OJ won.  His lawyers stacked the deck in every way possible and the prosecution had no chance.

If you think about it from a juror's perspective, what evidence did you have that OJ did it?  To me, the years of abuse was the strongest evidence.  The blood evidence was completely undone by forensic evidence that seemed to show that the blood could have been planted, the admission that a cop took a vial of blood to the crime scene, and Fuhrman, who pleaded the 5th when asked if he planted evidence!!!!!  Think about these jurors. 

Also, many of these jurors probably suspected a cover-up or evidence planting right from the start due to their life experiences.  So they went in with pre-conceived notions, and then they had high-paid lawyers backing up what they said.  

In the end, where was the evidence?

You forget, they didn't have the subsequent civil trial, where OJ looked like an idiot.  They didn't have OJ completely forgetting about looking for a murderer and sinking into debauchery and armed robbery.  They didn't have his apparent confessions and the weird book "If I did it".  They only had a certain amount of evidence, and so I don't fault them for their decision

 

[pantherclub]

^what evidence?  Jesus Christ dude.  

 

[shader]

I always struggle with people that "break bad".  It's one reason why the tv show Breaking Bad was so good.  It was a perfect journey of the descent of a normal person into a monster.  In that TV show, the main character wasn't destined to become a monster.  He had some major flaws, but who doesn't?  But a series of events caused him to turn into an evil person.

In a similar way, I personally think OJ was probably a pretty solid human right into the mid-80's time frame.  Then many things started to go against him.  Perhaps mental trauma from too many violent hits.  The unbelievable fame, fortune and party lifestyle that followed him went to his head.  

But if you ask me, what really got OJ was the fact that he never received proper punishment for his abuse of Nicole.  That crap should have been stopped far earlier than it was.  If it had been, she would probably be alive today, and he could have possibly got some help.  

I don't believe he was always a psychopath.  I think he became one once his flaws began to manifest themselves and began to fester and expand, due to his life circumstances.

 

[shader]

^what evidence?  Jesus Christ dude.  

Again, look at it from their perspective.  Once you believe that the cops could have planted evidence (and once you've heard the disgusting talk from Fuhrman and you've seen his attitude toward blacks), how hard would it be to believe that they planted the blood evidence in the bronco, the car and his house?  

Obviously there was evidence.  But was it tampered with?  They had reasonable doubt, which is all it takes in a criminal trial.

Marvelous job from the defense team.

 

[packersfan]

Again, look at it from their perspective.  Once you believe that the cops could have planted evidence (and once you've heard the disgusting talk from Fuhrman and you've seen his attitude toward blacks), how hard would it be to believe that they planted the blood evidence in the bronco, the car and his house?  

Obviously there was evidence.  But was it tampered with?  They had reasonable doubt, which is all it takes in a criminal trial.

Marvelous job from the defense team.

I watched a documentary about the civil trial and the lawyer for the plaintiffs said that once Simpson's lies were exposed they knew they had him. Well the same was true in the criminal case. Once the cops' lies were exposed how could the jury believe anything they were saying? Yes there was an overwhelming amount of evidence but the cops were caught lying so how could the jurors believe what they were being told? The cops lied about why they jumped the wall at O.J.'s to search his house. Furhman lied on the stand and then took the fifth rather than incriminate himself any further.

Clark and Darden were terrible but the cops did them no favors at all. Why lie about why they jumped the wall? Sure they broke protocol. But just admit they thought O.J. was the prime suspect and they wanted to get to him before he fled. Instead they come across as liars which looks bad to the jury. Once you lie about one thing you've now become someone the jury cannot trust about other matters and the defense jumped all over that. Then Furhman came in and blew the whole #### up a million different ways.   

Then toss in Fung who wasn't a liar or a bad person but just a normal person who happened to be exposed as a complete incompetent and you had reasonable doubt all over the place.

Like I said before Not Guilty was the only verdict I could've rendered given how the case was presented and I'm 100% convinced O.J. did it. And I'm white and don't live in LA so this has nothing to do with race or whatever was going on there in the 90s from my perspective.

 

[shader]

I watched a documentary about the civil trial and the lawyer for the plaintiffs said that once Simpson's lies were exposed they knew they had him. Well the same was true in the criminal case. Once the cops' lies were exposed how could the jury believe anything they were saying? Yes there was an overwhelming amount of evidence but the cops were caught lying so how could the jurors believe what they were being told? The cops lied about why they jumped the wall at O.J.'s to search his house. Furhman lied on the stand and then took the fifth rather than incriminate himself any further.

