The Silver Screen Oasis

Hibi wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 1:35 pm

Feinberg wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 11:05 am

Hibi wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 11:01 am The less said the better. Death is the final equalizer. If there is an afterlife, he'll find his justice.

For anyone interested in this subject I would very highly recommend Vincent Bugliosi's book Outrage. I thought any prospective criminal trial lawyer should read it.

I hadn't realized The Bug wrote about the trial. I've read several of his books, but not that one. I'd like to read it, but not right now. Don't want to relive all that again.

It's an extraordinary book. OJ had no 'dream team.' The prosecution was one of the most inept in history.

One thing I will say though about the OJ trial in 1995 was that several years ago, ESPN did a mammoth length series about OJ's rise and fall, and one of the jurors was interviewed and pretty much said that the jury voted to acquit because of how angry they still were over the miscarriage of justice in the Rodney King case.

If the glove doesn't fit....CNN had a lengthy "breaking news" special that went on
a bit too long. I always get a kick out of the moment when the verdict is read and
Johnnie Cochran does a little victory celebration and then immediately returns to
a sober mien. Bugliosi also wrote a very long book on the JFK assassination, two
or three times longer than Case Closed, which came to the same conclusion: LHO
was the man.

I'm one of the few Americans who never saw any of the trial, so my filter is just based on what the media & others have said afterwards. I was living in London almost the entire time. I returned to the US just a day before the trial ended.

You never heard anything about it on TV or radio in the UK, and this was before the days of widespread internet (especially in UK homes at that time). CNN's website, for instance, didn't go live until 30 August 95. I didn't take a computer with me anyway. Some papers would carry a small story now and then, mostly in the International Herald-Tribune. So I was blissfully unaware of all that drama...

Feinberg wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 3:11 pm
It's an extraordinary book. OJ had no 'dream team.' The prosecution was one of the most inept in history.

Yep Feinberg, exactly my thoughts as I watched the closing arguments on TV back then.

(...I remember winching at how clueless Marcia Clark's summation was and actually said right out loud at one point, "Oh geeze. You've just blown it here, lady!")

txfilmfan wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 4:24 pm I'm one of the few Americans who never saw any of the trial, so my filter is just based on what the media & others have said afterwards. I was living in London almost the entire time. I returned to the US just a day before the trial ended.

All that I knew of it is that police on the chase first arrested John Elway because the APB said to stop a slow-moving white Bronco.

Masha wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 7:07 pm

txfilmfan wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 4:24 pm I'm one of the few Americans who never saw any of the trial, so my filter is just based on what the media & others have said afterwards. I was living in London almost the entire time. I returned to the US just a day before the trial ended.

All that I knew of it is that police on the chase first arrested John Elway because the APB said to stop a slow-moving white Bronco.

LOL

Well, I suppose I COULD now try to offer up a way to connect Ty Hardin to this too.

(...but first it wouldn't be as funny, and secondly with this reference being so old, I'd wonder if anyone around here would even get the joke in the first place)

Dargo wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 5:26 pm

Feinberg wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 3:11 pm
It's an extraordinary book. OJ had no 'dream team.' The prosecution was one of the most inept in history.

Yep Feinberg, exactly my thoughts as I watched the closing arguments on TV back then.

(...I remember winching at how clueless Marcia Clark's summation was and actually said right out loud at one point, "Oh geeze. You've just blown it here, lady!")

Bugliosi goes into the witnesses that the Prosecution failed to call, OJ's suicide note not shown to the jury, his police questioning about not knowing how he got the cut on his hand also not shown to the jury. The Police were supposed to have planted evidence implicating OJ before it was even possible for them to know if he had an air-tight alibi or was even in the city. If that backfired then the Police would have faced life in prison for framing OJ. Who would take such a risk? Barry Scheck threw doubt on the DNA evidence saying it was tainted when in fact its degradation only pointed the finger even more directly at OJ - not pointed out by the prosecution. It went on and on and Bugliosi writes a pretty eye-popping account of it all.
His JFK book on the other hand was a follow-up to his TV Movie trial of Lee Harvey Oswald in which his "job" was to prosecute the case against him. So, it was totally slanted as you would expect from someone whose job it was to obtain a certain verdict.
Curiously, Bugliosi did a real case where he defended the position that RFK was murdered as a result of a conspiracy. And he won. That may have proved to be an interesting book but Bugliosi did not want to steal the thunder from a fellow who had already committed to a book on that subject.
OJ spent the rest of his life searching for the real killer of Nicole and Ron. His theory was that the killer liked to play golf so OJ concentrated all his efforts in those locales.

Dargo wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 5:26 pm

Feinberg wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 3:11 pm
It's an extraordinary book. OJ had no 'dream team.' The prosecution was one of the most inept in history.

