Before discussing the jury's decision and whether or not the series provided reasonable doubt, a lot of things can be said about "The People V. O. J. Simpson" series. It deserves plaudits for its creativity, quality, and class. And it needs to be commended for inclusion of important details that are not usually present in other tellings of this story.
Having watched Esquire channel's use of the tapes of the actual closing arguments, I was pleased at how the series writers condensed the lengthy, repetitive, and verbose statements of the lawyers at the original trial. They were summarized succinctly and adequately.
The dialogue about resignation between Marcia Clark and Chris Darden probably never happened but the series writers brought out the themes they had been displaying throughout the series, the struggle for justice for battered women and for blacks confronted by police. As was reported at the end, Clark and Darden resigned from the Los Angeles DA's office for the reasons each said in the script. Clark was beat up by the experience but has gone on to not only write but establish a law office of her own concerned about domestic violence. Darden did not have the stomach for the culture of image, politics, and career emphasis in that job.
I also liked the use of the gift of the puppy to OJ (something I have not heard of before) to be sure he always had a friend. That was a foreshadowing of what OJ would soon face.
The most difficult to get across was how Robert Kardashian, OJ's best friend up to and through the trial, could descend into such doubt about OJ's innocence. The writers implied the first doubts came when OJ flunked the lie detector test.
I think what hurt Bobby the most was something the series writers did not address, that OJ had left Bobby out of the loop on how the marriage was going. Being together as couples so much, Bobby would have expected OJ to trust him.
Also not explored was OJ's narcissism which disallowed much real feeling toward anything and anyone not in the center of the universe where OJ thought he sat enthroned.
Between these two dynamics, OJ alienated Bobby. Bobby finally saw OJ's inability to trust a friend with his own personal pain and OJ's lack of affect for his wife's death. Bobby had not faced up to those facets of OJ's nature.
Add the perception Bobby had that OJ tested so badly on the lie detector, and one can understand Bobby's withdrawal from OJ. It was not simply a view that OJ was guilty. The party after OJ was released was the final straw, though, according to other writers. It was because there was no remembrance of the loss of Nicole. OJ was OJ as if Nicole hadn't existed.
No matter how much of a schmuck OJ may have been, that still did not prove he was guilty. For that we have to turn to the evidence. That will be the subject of the next post.
I really liked the creativity of the series writers, but I honor their quality. Compared to all the other things done about the case that I've seen so far, this one showed genuine depth of research as well as depth of concern for broader issues like domestic violence and police/black confrontations. I've had to add or correct some of the details offered so far, but far fewer than I've felt about all the others except Esquire's rebroadcast of tapes of the trial. The series writers integrated the facts into a dramatic narrative which was very powerful. The details of clothes, cars, office spaces, courtroom were authentic enough that there were few jarring moments as we watched the other TV shows which contained original material and then watched the series on FX.
The series had class. What was jarring was the difference in who advertised each of the different TV efforts. With the others, we saw ads typical of TV channels with small audiences. In this series, the ads were from top corporations.
More significant, the drama did little to make either side be simply good or evil. The bad on both sides was shown but not dwelt on in a way that seemed unbalanced. OJ was not made out to be an evil caricature and Fred Goldman was not made out to be devilish in his actions. The strengths and weaknesses of all the lawyers were laid out with respect, even when they did not choose the best course of action. We saw the "nightmare" side of the dream team but we saw them stay together to the end. Only Detective Fuhrman seemed to be clearly disliked by the series writers, but I think for very good reason.
The classiest thing I appreciated was closing with pictures of Ron and Nicole and their life dates. The writers did not forget the victims.
Finally, I was grateful to see two very important things, the inclusion important details left out of nearly every other telling of the myth of OJ Simpson and what happened when the jury went into consideration of their verdict. More on the latter in my next post.
There were three more important details I wish to note.
This last episode included a scene in which a deputy treated OJ with respect and appreciation. OJ made friends while he was in jail that seventeen months after his arrest. In fact, the party at OJ's included many of those deputies, something missed by the series writers.
The detail of the child custody hearing shown during the concluding post-drama notes is rarely ever added. But as was pointed out in an earlier post, it was going on during the civil trial against OJ. The drama hinted that the Goldmans might follow up by suing OJ in civil court. In fact, Fred's first wife had long since begun rolling that ball within weeks of the beginning of the criminal trial. Though the Goldmans got very little once the civil court granted the Browns their share of the proceeds from the sale of OJ's mansion and other assets, the Goldman's got their half million out of the sale of OJ's book IF I DID IT.
