re: The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story series long thread

That scene with Kardashian pretty much confirms that the makers of this want to clarify that the man is guilty as frick. I kind of feel bad for Kardashian, but as soon as the blood evidence came in, he should have been out, not the moment the blood evidence was put in front of the jury.

quote:

---

Bailey seems to have done his best work behind the scenes

---

Maybe, but his old school belligerent cross came off as crass and didn't faze anyone on the stand.

Also Cuba recently had a good interview on how his career went to hell: LINK

In it he says how he regrets celebrating OJ getting off and it wasn't until doing this that he realized the Browns and Goldmans were families who lost a loved one and it was more than just a race thing. Here's a big paragraph on what he thinks of OJ and what he'd say to him if he met him:

quote:

---

I don't know what I'd ask him. It would probably have to be something about his kids, and see how he reacted, to see if I could [spot] a vulnerability there. That would tell me what I'd want to know about his frame of mind. I've said this over and over again, and I believed this to be true when I was filming this and doing the research, and [people] were talking about Concussion. I put two and two together with O.J. You look at his record. He broke records in high school. He broke records in college, winning the Heisman Trophy. He rushed for more than 2,000 yards in one season. It's only been done six times before in a 16-game season. When he did it, he did it in 14 games. If you think of the abuse his brain must have taken, it's a no-brainer. Listening to the 911 tapes, his outbursts of emotion. It's very telling.

---

Yeah, he knows he did it too. I'm glad the show is saying he's guilty and how he got off rather than some bullshite that a lesser director would do in making you think if OJ was innocent just to play it safe with everyone.

Vulture's Fact Check

quote:

---

What They Got Right

-The Juror Revolt
-Barry Scheck’s Dissection of Dennis Fung
-Getting Mark Fuhrman’s Timeline Back on Track
-The Defense’s Fears of a Mistrial
-O.J.'s Eagerness to Take the Stand

What They May Have Taken Liberties With
-F. Lee Bailey as Johnnie Cochran’s Voice of Reason
-Cochran’s Visible Courtroom Emotions

---

Vanity Fair's Factcheck

quote:

---

-Gil Garcetti’s freakout at Marcia Clark and Chris Darden over the glove demonstration - False

-O.J.’s poker games with his “material witnesses” - False

-Was Dennis Fung really such a disaster on the stand? - Yes. And he was on the stand TWO WEEKS.

-The grandmotherly juror with the knitting was nicknamed “The Demon" - True

-Did the defense plant a fake letter from an “anonymous” literary agent, about a potential book titled Standing Alone: A Verdict for Nicole, to get rid of a specific juror? - Toobin strongly implies yes, but who knows . . .

-Ross versus Target - True

-Did some jurors believe there were cameras hidden inside the smoke alarms in their hotel rooms? - Yes

-Did O.J. want to testify? - Yes

-The tip line that pulled in the Fuhrman tapes - True

---

Vanity Fair article about the Fuhrman tapes

EW article about the jurors

And, yes, Fung really shook hands with the defense and practically embraced Shapiro.

quote:

---

DNA testimony was dry. Those jurors were probably about to lose their minds under that stress listening to so much of it. At least I could sit back and have a cocktail while watching it. I can't imagine being sequestered for a few days or a week much less 9 months.

---

The juror who likened the sequestration to a psych experiment was right on. I'm pretty sure that after a couple of months at most, I would have washed out like the "Vogue" chick at the end of the episode.

That said, I'll always remember after the trial when a juror explained their rejection of DNA evidence, "They said there is a 1 in 7 billion chance the blood could have belonged to someone else. There aren't that many people in the world, so how can that even be true?"

quote:

---

-Was Dennis Fung really such a disaster on the stand? - Yes. And he was on the stand TWO WEEKS.

---

How is it possible that Ito could allow this to go on for 2 weeks? It should be two days tops. One for the defense and the other for the prosecution. If you question any expert for 2 weeks straight on something, he's almost certainly going to bumble something. This trial was a complete circus.

quote:

---

How is it possible that Ito could allow this to go on for 2 weeks?

---

He was on the stand for 9 days, actually. I would think the defense is who kept him on the stand for a lot of that time to attack the collection and handling of all the evidence or the non collection as the case may have been. The defense wanted to show all of that as a and pretty much succeeded with Fung's help.

LINK

This article reads as if the defense initiated the hand shaking after Fung's testimony and perhaps, he complied.

LINK

quote:

---

He was on the stand for 9 days, actually. I would think the defense is who kept him on the stand for a lot of that time to attack the collection and handling of all the evidence or the non collection as the case may have been. The defense wanted to show all of that as a and pretty much succeeded with Fung's help.

---

But Ito should not have allowed that. Anyone put under mass scrutiny for 9 days is going to crack. I don't care how much of an expert you are and what is being questioned. They could be asking him if the sky is blue for 9 days, and there's going to be some bewilderment from the person on the stand that will put up some "reasonable doubt". They should have each had one day from the start and Ito should have ended it.

In Fung's case, it wasn't about him cracking. They did a crappy job and Scheck attacked it from every angle. Ito was a crappy judge. His courtroom ran him rather than the opposite.