Clark and Darden were terrible but the cops did them no favors at all. Why lie about why they jumped the wall? Sure they broke protocol. But just admit they thought O.J. was the prime suspect and they wanted to get to him before he fled. Instead they come across as liars which looks bad to the jury. Once you lie about one thing you've now become someone the jury cannot trust about other matters and the defense jumped all over that. Then Furhman came in and blew the whole #### up a million different ways.   

Then toss in Fung who wasn't a liar or a bad person but just a normal person who happened to be exposed as a complete incompetent and you had reasonable doubt all over the place.

Like I said before Not Guilty was the only verdict I could've rendered given how the case was presented and I'm 100% convinced O.J. did it. And I'm white and don't live in LA so this has nothing to do with race or whatever was going on there in the 90s from my perspective.

I agree.  Plus, when you add in the fact that the majority of the jurors were BLACK LA RESIDENTS, there wasn't going to be any forgiveness for white cops lying.

It still wouldn't shock me if it ever came out that the cops DID plant evidence, despite the fact that it's obvious to everyone (in retrospect) that OJ killed them.  

 

[packersfan]

I agree.  Plus, when you add in the fact that the majority of the jurors were BLACK LA RESIDENTS, there wasn't going to be any forgiveness for white cops lying.

It still wouldn't shock me if it ever came out that the cops DID plant evidence, despite the fact that it's obvious to everyone (in retrospect) that OJ killed them.  

And given the climate at the time the cops should've known better. Maybe not Furhman who probably was too ignorant to know any better but the others should have. The fact they lied on the witness stand really was inexcusable. It spoke to their arrogance and overconfidence. 

 

[cobalt_27]

Just finished.  Wow.  Best sports doc ever.  It's not even close.  I was angry--bordering on rage--from about episode 3 on.  Truly remarkable effort by the writers/producers.  It's an exceptional piece.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Just finished.  Wow.  Best sports doc ever.  It's not even close.  I was angry--bordering on rage--from about episode 3 on.  Truly remarkable effort by the writers/producers.  It's an exceptional piece.

Agree with this. Felt that same anger too.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Takeaways:

Evidence - They weren't getting a conviction even if OJ confessed. Who thought that jury would come back with a guilty verdict? They were ####ed out of the gate. Their reasoning for picking this jury was also insanely flawed.

Fuhrman said some despicable things, undeniable, however... Here is the most concrete evidence in the world to me, the glove. His wife purchased it for him from Bloomingdales as the woman testified. Unless Fuhrman was the killer and had committed the murders himself while planning to frame OJ, it is impossible, beyond any logic, that those gloves would be in those two locations. How would Fuhrman know if OJ had an alibi? How would he know he could concretely tie those gloves to OJ with receipts? Did he go through all their stuff during the investigation, find the two gloves/receipt, then take them back to the murder scene, get blood on them, and then drop them back off at two locations. This is logical thinking that I just give too much credit to people on for being able to process simple information. The shoes, 299 pairs made, they have pictures of him in them. We shouldn't forget the mountains of other evidence, but even without it, those gloves are all I need. Didn't understand walking the jury through the house, ridiculous nonsense.

Cochran, what a scumbag, nuff said.

Like what Shapiro said on TV after the trial. 

I hope juror 9 has been living in poverty her whole life and dies soon.

The Goldmans, ugghhhhhhh - just feel awful for them. Luckily they did get some justice over a decade later.

Danny Bakewell - I hate that guy, he's not black either. You stand me next to him and ask 100 people who is the African American, poll comes back 50/50. 

The black community getting absolutely hoodwinked by someone who hated them. "What are all these s doing in Brentwood?" This statement sums up pre murder OJ.

Cochrans right hand man/attorney, forget his name. Calling OJ's sentence "white mans justice," wtf? Is he ####### serious? #### him! You're murdering client gets away with double homicide thanks to a racist jury, and then commits an armed robbery, which sends him to jail for at least 5 years (hopefully life), and you call that "white mans justice?" WTF? I don't know what to say, he beat a murder charge, maybe he shouldn't have committed another crime, #######!