The DA was asked after the trial if they would seek out the real killer now. As well shown in this episode, Gil Garcetti, with a look, said OJ was the killer and he just got off scot free. In the prosecution's mind (and inability to admit mistakes), there was no need for the LAPD to do it. In fact, the reason OJ's quest for the real killer failed was because it was blocked by the police. They refused to share any of their evidence or cooperate in any way with OJ's investigators, according to Freed and Briggs in KILLING TIME.
The key argument I encounter whenever I talk about OJ being innocent is that, as Kardashian said in an early episode, there was no other suspect. As I've indicated, there were other clues but the LAPD put all its eggs in one basket and left the impression there were no other.
I thank the writers, producers, and actors for preparing such a good piece of work. As you will see when I discuss the jury's decision, I believe the writers agreed with them. But they were even-handed enough that those who do not agree with the "not guilty" verdict will be able to argue against my viewpoint and feel completely justified.
It will be up to you to decide if the jury was right and if I am right going beyond their decision by affirming OJ's innocence.
Showing posts with label Fred Goldman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fred Goldman. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 6, 2016
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
The People V. . . . A & E Channel's specials
Apparently the series on FX about OJ has caused a stir. We keep finding another two to four hours of TV specials on the case every few days. We ran across A & E's two last night (April 4).
In my view they were poorly titled. They used "The Secret Tapes" and "O. J. Speaks, The Hidden Tapes." They should have said, "The Fred Goldman Story, Parts I and II." The scripts couldn't have been more biased in Mr. Goldman's favor. The two shows were based on opinions and presumptions of those who agreed with him.
Most disconcerting from a professional point of view was the use of a psychologist who did not have OJ as a patient nor have extensive interviews with him. The psychologist formed his opinions based on his reading of books and looking at videos. While such research has merit to open up lines of inquiry for further exploration on behalf of a patient, it is unprofessional to take such observations as being valid for the purpose of diagnosing the person on TV.
But even a biased program can show some things of value in understanding the whole situation facing us as we look for the truth in OJ's case.
For one, it was helpful to get some details about the Santa Monica trial that helped us understand it better. Paul Marciano of Guess, Inc. was revealed to have helped the Goldmans. The level of proof ("preponderance of evidence") was mentioned as was the need for only 9 of the 12 jurors to agree to rule against OJ. Also noted was the racial composition of the jury, 9 of which were white. There could be no hung jury. But it took the jury nearly two weeks to come back with their verdict!
For another, it showed the strategy of defeating OJ in civil trial. The lawyer for Goldman used interrogation techniques guaranteed to expose any weakness and even lies in OJ's responses. It took eleven days of intensive questioning during the deposition period leading up to the trial before Dan Petrocelli could find enough of what he felt were inconsistencies he could use in the trial itself.
The most prominent of those were OJ's inability to remember a voice mail message from his girl friend on the morning of June 12, 1994, breaking things off with him. He also had no explanation about how the blood from Ron and Nicole got into his Bronco and onto his socks, as if he was supposed to know if he did not do it himself. He didn't know about his wife's diary, as if she would want him to know about it while she kept it in a safety deposit box. And OJ didn't remember owning the Bruno Magli shoes, saying he hated their style and would never wear them.
For another bit of information, the law firm that took Goldman's case is probably the largest in Santa Monica and perhaps the most prestigious in the Los Angeles area, able to put six of their staff on the case which lasted many months. OJ was able to afford only two. Yet the script said that it was a David and Goliath scene with Fred Goldman as the David. OJ did not have that much left after paying the legal fees for the criminal trial, and the costs of the child custody battle OJ was in during the civil trial.
Finally, the suing parties had the privilege of testifying. The special included practically nothing from the Browns but it contained a great deal of emotional testimony from Goldman.
"Preponderance of evidence" was all that was needed, no matter its quality. There was an enormous amount of emotion included.
And the shoes . . . . The coincidence of the shoes. In my reading on the criminal trial, there were two ways the gloves and shoes could have been taken from OJ's house. One, OJ was very generous and gave away a lot of the stuff because his various sponsors had overloaded him with their products. Two, OJ found his home unlocked the night before he left for Chicago. The alarm was not set, either. It is possible someone was able to access his house looking for things they could use to implicate OJ in a future crime.
Maybe the section of OJ's brain that remembers things had been damaged by football injuries. Maybe in his narcissism he could block out things and not realize it. Maybe . . ., we can speculate for two reasons, one to show that there may be other explanations just as plausible as the ones condemning OJ, and two, offer areas to explore in our search for truth. The A & E specials used speculation as truth.
