O.J.: Made in America

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Someone posted a link about it in a thread about the FX docudrama.

I've watched the first three episodes. To this point it is one of the greatest documentaries I've seen and sets the standard for an analysis of the intersection of race, class, and celebrity in America.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by milkman

I might be the only person in a America who didn't give a rat's ass about the trial.

Not quite.

(raises hand)

[Skyy God]

Another (possibly mentioned) aspect of the case is the use of DNA was in its relative infancy and lacked today's widespread acceptance by jurors.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson

Another (possibly mentioned) aspect of the case is the use of DNA was in its relative infancy and lacked today's widespread acceptance by jurors.

The irony is, within a decade our consumption of procedurals, CSI being the most prominent, had created an overwhelming presumption the other way. Jurors expect bulltproof forensic evidence, and their verdicts largely rest on it's existence or absence, regardless of quality or chain of custody.

[gblowfish]

Even though he wasn't found guilty of the two murders, OJ's life is pretty much f'ed up forever. He'll probably die in prison.

[alpha_omega]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

..... He'll probably die in prison.

Or not...parole eligible in 2017.

[KCUnited]

Originally Posted by gblowfish

Even though he wasn't found guilty of the two murders, OJ's life is pretty much f'ed up forever. He'll probably die in prison.

Only if someone takes a screwdriver to him.

[Demonpenz]

were there any clips of The Naked Gun in there?

[The Rick]

Originally Posted by Tuckdaddy

To me what makes the whole OJ case interesting and sad at the same time is how crazy stupid our legal system can be.

--The accused murderer had his blood and both victims blood in his car, house and drive way and the seen of course. Claimed he cut his finger and just walked around letting bleed.
-- A woman saw him hauling ass in his car right after the murder but that info was never used in court.
-- He mysterious lost a bag that he took to the airport while making his get away. He wrote what sounds like a confession note that was read on the air.
-- He went crazy and tried to run in his Bronco from the cops with a gun in his hand with a costume to hide his identity that he bought two weeks prior to the murder. Claimed he was going to Nicole's grave

People have gone to prison over tiny drops of blood as DNA proof but in this case is was splattered all over the place and the juror's were actually stupid enough to let the defense convince them that the LAPD planted it all the evidence even though they had never done shit to him after the numerous 911 calls they got from Nicole for him beating her up. Now all of sudden in a span of like and hour everyone involved got top together and said "Let's frame OJ". The jurors were also duped into the contaminated evidence bullshit.

All of this happened not long after Rodney King got his ass kicked so the black jury in this case really didn't care because OJ is black. Just set him free for all black people was the theme. The defense messed up plenty but the stupidity of the jury is mind blowing. Furman screwed the pooch bad but how does him being an asshole mean OJ is innocent? Only in America would it be possible for OJ to have walked in this case and all I did was point out a small amount of the evidence. There was a lot more.

I think this, in a nutshell, is the crux of the documentary. Under normal circumstances, the trial should have been a no-brainer, open and shut case. But these weren't normal circumstances due to OJ's celebrity status and it was the perfect storm due to riots, Rodney King, etc.

[The Rick]

Originally Posted by Demonpenz

were there any clips of The Naked Gun in there?

Yes...a few!

[alpha_omega]

Originally Posted by The Rick

....., Rodney King, etc.

Without a doubt.
http://www.thewrap.com/oj-simpson-ju...r-rodney-king/

[ARROW2]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...ranscript.html

That site has several of the excerpts.

While I agree that the blood evidence was likely way too complicated for the jurors to understand, the LAPD did such a horrific job of protecting the crime scene against contamination that regardless of the results, it's easy to dismiss it altogether.

Additionally, to the this day, I have a very difficult time believing that OJ carried out the murders alone. Ron Goldman wasn't an old, tiny guy. He was young and physically fit. Unless he walked in after OJ killed Nicole, it's difficult to imagine that a 48 year old man in OJ's physical condition would only walk away with a nick on his middle knuckle. I'm not saying that it's impossible but it's difficult to believe he could pull that off, head home as quickly as the prosecution suggested, shower, get to the airport in time to make his flight and not crack. IMO, it just doesn't add up.

From my perspective, in all likelihood, the LAPD framed a guilty man.

So despite all of that in bold, you believe he was guilty? Talk about giving in to board peer pressure to appease some on this board......Speak your mind. If you don't think he was guilty, say it. None of us were there. Nobody can call anybody's position stupid.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Even with the verdict taking minutes, and the power salute to the defense team from a juror?

Blame whoever you want, but the LAPD seriously ****ed up that investigation.

In many ways, there was more overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt than you will see in nearly any trial. Certainly WAAAY more than, say, Aaron Hernandez. But the LAPD so ****ed up the entire thing, step by step, that it created reasonable doubt where there absolutely should not have been any.

If you want to blame the jury, that's fine. There was more than enough evidence to convict. But you HAVE to blame the cops too, because they CREATED the reasonable doubt that OJ's lawyers used to get him off, due to their Keystone Kop ineptitude and stupidity.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Blame whoever you want, but the LAPD seriously ****ed up that investigation.

In many ways, there was more overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt than you will see in nearly any trial. Certainly WAAAY more than, say, Aaron Hernandez. But the LAPD so ****ed up the entire thing, step by step, that it created reasonable doubt where there absolutely should not have been any.

If you want to blame the jury, that's fine. There was more than enough evidence to convict. But you HAVE to blame the cops too, because they CREATED the reasonable doubt that OJ's lawyers used to get him off, due to their Keystone Kop ineptitude and stupidity.

I think this is somewhat true. There were cops like Vannater and Lange and criminologists like Fung who were just egregious ****ups. However, OJ's team took a scorched Earth policy towards everything. They completely destroyed Ron Shipp during cross through inuendo, and Cochran invoked Godwin's Law in his closing arguments. As the documentary mentions, and Sheck all but admits, his DNA refutation was also based upon scientific principles he did not believe in.

It was an absolute scorched earth policy.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Blame whoever you want, but the LAPD seriously ****ed up that investigation.

In many ways, there was more overwhelming evidence of OJ's guilt than you will see in nearly any trial. Certainly WAAAY more than, say, Aaron Hernandez. But the LAPD so ****ed up the entire thing, step by step, that it created reasonable doubt where there absolutely should not have been any.

If you want to blame the jury, that's fine. There was more than enough evidence to convict. But you HAVE to blame the cops too, because they CREATED the reasonable doubt that OJ's lawyers used to get him off, due to their Keystone Kop ineptitude and stupidity.

There's plenty of blame to go around, sure.

Question is, how much more of a compelling case, competently investigated and expertly presented, do you think the prosecution should be required to deliver to overcome the observations I made?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

There's plenty of blame to go around, sure.

Question is, how much more of a compelling case, competently investigated and expertly presented, do you think the prosecution should be required to deliver to overcome the observations I made?

I have a question for you and the other lawyers:

In school and in practice, what are the extents you are taught and told to go to in order to defend a client?

Cochran's closing argument was, to me, revolting. What would a law school professor say about his presentation? What would the general profession's perception be of defense tactics? When are you expected to hold back?