OJ - what a ####ig piece of ####, I hope he rots in jail and then he'll. He doesn't give a #### about his kids or anyone else, only OJ. He def didn't give a #### about the black community until the white community shunned the murdering son of a #####. Just such a gigantic ####### scumbag. 

That car chase in the Bronco is one of those moments from my childhood, probably comparable to the moon landing for the older generation. I had a John Starks poster on my wall of that left-handed dunk from the baseline over Jordan/Cartwright when I was 11. The Knicks in the finals and the split screen of the OJ chase, never forget that.

Great TV, enjoyed it very much!

 

[krista4]

Agree with this. Felt that same anger too.

I finished watching this two days ago and am just getting to a point of being able to type about it.  But what I've felt is not anger (though I felt it starting to brim in episode three) but overwhelming sadness.  I watch a ridiculous number of documentaries, but don't remember a story where every character is a near-tragic or tragic figure.  And aside from the named persons, just being reminded of the divisiveness that existed is depressing.

In my senior year I wrote a final paper on the Watts riots for a 20th century American history class, and I remember ending it by saying that conditions were ripe for a similar outbreak at the time.  Shortly thereafter, Rodney King riots happened...it's hard to explain to anyone not alive at that time (or too young to remember) how clear it was - even to the sheltered East Coast liberal arts person I was - how bad things were between police and minority groups at the time. 

I can't think of any person in this doc about whom I don't have mixed feelings.  The closest is Ron Shipp, who is nearest to a "hero" as we have but ends up as a sad story.  Even Mark Fuhrman and OJ, the opposite ends of an ####### spectrum, had some characteristics that made them partly sympathetic.  I realize that seems like a stretch if you're a "black and white" (no pun intended) sort, but I find it hard to think of people as "all bad" or "all good" and see some positive, and therefore sad, parts to both of them

I particularly felt for Darden - wish he'd been interviewed but understand why he wouldn't want to be reminded of any of this.  And I was particularly disappointed in remembering Barry Scheck's part in this - he is (was?) one of the people I admire most due to his work with the Innocence Project.

Like many mentioned in this thread, I found the first and last episodes most compelling as I had seen so little of the early footage and also had little understanding of the Vegas stuff.  That's one thing that continues to bother me, too - as broken and ####ed as I know our legal system is, and as much schadenfreude as I experienced in seeing OJ get his comeuppance, I'm profoundly disturbed to see the "make-up" sentence given in that situation.  I know most would disagree with me, but I still believe in equity and fairness in sentencing.

Have to thank those who contributed to this thread as I never intended to watch this - thinking I knew all the OJ stuff - until I read some posts and saw how much more there was to this.

I don't know.  I am impossibly sad in thinking about this doc and can't get it out of my head.

ETA:  Irrelevant but weird to me tidbit - I briefly dated Kim Goldman's ex-husband after they were divorced.  Heard from him basically that that family was just ####ed after this happened.  He didn't have a lot of good things to say about Fred Goldman, but it was admittedly due to his heartbreak and inability to let go of what had happened.  That family was just devastated beyond repair.

 

[fantasycurse42]

^^^ Agree on Darden, forgot to mention that. Feel terrible for that guy.

Disagree on the sentencing. He's a murderer. Not only did he murder Ron Goldman, he spent the better part of the time before going to jail doing anything to not pay them. Did you see his deposition? #### him! Furthermore, it really was armed robbery.

Fred Goldman, just feel awful for that guy.

 

[krista4]

^^^ Agree on Darden, forgot to mention that. Feel terrible for that guy.

Disagree on the sentencing. He's a murderer. Not only did he murder Ron Goldman, he spent the better part of the time before going to jail doing anything to not pay them. Did you see his deposition? #### him! Furthermore, it really was armed robbery.

Fred Goldman, just feel awful for that guy.

Yeah, like I said, most would share your view on sentencing.  And certainly I am viscerally happy about it.  I just don't like the idea that one gets found "not guilty" of something and then there's a "makeup" sentence later.  It's not the way the justice system is supposed to work, much like the "it's not the way the justice system is supposed to work" part where he is found not guilty to begin with.  I realize my viewpoint will be the minority on that.