It is hard to watch opinions presumed to be facts and people reading OJ's mind and diagnosing his character without any feedback from those who might disagree. The A & E channel's offerings about OJ stressed me a lot. But I did learn some new things and I hope they have also helped you, my reader.
In my view they were poorly titled. They used "The Secret Tapes" and "O. J. Speaks, The Hidden Tapes." They should have said, "The Fred Goldman Story, Parts I and II." The scripts couldn't have been more biased in Mr. Goldman's favor. The two shows were based on opinions and presumptions of those who agreed with him.
Most disconcerting from a professional point of view was the use of a psychologist who did not have OJ as a patient nor have extensive interviews with him. The psychologist formed his opinions based on his reading of books and looking at videos. While such research has merit to open up lines of inquiry for further exploration on behalf of a patient, it is unprofessional to take such observations as being valid for the purpose of diagnosing the person on TV.
But even a biased program can show some things of value in understanding the whole situation facing us as we look for the truth in OJ's case.
For one, it was helpful to get some details about the Santa Monica trial that helped us understand it better. Paul Marciano of Guess, Inc. was revealed to have helped the Goldmans. The level of proof ("preponderance of evidence") was mentioned as was the need for only 9 of the 12 jurors to agree to rule against OJ. Also noted was the racial composition of the jury, 9 of which were white. There could be no hung jury. But it took the jury nearly two weeks to come back with their verdict!
For another, it showed the strategy of defeating OJ in civil trial. The lawyer for Goldman used interrogation techniques guaranteed to expose any weakness and even lies in OJ's responses. It took eleven days of intensive questioning during the deposition period leading up to the trial before Dan Petrocelli could find enough of what he felt were inconsistencies he could use in the trial itself.
The most prominent of those were OJ's inability to remember a voice mail message from his girl friend on the morning of June 12, 1994, breaking things off with him. He also had no explanation about how the blood from Ron and Nicole got into his Bronco and onto his socks, as if he was supposed to know if he did not do it himself. He didn't know about his wife's diary, as if she would want him to know about it while she kept it in a safety deposit box. And OJ didn't remember owning the Bruno Magli shoes, saying he hated their style and would never wear them.
For another bit of information, the law firm that took Goldman's case is probably the largest in Santa Monica and perhaps the most prestigious in the Los Angeles area, able to put six of their staff on the case which lasted many months. OJ was able to afford only two. Yet the script said that it was a David and Goliath scene with Fred Goldman as the David. OJ did not have that much left after paying the legal fees for the criminal trial, and the costs of the child custody battle OJ was in during the civil trial.
Finally, the suing parties had the privilege of testifying. The special included practically nothing from the Browns but it contained a great deal of emotional testimony from Goldman.
"Preponderance of evidence" was all that was needed, no matter its quality. There was an enormous amount of emotion included.
And the shoes . . . . The coincidence of the shoes. In my reading on the criminal trial, there were two ways the gloves and shoes could have been taken from OJ's house. One, OJ was very generous and gave away a lot of the stuff because his various sponsors had overloaded him with their products. Two, OJ found his home unlocked the night before he left for Chicago. The alarm was not set, either. It is possible someone was able to access his house looking for things they could use to implicate OJ in a future crime.
Maybe the section of OJ's brain that remembers things had been damaged by football injuries. Maybe in his narcissism he could block out things and not realize it. Maybe . . ., we can speculate for two reasons, one to show that there may be other explanations just as plausible as the ones condemning OJ, and two, offer areas to explore in our search for truth. The A & E specials used speculation as truth.
It is hard to watch opinions presumed to be facts and people reading OJ's mind and diagnosing his character without any feedback from those who might disagree. The A & E channel's offerings about OJ stressed me a lot. But I did learn some new things and I hope they have also helped you, my reader.
Friday, April 1, 2016
The People V . . . Fred Goldman
One of the interesting people involved in OJ's case is the father of Ron Goldman, one of the victims of the June 12, 1994, murders.
Those watching the series on OJ's trial, but are unaware of Ron's father, are likely to see a lot of him in the final episode. He has been in the front row of the courtroom. He is the one reacting in the background to what is happening in the trial. In Episode Nine, he was also seen doing a televised news conference in reaction to the defense bringing Detective Fuhrman to the witness stand.
Yes, the tall man with the dramatic mustache.
Let me tell you a little of what he writes about in his book HIS NAME IS RON.
