|
Everybody throwin shade
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
Time to get brutually owned
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
That's a serious loving walk of shame.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Oh Jesus 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
You know Marcia Clark wants to kill Furman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:You know Marcia Clark wants to kill Furman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Its been a long time since I took law classes, but isn't the non-answer to the last question useless testimony because silence can't be used as evidence?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Its been a long time since I took law classes, but isn't the non-answer to the last question useless testimony because silence can't be used as evidence? Yea but the whole point of asking the question was the implication. The defense can't use it as being indicative of anything. It's just a way to play to the jury, even if they're supposed to disregard it
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Finale next week?! Nooooooooooooo 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Sash! posted:Its been a long time since I took law classes, but isn't the non-answer to the last question useless testimony because silence can't be used as evidence? If I remember my law classes properly, at no point when someone pleads the fifth can the jury take it as an admission or denial. However, your jury is still human and it sure says a lot when you won't answer a question about something of which you've been accused (right or wrong).
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Mark Fuhrman works at Fox News now as a crime scene expert.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Fuhrman's walk of shame was amazing, every single black person in the room was shooting hate lasers at him and Marcia Clark looked like she wanted to wilt up and die.TOOT BOOT posted:Mark Fuhrman works at Fox News now as a crime scene expert. Fuhrman, Ollie North, any more escaped criminals paying the rent at  ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
The acting in this show is just phenomenal, but this was particularly Vance's and Brown's episode. That 'circus' scene was gripping. That's the Emmy scene, right there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
"You're standing in front of a statute of a confederate soldier from the civil war, I don't you play as well in dixie" edit: What makes this show so great is that you feel sorry for literally everyone in this show (apart from OJ) at one point or another. algebra testes fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 10:32
|
|
|
That walk of shame up to the answer to the last question is simply phenomenal television
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:The Fuhrman stuff is going to be incredible. Okay. I retract my previous post and say this is the highest peak of this show. Holy poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
TOOT BOOT posted:I read the next season is going to be about the aftermath of Katrina? Like, why? I'm sure there are a dozen criminal cases they could choose from that would be more interesting. Chris Kyle on the roof of the super dome head shotting
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
That courtroom scene where Clark says should i remove my watch... My god what a great group of actors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
AAA DOLFAN posted:That courtroom scene where Clark says should i remove my watch... My god what a great group of actors. I actually didn't understand that line, could someone explain?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
timp posted:I actually didn't understand that line, could someone explain? I assumed in preparation for being arrested for contempt? MariusLecter posted:Okay. I retract my previous post and say this is the highest peak of this show. Holy poo poo. I didn't even know it was this bad. My mind was blown too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
timp posted:I actually didn't understand that line, could someone explain? You never seen someone take their watch off before a fistfight?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I assumed in preparation for being arrested for contempt? No jewelry or personal effects when you're booked for a crime so this is what I assumed too, Also Judge Ito seems like a pretty huge tool. Santheb fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Mar 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Jesus Christ that episode was amazing. And Kardashian's body language and attitude while OJ was changing back in the prison jumper? Everyone is just nailing the poo poo in the performances on this show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Vintimus Prime posted:Jesus Christ that episode was amazing. And Kardashian's body language and attitude while OJ was changing back in the prison jumper? Everyone is just nailing the poo poo in the performances on this show. OJ: Cochran is a genius, Fuhrman framed me!  Kardashian: *When will the nightmare end?*
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:Yea but the whole point of asking the question was the implication. The defense can't use it as being indicative of anything. It's just a way to play to the jury, even if they're supposed to disregard it How does the implication work, though, when the jury is not present to hear Fuhrman invoking the 5th amendment? I was previously under the assumption that this was done in front of the jury, but it wasn't. I get the whole "they'll find out after their first conjugal visit" aspect, but is there more to it than that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
It's pretty amazing that in an episode that jam-packed full of greatness my favourite moment may be David Schwimmer's dejected and disillusioned "Yeah, it was a real success for the defense."