Yep Feinberg, exactly my thoughts as I watched the closing arguments on TV back then.

(...I remember winching at how clueless Marcia Clark's summation was and actually said right out loud at one point, "Oh geeze. You've just blown it here, lady!")

Not to beat a dead horse, but I just recalled Bugliosi's utter disdain for Darden's summation in which he said to the jury (paraphrasing), "I know that you don't want to convict this man ... I don't want to either ... but ..."
Right there, Bugliosi sated that Darden gave the jury the rope that they needed to acquit Simpson without a second thought.

Feinberg wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 3:11 pm

Hibi wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 1:35 pm

Feinberg wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 11:05 am

For anyone interested in this subject I would very highly recommend Vincent Bugliosi's book Outrage. I thought any prospective criminal trial lawyer should read it.

I hadn't realized The Bug wrote about the trial. I've read several of his books, but not that one. I'd like to read it, but not right now. Don't want to relive all that again.

It's an extraordinary book. OJ had no 'dream team.' The prosecution was one of the most inept in history.

Yeah, I remember. The judge wasn't that great either.

txfilmfan wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 4:24 pm I'm one of the few Americans who never saw any of the trial, so my filter is just based on what the media & others have said afterwards. I was living in London almost the entire time. I returned to the US just a day before the trial ended.

You never heard anything about it on TV or radio in the UK, and this was before the days of widespread internet (especially in UK homes at that time). CNN's website, for instance, didn't go live until 30 August 95. I didn't take a computer with me anyway. Some papers would carry a small story now and then, mostly in the International Herald-Tribune. So I was blissfully unaware of all that drama...

Lucky you!!!

Andree wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 4:02 pm If the glove doesn't fit....CNN had a lengthy "breaking news" special that went on
a bit too long. I always get a kick out of the moment when the verdict is read and
Johnnie Cochran does a little victory celebration and then immediately returns to
a sober mien. Bugliosi also wrote a very long book on the JFK assassination, two
or three times longer than Case Closed, which came to the same conclusion: LHO
was the man.

I loved the Jackie Chiles lawyer take off on Seinfeld of Cochran. I think it was the bra case. If it doesn't fit!!

CinemaInternational wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 3:15 pm One thing I will say though about the OJ trial in 1995 was that several years ago, ESPN did a mammoth length series about OJ's rise and fall, and one of the jurors was interviewed and pretty much said that the jury voted to acquit because of how angry they still were over the miscarriage of justice in the Rodney King case.

I heard somewhere on the news yesterday that one of the jurors said she didn't understand the dna evidence and so discounted all of that. And conjugal visit were allowed? Like they wouldn't talk about the case then?

Feinberg wrote: ↑April 12th, 2024, 8:02 am

Dargo wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 5:26 pm

Feinberg wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 3:11 pm
It's an extraordinary book. OJ had no 'dream team.' The prosecution was one of the most inept in history.

Yep Feinberg, exactly my thoughts as I watched the closing arguments on TV back then.

(...I remember winching at how clueless Marcia Clark's summation was and actually said right out loud at one point, "Oh geeze. You've just blown it here, lady!")

Not to beat a dead horse, but I just recalled Bugliosi's utter disdain for Darden's summation in which he said to the jury (paraphrasing), "I know that you don't want to convict this man ... I don't want to either ... but ..."
Right there, Bugliosi sated that Darden gave the jury the rope that they needed to acquit Simpson without a second thought.

OMG. He said that????

Feinberg wrote: ↑April 12th, 2024, 8:02 am

Dargo wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 5:26 pm

Feinberg wrote: ↑April 11th, 2024, 3:11 pm
It's an extraordinary book. OJ had no 'dream team.' The prosecution was one of the most inept in history.

Yep Feinberg, exactly my thoughts as I watched the closing arguments on TV back then.

(...I remember winching at how clueless Marcia Clark's summation was and actually said right out loud at one point, "Oh geeze. You've just blown it here, lady!")

Not to beat a dead horse, but I just recalled Bugliosi's utter disdain for Darden's summation in which he said to the jury (paraphrasing), "I know that you don't want to convict this man ... I don't want to either ... but ..."
Right there, Bugliosi sated that Darden gave the jury the rope that they needed to acquit Simpson without a second thought.

Yep, and then, and perhaps even more importantly, there was their total and complete mishandling and failure in presenting to the jury the whole Mark Fuhrman issue.

I mean, did any of the prosecutors even attempt to laugh out loud and call out the absolute absurdity and use of hyperbole by the Defense comparing him to a certain German who sported a funny little mustache?

As I recall, no, they didn't.

(...and that's where I've always thought was where the incompetent duo of Clark and Darden REALLY lost their case)