 

[krista4]

Oh, and re the Goldman family - it was infuriating how their son was almost lost in the whole thing.  Everything I heard at the time was about Nicole.  Even while we were watching, Mr krista made reference a few times to the murder of Nicole and I had to remind him another person - who was even MORE of an innocent - was killed, too.  I can understand how they lost their #### over this.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Yeah, like I said, most would share your view on sentencing.  And certainly I am viscerally happy about it.  I just don't like the idea that one gets found "not guilty" of something and then there's a "makeup" sentence later.  It's not the way the justice system is supposed to work, much like the "it's not the way the justice system is supposed to work" part where he is found not guilty to begin with.  I realize my viewpoint will be the minority on that.

I hear you, and technically I think I would agree with you for most cases, but Orenthal James Simpson - I'll turn a blind eye.

 

[krista4]

I hear you, and technically I think I would agree with you for most cases, but Orenthal James Simpson - I'll turn a blind eye.

100% understandable.

 

[kutta]

Awesome documentary. I totally remember the white bronco chase - I was bartending at a sports bar in Prescott AZ with the NBA finals on, and suddenly the bronco chase came on. The entire bar and whole restaurant were completely enthralled with the whole thing. 

They did an amazing job with this thing.

 

[Sconch]

Yeah, like I said, most would share your view on sentencing.  And certainly I am viscerally happy about it.  I just don't like the idea that one gets found "not guilty" of something and then there's a "makeup" sentence later.  It's not the way the justice system is supposed to work, much like the "it's not the way the justice system is supposed to work" part where he is found not guilty to begin with.  I realize my viewpoint will be the minority on that.

I agree.

And far too many Americans don't understand "justice".

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Oh, and re the Goldman family - it was infuriating how their son was almost lost in the whole thing.  Everything I heard at the time was about Nicole.  Even while we were watching, Mr krista made reference a few times to the murder of Nicole and I had to remind him another person - who was even MORE of an innocent - was killed, too.  I can understand how they lost their #### over this.

Agree with this, poor ******* was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was murdered like an animal for no reason whatsoever.  I think Goldman's Dad is one of the strongest people out there, he was locked in on making sure OJ paid in some way. 

 

[Philo]

She had somewhat of a mannish face

Her dad could be Dolph Lungren.

If Dolph hooked up with Brigitte Neilsen, I could see that 

 

[Doctor Detroit]

She had somewhat of a mannish face

Her dad could be Dolph Lungren.

If Dolph hooked up with Brigitte Neilsen, I could see that 

I'm guessing your wife weighs 3 bills. 

 

[Philo]

As far as the Fuhrman tapes, those have to be admitted. In his first testimony he swore under oath he hadn't used the n word in at least ten years. The tapes impeached the main prosecution witness. 

If Ito had barred them, any guilty verdict would have been turned over on appeal almost instantly. 

 

[Philo]

One interesting thing they left out was how subtly Cochran stacked the jury. They weren't allowed to ask some specific questions, but they managed to get around and obliquely get what they needed. 

I think one was to inquire if any friends or relatives had been in a murder case in the last few years... Not to weed out bias, but, to make sure the jurors didn't know much about DNA evidence.  

Basically it was all set up to get a jury of people who weren't smart enough to understand the science part, but would believe the police frame job story. I think a other juror actually said after the trial, "when the DNA expert started talking about all this billions-to-one chances, I didn't get any of that so I just stopped listening and threw out everything he said" 

 

[Philo]

I'm guessing your wife weighs 3 bills. 

Heh, you add all my girlfriends together you're not getting three bills. One of them has got some real muscle, though, she can do the workout the actors from the movie "300" did. That's as close as I get to women who push three bills. 

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Heh, you add all my girlfriends together you're not getting three bills. One of them has got some real muscle, though, she can do the workout the actors from the movie "300" did. That's as close as I get to women who push three bills. 

I like big girls, don't hate. 

 

[Premier]

I think my favorite moment was the Nevada judge who took a biiiiiiiiig ol swig from her big gulp before throwing OJ away for 33 years. So good. 

 

[cobalt_27]

Yeah, like I said, most would share your view on sentencing.  And certainly I am viscerally happy about it.  I just don't like the idea that one gets found "not guilty" of something and then there's a "makeup" sentence later.  It's not the way the justice system is supposed to work, much like the "it's not the way the justice system is supposed to work" part where he is found not guilty to begin with.  I realize my viewpoint will be the minority on that.