He wrote the book as a way to distinguish his son from the Simpsons. Their celebrity put Ron in the shadow and he wanted people to know Ron was more than some vague friend of Nicole's. The young man was much more. He helped coach his younger brother's high school tennis team, though Fred did not mention Ron's status as a semi-pro tennis player in California. Perhaps Fred's effort was a typical grief reaction where he idolized his dead son. Ron comes off in the book as a saint.
Fred also could have been writing an "apologia," which is actually a kind of tract to support a position about the person. In this case, it was to try to block out the noise about drugs, sex, and mob connections that drifted into the media after the murders. Ron was not the only waiter from Mezzaluna and other nearby restaurants who was murdered around that time. The others were apparently drug-related crimes and Fred could not allow speculation that his son might have been the actual target in the murders, making Nicole the innocent one caught up in the tragedy. On this I am willing to give Fred the benefit of the doubt.
But he never talks of Ron's black belt in karate. nor of what a fine athlete Ron was. Going to a woman's defense, that he could write about. Being any kind of competition with an older, overweight arthritic former athlete, that he could not do.
One of grief's characteristics is anger. Some people weep. Some people become deeply depressed. And some people turn all the anger in their being upon some target. In this case, OJ became Fred's emotional outlet. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Fred could only use words like "killer" in place of OJ's name. The book is a very angry one with Fred's anger including Judge Ito and Johnny Cochran.
Fred tells of his family, of his first wife, of Ron's good nature and good deeds, and then of the shock of the murders. He goes into detail about the trial from his point of view. And he talks openly about the feelings he and his family members have throughout.
He also mentions something in passing, that he struggled with taking time from his job as a salesman to be at the trial and to administer the Ron Goldman Justice Fund, Fred's effort to have resources for the wrongful death civil suit against OJ he filed in May, 1995. Right after the Fuhrman court appearance, Fred was approached by an executive who wanted to be supportive because the executive's boss was sympathetic with the Goldmans. The man offered Fred the services of a better lawyer from a major LA law firm and office space at corporate headquarters for the Justice Fund.
Fred wrote that he did not want to name the corporation or the man behind the help for fear there would be boycotts against the company. But in his acknowledgments, Fred thanks Paul Marciano of Guess, Inc. for finding the lawyer and providing "overwhelming support."
Fred Goldman is a sales representative. He is assertive, articulate, emotional, and committed to punishing the killer of his son Ron. He is a perfect foil to OJ. Fred is a gifted antagonist who pursued the law suit against OJ, and then fought for the rights to a book OJ wrote to try to earn some money. Fred won that fight and not only got the proceeds from its sale but got to change the title. OJ had used IF I DID IT. Fred had the publishers make the word "If" very small and of a different color than the other three words, and added several more words, so that someone picking up the book would easily see I DID IT, CONFESSIONS OF THE KILLER. (Reports conflict as to whether the proceeds were split with the Browns.)
Someone who wanted a person capable of reminding the public about OJ as the killer could not have found anyone better than Fred Goldman. He channels anger more exquisitely than Donald Trump and his constituency of believers that OJ did it is larger than Trump's. His anger has been an effective deterrent to explorations of alternative solutions to the crime for over twenty years. Is it possible that Fred's passion was bought to distract responsible people from pursuing leads in other directions?
When word comes out that Martin Sheen is producing a TV series that shows OJ is innocent and that someone else did it, I would expect something from Fred, if he is still well and active.
Those watching the series on OJ's trial, but are unaware of Ron's father, are likely to see a lot of him in the final episode. He has been in the front row of the courtroom. He is the one reacting in the background to what is happening in the trial. In Episode Nine, he was also seen doing a televised news conference in reaction to the defense bringing Detective Fuhrman to the witness stand.
Yes, the tall man with the dramatic mustache.
Let me tell you a little of what he writes about in his book HIS NAME IS RON.
He wrote the book as a way to distinguish his son from the Simpsons. Their celebrity put Ron in the shadow and he wanted people to know Ron was more than some vague friend of Nicole's. The young man was much more. He helped coach his younger brother's high school tennis team, though Fred did not mention Ron's status as a semi-pro tennis player in California. Perhaps Fred's effort was a typical grief reaction where he idolized his dead son. Ron comes off in the book as a saint.
Fred also could have been writing an "apologia," which is actually a kind of tract to support a position about the person. In this case, it was to try to block out the noise about drugs, sex, and mob connections that drifted into the media after the murders. Ron was not the only waiter from Mezzaluna and other nearby restaurants who was murdered around that time. The others were apparently drug-related crimes and Fred could not allow speculation that his son might have been the actual target in the murders, making Nicole the innocent one caught up in the tragedy. On this I am willing to give Fred the benefit of the doubt.