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:It's pretty amazing that in an episode that jam-packed full of greatness my favourite moment may be David Schwimmer's dejected and disillusioned "Yeah, it was a real success for the defense." Good way to convey too that Rob Kardashian went from OJs friend to just a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Yeah this penultimate episode was fuckin incredible I never knew about the fuhrman stuff but it's really hard arguing that a tape with a guy who openly confesses to planting evidence on black suspects literally because they are black isn't relevant, especially when he's the star witness and critically connected to the plurality of evidence the prosecution had
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
As this goes on, the most insane thing to me is how this didn't become a mistrial. The jury/alternates, the tapes, Ito's wife, all the media ... crazy. Why was Furman such a star witness anyway? Because he found the blood and gloves? Beyond the fact that they exist, it's not like he heard OJ weeping "What did I do?," or anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:How does the implication work, though, when the jury is not present to hear Fuhrman invoking the 5th amendment? I was previously under the assumption that this was done in front of the jury, but it wasn't. I get the whole "they'll find out after their first conjugal visit" aspect, but is there more to it than that? That portion was still being televised and Cochran wanted the nation to hear it as much as the jurors, squeezing every bit of implication possible out of the situation was still a win on that front even if it didn't directly impact the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
OmegaBR posted:As this goes on, the most insane thing to me is how this didn't become a mistrial. The jury/alternates, the tapes, Ito's wife, all the media ... crazy. From what I remember he was centrally connected to all the really damning evidence against OJ, at both the murder scene and behind the guest house where Kato lived
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
What I don't understand is why Clark didn't look into Furhman's background more closely at the beginning before putting him on the stand. Especially considering Darden's concerns. Even if you think he's being hyperbolic, there was already a lot of smoke around the raging racist fire that is Det. Furhman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:From what I remember he was centrally connected to all the really damning evidence against OJ, at both the murder scene and behind the guest house where Kato lived Yeah, jumped the gate at Simpson's place and found the glove. I think the other two detectives saw it in its untouched state, but he's the one who initially discovered it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
Because, again he was centrally connected to all of the evidence at both the murder scene and at OJs house, and had an ostensibly airtight alibi by constantly being in contact with other people at both crime scenes The prosecution didn't need him but it looked a lot better if one guy was at the murder and found the blood in the bronco and the bloody glove behind Katos house and the blood leading into OJs It made a throughline that made the story easier to tell and sell, instead of a whole bunch of different detectives that could be brought under fire for this or for that since literally everyone in the lapd was a racist corrupt piece of poo poo in the early 90s, instead leave it all on one guy who ended up everywhere anyways
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:What I don't understand is why Clark didn't look into Furhman's background more closely at the beginning before putting him on the stand. Especially considering Darden's concerns. Even if you think he's being hyperbolic, there was already a lot of smoke around the raging racist fire that is Det. Furhman. the prosecution/police incompetence is a central theme for this show/real life event
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
DOOP posted:the prosecution/police incompetence is a central theme for this show/real life event
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
You know in the movies where the police captain is like "dammit, I don't like your methods but you get results!" and then doesn't bring the hero cop up for flagrant violations of police conduct/civil liberties? It seems like the LAPD/Marcia Clark is actually literally that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
This is a bit dumb, but I don't get the whole if-the-glove-don't-fit thing. Even looking at the actual footage, it still looks like the juice could have closed a fist onto a knife and gone stabby-stabby. Am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
Propaganda Machine posted:This is a bit dumb, but I don't get the whole if-the-glove-don't-fit thing. Even looking at the actual footage, it still looks like the juice could have closed a fist onto a knife and gone stabby-stabby. Am I missing something? Well he could have worn those gloves but if you intended to murder someone with a knife would you wear gloves that were a size too small?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:38 |
|
|
Why would you own a pair of gloves too small for your hands Remember that's the argument the prosecution made, that the gloves were owned by OJ and used to kill Nicole and Ron So the natural counter becomes "OJ didn't own those gloves" since those gloves were MOST DEFINITELY owned by whoever killed Nicole and Ron, being covered in blood and DNA and stuff And so if the gloves didn't fit, and the gloves were used to kill Nicole and Ron, then OJ didn't kill Nicole and Ron
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 05:03
|
|