|
I think the craziest thing I learned through this show is that Bob Kardashian was actually a pretty ok dude with morals. How all of his children grew up to be empty husks of human wreckage is kind of amazing.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18N2k1TBBRE Anyone got a good screen cap of OJs face after Kardashian leaves the party?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
I don't watch every TV show, but this must be the best, or one of the best, shows this TV season, and probably end up being one of the best shows of the year. Once it was over, I had a hankering for more True Crime type stuff so I finally got around to watching Making A Murderer on Netflix and holy gently caress. Between both shows, my head is exploding at how much the criminal justice system in the U.S. is based on selling a narrative/story to the jury and not based on actual truth. I mean I sort of realized that before, but it never impacted me as much as it just has. It's astonishing. (I think someone mentioned it, but it's at least a bit ironic that Barry Sheck founded The I Stupid Dick posted:I think the craziest thing I learned through this show is that Bob Kardashian was actually a pretty ok dude with morals. How all of his children grew up to be empty husks of human wreckage is kind of amazing. It's not so crazy if they were as exposed to the idea of celebrity as much as this show portrayed. And their mother.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
Propaganda Machine posted:Ego is a hell of a thing. Desperation, moreso. Also I think there's an elephant in the room here: O.J. almost certainly sustained quite a few concussions during the course of his playing career (and far more sub-concussive traumas). I would bet all the money in my pockets that he has significant CTE -- it would explain so much about his erratic behavior and violent temperament following his football years. Obviously I'm not trying to remove his moral agency, but I think it's a factor one can't possibly ignore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
I mean, look at all the other former football players who are committing horrific murders, it's pretty obviously CTE.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:36
|
|
|
TheBizzness posted:I mean, look at all the other former football players who are committing horrific murders, it's pretty obviously CTE. We're only a couple of years removed from an active player committing a murder suicide, and there are tons of DV cases and other acts of violence committed by current and former players. It's silly to dismiss it as a possible factor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Stupid Dick posted:I think the craziest thing I learned through this show is that Bob Kardashian was actually a pretty ok dude with morals. How all of his children grew up to be empty husks of human wreckage is kind of amazing. I would guess Kris was a big influence in that. While Robert was a decent man, I recall reading about how Kris cheated on him and even made a point to go places with the guy where she knew she would likely get caught. I'm a little surprised they didn't include Bruce, considering they married only a month after Kris and Robert divorced, but then again, I see why not. As for the case and the evidence and reasonable doubt, I think the biggest thing the prosecution should have pushed was the idea that, even if the police did want to frame him, it would be virtually impossible to do so. Basically the story Marcia told in the bar with Darden's friends, that the cops already had OJ's blood, that they decided to plant it all in specific locations in a matter of moments, and that they concocted the conspiracy due to the overwhelming convenience of finding his ex-wife slaughtered. I suppose you could always argue that the police would surely lie about the timeline given they were framing him, but the question of who DID commit the murders remains. I don't think the defense ever suggested that the police themselves did it. Granted, that doesn't completely prove that he did it, but all their genetic material in OJ's car and house would be harder to ignore. Eliminate the reasonable doubt, because only a fantastical scenario like the cop cover up could plausibly explain the circumstances. But, the prosecution doomed themselves halfway from the start by allowing the jury they did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
OmegaBR posted:I would guess Kris was a big influence in that. While Robert was a decent man, I recall reading about how Kris cheated on him and even made a point to go places with the guy where she knew she would likely get caught. I'm a little surprised they didn't include Bruce, considering they married only a month after Kris and Robert divorced, but then again, I see why not. It was a middling prosecution and an insanely good defense. I don't think the defense could've done much better than they did aside from a couple Ito decisions going their way. I think it probably would've been a better closing statement to say that than the one they had, but Marcia and Darden had a certain hubris about the case that damaged things until the very end.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Also I think there's an elephant in the room here: O.J. almost certainly sustained quite a few concussions during the course of his playing career (and far more sub-concussive traumas). I would bet all the money in my pockets that he has significant CTE -- it would explain so much about his erratic behavior and violent temperament following his football years. Obviously I'm not trying to remove his moral agency, but I think it's a factor one can't possibly ignore. This is a valid point and avenue of thought. Never thought of it before you brought it up, and it certainly adds another dimension to all of this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
Now CBS is doing Jon Benet. http://www.avclub.com/article/cbs-getting-true-crime-anthology-game-jonbenet-ram-234983
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
clown shoes posted:Now CBS is doing Jon Benet. I somehow missed the point where her folks were "fully cleared."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Could the  'ing be any more obvious, Jeeze.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
Stupid Dick posted:I think the craziest thing I learned through this show is that Bob Kardashian was actually a pretty ok dude with morals. How all of his children grew up to be empty husks of human wreckage is kind of amazing. Because people like you love showering them with attention so you can feel superior to them 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Too much money would make a jackass of the best of us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Honestly I don't really care if it's a bandwagon at this point, I just really like true crime stuff and all the stuff that's come out recently (Making a Murderer, this) have been pretty great. I know it'll stop being good at some point but I'm willing to watch a few episodes of these other shows to see if it's worth it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