I get your point totally.  I'd just say that the OJ murder trial was not how they system is supposed to work, either.  He committed a double murder and was let free, not because the prosecution didn't present an overwhelming case--they did--but because political/social/racial prejudices were elevated beyond the evidence.  Given this as the context, I'm perfectly fine with a max sentence for armed robbery even if it felt a little less like armed robbery than we conceive of on tv.  In the end, a "make-up" sentence, which in itself was harsh but justified, does help tilt the meter toward justice, overall.

 

[cobalt_27]

Agree with this, poor ******* was in the wrong place at the wrong time and was murdered like an animal for no reason whatsoever.  I think Goldman's Dad is one of the strongest people out there, he was locked in on making sure OJ paid in some way. 

If my son were murdered, and I absolutely knew who did it, I'd make it my life mission to tear that mother ####er down, too.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I think my favorite moment was the Nevada judge who took a biiiiiiiiig ol swig from her big gulp before throwing OJ away for 33 years. So good. 

It's amazing that folks think he might not have killed Nicole and Ron after watching the documentary. Sure the worst kind of humans were touching evidence but there can be no doubt who did that crime. I gave the benefit of the doubt for the longest time but when you see the blood evidence, OJs shoe prints, shocking the public didn't think he was guilty. But the doc shows exactly what was happening in Los Ang and how OJ was never going to be found guilty. 

 

[fantasycurse42]

I think my favorite moment was the Nevada judge who took a biiiiiiiiig ol swig from her big gulp before throwing OJ away for 33 years. So good. 

Just so awesome!! Loved that too.

 

[Fariq]

Juror #9 thought some random white druggie was walking by one night and killed those people.

 

[Fariq]

Or maybe a ******** did it.

 

[Premier]

Juror #9 was a dream for that defense team. Almost impossible to believe they were able to get her on there. 

 

[fantasycurse42]

How they picked that entire jury is beyond me. Collectively pooled, I can't imagine total IQ over 900-950 on 12 of them.

They "deliberated" for 3.5 hours, are you ####### serious? This was one of the most shocking things to me.

Love how juror 2 explained why... "267 days" - hello, exactly you moron! You've spent 9 months with these people, unable to discuss the case, and listened to a gazillion hours of testimony. 3.5 hours and you were all done, that's it? I hope bad things have happened to these people, they might as well have been OJ's accomplice. They wouldn't have convicted him under any circumstance. The best the DA was getting with that garbage they put together was a hung jury. 

 

[Psychopav]

I watched a documentary about the civil trial and the lawyer for the plaintiffs said that once Simpson's lies were exposed they knew they had him. Well the same was true in the criminal case. Once the cops' lies were exposed how could the jury believe anything they were saying? Yes there was an overwhelming amount of evidence but the cops were caught lying so how could the jurors believe what they were being told? The cops lied about why they jumped the wall at O.J.'s to search his house. Furhman lied on the stand and then took the fifth rather than incriminate himself any further.

Clark and Darden were terrible but the cops did them no favors at all. Why lie about why they jumped the wall? Sure they broke protocol. But just admit they thought O.J. was the prime suspect and they wanted to get to him before he fled. Instead they come across as liars which looks bad to the jury. Once you lie about one thing you've now become someone the jury cannot trust about other matters and the defense jumped all over that. Then Furhman came in and blew the whole #### up a million different ways.   

Then toss in Fung who wasn't a liar or a bad person but just a normal person who happened to be exposed as a complete incompetent and you had reasonable doubt all over the place.

Like I said before Not Guilty was the only verdict I could've rendered given how the case was presented and I'm 100% convinced O.J. did it. And I'm white and don't live in LA so this has nothing to do with race or whatever was going on there in the 90s from my perspective.

+1

I followed the trial, believed he did it, and would have also voted not guilty.  I was also a little pissed to find out a person could still be liable in civil court after getting off in criminal court.  Still not sure how I feel about that.

 

[Premier]

+1

I followed the trial, believed he did it, and would have also voted not guilty.  I was also a little pissed to find out a person could still be liable in civil court after getting off in criminal court.  Still not sure how I feel about that.

You should feel really great about it. They have nothing to do with each other. 

 

[fantasycurse42]

Anyone who says with the evidence they would've voted not guilty:

Explain to me any logical reason Fuhrman had the gloves that they had proof Nicole bought? The shoes, the footprints (299 pairs made)?

This beyond the trail of evidence OJ took home from the murder scene and the DNA everywhere. Even if you want to bite on the ridiculous frame job story, you can't explain the gloves which they could tie to OJ through receipts.

