The People V. . . . Episode Ten (II) Jury's Verdict

OJ didn't do it.

Episode Ten provided specifics for why the jury found reasonable doubt in the case against OJ.  The viewer had to be paying close attention when they were listed in the jury scene.   Four important items were noted: there were no bruises on OJ, there was no blood on the floor of the mansion, there was no blood leading to the glove behind Kato's guest house, and the gloves were not inside out.  Let us look at each.

One, in the video of the real trial, pictures of OJ's face, torso, arms. legs, and hands were shown to the jury at the beginning of the trial during the defense's opening statement and again in the closing statement.  It was clear that there were no bruises or other signs of his being in a life-or-death fight with Ron Goldman in the Bundy condo's small garden area.  Those pictures were not shown during the series on FX but OJ's condition was referred to in passing in the second episode.  I already indicated this as a major problem for the prosecution.  I noted Detective Lange's observation in the HLN series when he said Goldman put up "a hell of a fight."  The quick one liner in Episode Ten that OJ had no bruises indicates it was a real issue with the jury.  They saw no evidence that that fight was with OJ.

Two, there was no blood on the carpet in the mansion.  In the real trial, Johnny Cochran's closing argument reminded the jury that at Rockingham none of OJ's blood was found anywhere else but the kitchen, the front hall, and the driveway back to the Bronco.  That was explained by OJ's jamming his finger in the Bronco getting out his cell phone when he hurriedly grabbed for it when getting ready to leave for Chicago.  

The jury's observation was that there was no blood anywhere else in the house, not OJ's, not Nicole's, nor Ron's.  If OJ slipped into the house at 10:54 pm with bloody clothes on, how come there was not a drop on the carpet toward the stairs up to his bedroom, on the carpeting on the stairs, on the hand rail, on carpeting in the hallway, on the bed or on the carpeting in the bedroom?  The prosecution claimed there had been blood in the Bronco so why not where OJ went to change out of the bloody clothes and showered?  And, especially, why was there no blood on the carpeting beneath the one object in the bedroom that had blood on it, a pair of OJ's socks?  

The prosecution started out with the premise that OJ was finished killing by 10:15 (the wailing dog timeline) and had time to dispose of the bloody clothes and knife before returning to Rockingham.  However, Marcia Clark later claimed that OJ would have been recognized if he had stopped anywhere on the way home.  That allowed her to change the murder timeline to 10:35 when another witness said the dog howling began.  But that meant OJ would be in bloody shoes and clothes when he entered the house.  And there was no sign of blood anywhere else in the house.  That observation, as scripted, was very brief but it was loaded with the implication that OJ did not go upstairs after he bloodied his finger getting his cell phone and therefore the socks had to be planted.  Clark failed to prove OJ was ever in bloody clothes in his house and now was saying he could not have dumped them because he would have been recognized.  That provides reasonable doubt.

The third observation, there were no drops of blood near or on the way to the bloody glove that Fuhrman found.  The jury, as shown in the series, saw no drops of blood leading from the Bronco to the right of the garage and back to the pathway where the glove was found.  The drops were only to the left toward the front door.  Whose narrative was more likely true, OJ's about stubbing and bloodying his finger or Clark's that OJ dropped the glove on the way to bury it out in the back somewhere?

And fourth, the gloves were not inside out.  That was the hardest to comprehend given that the series writers did not show at trial how OJ took off the gloves that were too tight.  We saw it in the real trial video.  He was able to slip out of them only by pulling at the fingertips of the gloves one at a time.  According to Clark, the left glove fell off during the fight by Ron pulling it off his hand at the "V" near the palm.  But if the glove was as tight as that Aris glove was made to be, it would have rolled up OJ's hand like a latex glove and come off inside out, in a ball.  Both gloves were right side out.  There was no way they came off accidentally.

I mentioned in another post that pictures of the crime and evidence were in front of the jurors for months and they had time to notice such things.  That was shared by Armanda Cooley in the book MADAM FOREMAN.

Whether or not OJ faked the fitting of the gloves at trial so they just looked too small, they were made to fit tightly and that meant they would not come off accidentally right side out.  Defense said they were planted and that narrative made more sense than Clark's explanation.

While it wasn't mentioned specifically beyond the general phrase, "the prosecution failed to make its case," the blood evidence that the prosecution thought was a mountain was doubted by the jury.  The defense was able to show it had been tampered with and all three detectives and the main criminalist implicated themselves in testimony to have done inexplicable things that tainted the credibility of all of it.

Based on the above evidence, the jury had more than reasonable doubt.  I believe they proved OJ could not have been the killer and that the blood and fiber evidence had all been planted.  That made the decision very easy for the jury.  That's why the verdict and paper work took less than four hours.  

Because no further investigation occurred, the LAPD left the world with no answer to the question, "If not OJ, then who?"  By refusing to consider anyone else, they let everyone presume OJ was the only possible perpetrator.  

That left no closure for the families of Ron and Nicole.  And it let the real killers off.

I think the series shows that there was reasonable doubt.  I think that the jury made a legitimate decision based on what the evidence showed.  I think they made their decision separate from the emotional pressures of racism and spousal abuse fervor.  

Those who watched the series and chose not to pick up on the clues the writers left will not think the jury was fair.  The raised fist by the black male jurist for OJ to see was only a personal sign of support from him to OJ.  It could easily be read as proof of the race card paying off in a case that the jury was solely influenced by racism.  Even the clear evidence about Fuhrman could be discounted because of the technicalities around the use of the Fifth Amendment.

I have laid out my arguments that OJ was innocent of the murders.  I think the series writers felt obligated to include grounds for reasonable doubt while focusing on the great and dramatic issues of the times.  I appreciate their larger vision.  Even if they had tried harder to show his innocence, there are too many unwilling and unable to accept it and would discount it anyway.  

That OJ did not do it will probably have to be shown another time in another way.  I'd like to think this set of postings will be persuasive but I know better.  Maybe another trial and the conviction of the real killers might settle the matter but even that will not do it for many.  Sometimes the myth is stronger than the truth.

Thanks again to FX, their sponsors, and all who put this series together.  It was riveting drama and provided a lot of insights about the complexities of American life.