If you like True Crime and haven't seen The Jinx you are doing yourself a huge disservice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Yeah, the JonBenet thing isn't jumping on the ACS bandwagon, it's jumping on The Jinx/Making a Murderer/Serial bandwagon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
after listening to The Devil in the White City i hope someone does a miniseries on the HH Holmes with the Chicago World Fair as the background, that poo poo is amazing
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
The Saddest Rhino posted:after listening to The Devil in the White City i hope someone does a miniseries on the HH Holmes with the Chicago World Fair as the background, that poo poo is amazing Scorsese and DiCaprio are making a movie out of it. I'd prefer a miniseries but if anyone can pull off the grandiosity of that story in just a film it's probably Scorsese.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
TheBizzness posted:If you like True Crime and haven't seen The Jinx you are doing yourself a huge disservice. I just watched that last month actually! I just didn't remember it when making that post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Edit: I'd also forgotten that Fuhrman pled the 5th when asked about planting evidence in this particular case. That's fuckin' bad. I'm sure OJ did it, but I'd bet that Fuhrman also planted or otherwise fooled with something in an illicit way, the stupid gently caress. Fuhrman invoked his 5th amendment right when the defense asked him if the testimony he gave previously was accurate. As they had proved with the "Fuhrman tapes", it was not -- he used the word "friend of the family" many times, contrary to the vehement, "marine-to-marine" promise he made to Bailey saying he had not done so. Once he invoked his 5th amendment right, he had to continue to do so. The defense even asked him if he planned to answer that way to every question, and then (brilliantly) ended that sequence by asking him one last question, knowing he'd have to again invoke the 5th amendment and refuse to answer: if he had planted evidence. As has been stated in this thread, the defense did an amazing job, and certainly the best that I'm aware of, and I'd love to see a defense that was better especially given what they were up against. Sand Monster fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:Fuhrman invoked his 5th amendment right when the defense asked him if the testimony he gave previously was accurate. As they had proved with the "Fuhrman tapes", it was not -- he used the word "friend of the family" many times, contrary to the vehement, "marine-to-marine" promise he made to Bailey saying he had not done so. Yeah, I understand what you're getting at -- but he didn't have to plead the 5th on that last question just because he'd said that he planned to for all questions, right? He could just as easily have said "no I didn't plant anything in this particular case" while maintaining his 5th-protection for the perjury stuff. Do I have that correct, law goons?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Yeah, I understand what you're getting at -- but he didn't have to plead the 5th on that last question just because he'd said that he planned to for all questions, right? He could just as easily have said "no I didn't plant anything in this particular case" while maintaining his 5th-protection for the perjury stuff. Do I have that correct, law goons? Hopefully a law goon can weigh in because I don't know with certainty. Fuhrman in his book states that you cannot pick and choose which questions you can invoke the 5th for, but, obviously that's a biased source.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
Sand Monster posted:Hopefully a law goon can weigh in because I don't know with certainty. Fuhrman in his book states that you cannot pick and choose which questions you can invoke the 5th for, but, obviously that's a biased source. From a cursory Googling, it seems that defendants cannot be selective about invoking the 5th, but witnesses can, and witnesses do not waive those rights once they begin answering questions. So if that's true, Fuhrman is a liar on top of being a racist and a shithead and a crooked cop. quote:Witnesses may also choose to plead the fifth when they take the stand. Unlike the defendant, however, witnesses can be forced to testify (usually through a subpoena). As a result, a witness can choose which questions he or she feels comfortable answering. from here. Now obviously Fuhrman may not have actually known that he was free to pick and choose when to invoke the 5th -- but I'm not particularly inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on it. mdemone fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
I would have to think that pretty much sunk the case. Now I wonder is the show that Martin Sheen is producing/narrating about Jason being the murderer be as compelling as this one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Vintimus Prime posted:Now I wonder is the show that Martin Sheen is producing/narrating about Jason being the murderer be as compelling as this one? I'd say this is just as likely Jason being the one who killed Nicole and Ron. Zero percent chance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Isn't it libel to say his son did it? I imagine that's one reason this show never actually suggested or enacted OJ in or around the crime scene.mdemone posted:From a cursory Googling, it seems that defendants cannot be selective about invoking the 5th, but witnesses can, and witnesses do not waive those rights once they begin answering questions. So if that's true, Fuhrman is a liar on top of being a racist and a shithead and a crooked cop. He might have been advised to do so regardless of the extra-legal consequences. If "you" were Fuhrman, knowing what you know about your true actions, and you found yourself in that position, and DIDN'T consult your own lawyer or use police legal advice before appearing in court the second time...I dunno, massive stupidity/insanity/arrogance? I can imagine a legal eagle just doing a massive facepalm and muttering, "For the love of God, take the fifth on EVERYTHING. Don't say anything else."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