It defies logic and common sense.

 

[Psychopav]

Fuhrman jumped the wall and was on OJs property unsupervised. Just like the blood could have been planted, he could have taken gloves or shoes.  I'm not saying he did, and I wouldn't even have considered it absent the lies and incompetence, but there is reasonable doubt here imo.

eta: I am 99.9% sure that OJ did it.  But I believe the jury's job is to consider reasonable doubt.  And with the case the prosecution presented, that 0.1% is reasonable.  It just is.

 

[Ghost Rider]

The beauty of OJ's current prison sentence is that he likely doesn't commit that armed robbery if he still had all of his money and possessions, so in essence the Goldmans keeping after him for years is what caused him to commit the crime.  A small saving grace for a family that lost their son, but still a bit of poetic justice, all things considered. 

Juror 9, OJ's lawyer who #####ed about white man's justice and Fuhrman all suck major balls. 

 

[fantasycurse42]

Fuhrman was outside, how did he get the gloves? He broke into OJ's house, rummaged his closet and found the receipt/gloves, went back to Nicole's, rubbed blood on the glove (while somehow obtaining a sample of OJ's blood on the glove too), and then came back and planted it? 

If this is reasonable doubt, then nobody would ever be convicted.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Amazimg stuff - will write a full post about it when I can.  Not nearly enough on OJs pursuit of the real killers though...

-QG

 

[QuizGuy66]

Less jokey short take.  Not enough Ito - even from the standpoint that you just know the defense knew exactly how to play him.  The story is so much more than just about thr murder case.  Only person who could have even written this one was Shakespeare.  

-QG

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Less jokey short take.  Not enough Ito - even from the standpoint that you just know the defense knew exactly how to play him.  The story is so much more than just about thr murder case.  Only person who could have even written this one was Shakespeare.  

-QG

Ito truly is the story in that trial, His rulings were IMO frequently not only wrong and injust (as to the Browns and Goldmans) but also almost entirely unique. One of the great boneheads in modern judicial history.

 

[Billy Bats]

[fantasycurse42]

The black community getting absolutely hoodwinked by someone who hated them. "What are all these s doing in Brentwood?" This statement sums up pre murder OJ.[/fantasycurse42]

Wow what a powerful statement that was. Proves that he was only 'black' when he needed to be. I wonder what the community thinks about him now after hearing that. I assume the ####### community leaders don't give a #### because they got "justice" against the system. Again creating a larger divide instead of closing it. 

 

[Billy Bats]

He turned Dennis Fung into a slobbering pile of goo on the witness stand. Case was over after that. Prosecution never recovered from it. For all the accolades Cochoran got, Scheck was the real MVP of the defense team. They don't win the case without him IMO. 

I disagree. A majority of that jury went into the trial with a preconceived verdict already in their head. I don't think they gave two ####s about scientific evidence or mishandling of evidence. It was about race and injustice from the beginning and once Fuhrman threw up all over the courtroom in those tapes, THAT was the final nail for a not guilty verdict imo. Cochrane hammering it home sealed it. 

 

[Billy Bats]

Wow I'm getting even angrier while watching part 5. The pastor, of all people, quoting Martin Luther King after the verdict. Unless there's something else more disgusting to be said, that is the most offensive thing I've heard through this whole documentary. What a disgrace. 

 

[Rirruto]

Fuhrman was outside, how did he get the gloves? He broke into OJ's house, rummaged his closet and found the receipt/gloves, went back to Nicole's, rubbed blood on the glove (while somehow obtaining a sample of OJ's blood on the glove too), and then came back and planted it? 

If this is reasonable doubt, then nobody would ever be convicted.

This. As Toobin said in the doc, this case is beyond all doubt not just BARD. In most murder cases, a trail of OJ's blood fleeing the crime scene, an injury to his hand consistent with the blood trail, and his well-publicized motive is more than enough to convict. Everything else makes the case so much stronger.

To believe evidence was planted on the night of the crime, you have to believe that whoever planted it knew the bloody trail at the crime scene belonged to Simpson. If it belongs to someone else Nicole is banging, a jealous ex of Ron, or some random gangbanger, your career is over and you go to jail. If OJ has an alibi, you go to jail. And for what? To take a case with a strong chance of conviction over the top. This isn't CSI, you don't get DNA results in 5 minutes.