Yeah, if you thought Darden asking OJ to try on the gloves was two face cards and asking for a hit gently caress up. Imagine what an rear end in a top hat like Fuhrman would do with even the good evidence that he found.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Agent Escalus posted:Isn't it libel to say his son did it? I imagine that's one reason this show never actually suggested or enacted OJ in or around the crime scene. His lawyer was standing right next to him in court the second time, he consulted him on every question where he pled the 5th.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
ROCK THE HOUSE M.D. posted:His lawyer was standing right next to him in court the second time, he consulted him on every question where he pled the 5th. gently caress me. I know the jury isn't supposed to draw adverse inferences from an invocation of the 5th, but that is goddamn devastating. His lawyer would absolutely have known Fuhrman was free to say "no" to the last question without waiving his rights or removing the 5th-protection from earlier answers. I'm surprised Marcia Clark didn't charge the witness stand and try to throttle the life out of that Nazi pig. mdemone fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Apr 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
mdemone posted:gently caress me. I know the jury isn't supposed to draw adverse inferences from an invocation of the 5th, but that is goddamn devastating. His lawyer would absolutely have known Fuhrman was free to say "no" to the last question without waiving his rights or removing the 5th-protection from earlier answers. Even though the jury wasn't present for that, there's no way they were unaware of it. Dominick Dunne talks about how the "sequestered" jury was even aware of who the woman that owned the Fuhrman tapes was before she even took the stand. Also she supposedly lied on the stand, too, saying she and Fuhrman were never romantically involved (they had a 6 month relationship that he broke off, apparently). The whole thing is just bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
mdemone posted:gently caress me. I know the jury isn't supposed to draw adverse inferences from an invocation of the 5th, but that is goddamn devastating. His lawyer would absolutely have known Fuhrman was free to say "no" to the last question without waiving his rights or removing the 5th-protection from earlier answers. Comedy Option: Fuhrman didn't know the intricacies of the 5th amendment because he actually did plant evidence
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Vintimus Prime posted:Now I wonder is the show that Martin Sheen is producing/narrating about Jason being the murderer be as compelling as this one? I'd much rather see a show about Charlie Sheen thinking that snuff films are real because he watched a Japanese horror movie while high as balls once.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
DOOP posted:Comedy Option: Fuhrman didn't know the intricacies of the 5th amendment because he actually did plant evidence I'm no longer sure that's unlikely enough to call it a comedy option. What a perfect storm. Ito even gave the prosecution some beneficial rulings (like limiting the Fuhrman tapes to two sentences), but everything kept coming up aces for the defense no matter which way the prosecution went. I'm sure it will haunt Clark and Darden to their graves but it really shouldn't -- they struck me as essentially tragic figures, completely dominated by forces and chances beyond anyone's control. (Obviously they really did make some bad moves, but they still didn't quite deserve the total rear end-handing they got from fate.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I'm no longer sure that's unlikely enough to call it a comedy option. HitFix, in January posted:...Tina Fey and Jerry Minor played exaggerated versions of Clark and Darden in Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt season 1. At TCA last month, a critic told Fey that Clark was depicted sympathetically in The People v. O.J.; Fey seemed to have trouble understanding how this could be possible. I think most of us felt that way...pretty insane to think about now though, right? It's like another poster said earlier, this show did such a great job making you feel bad for just about everybody involved, even OJ to a certain extent. That probably rings the most true for Marcia Clark.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Clark got a lot of undeserved, sexist poo poo tossed her way, but when it comes to people criticizing her or Darden's ineptitude as lawyers it was spot on. It's crazy how badly the prosecution played what should've been an absolute slam dunk of a case. Like...not getting a conviction for OJ requires an almost willful amount of negligence on the prosecution's part.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
It turns out that having a lot of money also means you can have really, really good defense lawyers. Funny how that works.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Darden chewing out Johnny at the end there was pretty loving great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
FadingChord posted:It turns out that having a lot of money also means you can have really, really good defense lawyers. Sure, and Johnnie Cochran is arguably one of the greatest defense lawyers to ever exist. That all being said the insane ludicrous overwhelming preponderance of evidence did half of the prosecution's job for them. Like, seriously, OJ is a trial you have to actively, aggressively gently caress up prosecuting to get an acquittal. The sheer fact that they weren't able to convince one jury member that OJ did it is mind-blowing. Mind-blowing. Mind loving blowing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Sure, and Johnnie Cochran is arguably one of the greatest defense lawyers to ever exist. While the evidence was really strong, this really was the best defense money could buy. Ito could've been even worse with the Fuhrman tapes. He didn't allow the parts of the tapes where Fuhrman talked about "framing niggers" even though that easily could have been included when the testimony of said person involves handling and discovery of evidence. Even the small stuff Cochran did, his crossing of the cops and their handling of Fung was excellent. If OJ had a public defender, yes, it would've been an open and shut case, but he didn't, he had the Dream Team, or more accurately, he had Johnnie Cochran and to a lesser extent F. Lee Bailey. And you could see the hubris of the prosecution run through episodes 2-4, and then their faces melt as they continuously get owned by Johnnie Cochran and lose their poo poo because neither of them have prosecuted a case with this level of defense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2016 00:09
|
|