But he never talks of Ron's black belt in karate. nor of what a fine athlete Ron was. Going to a woman's defense, that he could write about. Being any kind of competition with an older, overweight arthritic former athlete, that he could not do.
One of grief's characteristics is anger. Some people weep. Some people become deeply depressed. And some people turn all the anger in their being upon some target. In this case, OJ became Fred's emotional outlet. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Fred could only use words like "killer" in place of OJ's name. The book is a very angry one with Fred's anger including Judge Ito and Johnny Cochran.
Fred tells of his family, of his first wife, of Ron's good nature and good deeds, and then of the shock of the murders. He goes into detail about the trial from his point of view. And he talks openly about the feelings he and his family members have throughout.
He also mentions something in passing, that he struggled with taking time from his job as a salesman to be at the trial and to administer the Ron Goldman Justice Fund, Fred's effort to have resources for the wrongful death civil suit against OJ he filed in May, 1995. Right after the Fuhrman court appearance, Fred was approached by an executive who wanted to be supportive because the executive's boss was sympathetic with the Goldmans. The man offered Fred the services of a better lawyer from a major LA law firm and office space at corporate headquarters for the Justice Fund.
Fred wrote that he did not want to name the corporation or the man behind the help for fear there would be boycotts against the company. But in his acknowledgments, Fred thanks Paul Marciano of Guess, Inc. for finding the lawyer and providing "overwhelming support."
Fred Goldman is a sales representative. He is assertive, articulate, emotional, and committed to punishing the killer of his son Ron. He is a perfect foil to OJ. Fred is a gifted antagonist who pursued the law suit against OJ, and then fought for the rights to a book OJ wrote to try to earn some money. Fred won that fight and not only got the proceeds from its sale but got to change the title. OJ had used IF I DID IT. Fred had the publishers make the word "If" very small and of a different color than the other three words, and added several more words, so that someone picking up the book would easily see I DID IT, CONFESSIONS OF THE KILLER. (Reports conflict as to whether the proceeds were split with the Browns.)
Someone who wanted a person capable of reminding the public about OJ as the killer could not have found anyone better than Fred Goldman. He channels anger more exquisitely than Donald Trump and his constituency of believers that OJ did it is larger than Trump's. His anger has been an effective deterrent to explorations of alternative solutions to the crime for over twenty years. Is it possible that Fred's passion was bought to distract responsible people from pursuing leads in other directions?
When word comes out that Martin Sheen is producing a TV series that shows OJ is innocent and that someone else did it, I would expect something from Fred, if he is still well and active.
Thursday, March 31, 2016
The People V. . . . Episode Nine
In a recent TV interview, Alan Dershowitz was asked about the TV series, "The People V. O. J. Simpson." He said it was an interesting fictionalization.
We saw that in the interactions between Chris Darden and Marcia Clark which the writers made out as very close to being a romantic relationship. There is nothing I remember in my reading that they ever apologized to each other as the series writers suggest. Over the last few days, I've read portions of Detective Fuhrman's, Fred Goldman's, Lawrence Schiller's, and Jeffrey Toobin's books about the Fuhrman testimony. All of the books made Darden out to be very hard-nosed and aggressive, not at all the gentle giant of a man shown in the series. And Clark never softened beyond changing her clothes and hairstyle during the trial.
The series writers may have made up a lot of stuff but they did make points on behalf of women's rights, especially how much they are hounded if they are accomplished and successful. They have also been clear that African Americans have been and still are victimized by the criminal justice system.
The writers made sure to have Clark say that bringing in Fuhrman for further testimony would so enflame the jury that they would ignore the evidence in order to punish the LAPD. Toobin wrote in his book that OJ was the "undeserved beneficiary" of the the jury's attitude toward the police.
But the writers got it right when they did the court scene with Fuhrman. They had the wrong defense lawyer question him but the truth is that Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment and looked guilty of all kinds of evidence planting and violence against the African American community.
A few years before the trial, a screen writer from North Carolina had a chance encounter with Fuhrman and thought she found an experienced cop who could give her background for her writing police drama for TV. She recorded and had transcribed their extensive conversations. Not only did Fuhrman use the "N" word forty two times, he described in detail numerous events where police tactics used unprovoked violence toward Black people and tampered extensively with evidence to get convictions. Copies of the tapes and transcripts were gone over carefully by both prosecution and defense and by the time Fuhrman came into the court room, no one wanted to look at him. Even the crowd in the court room had heard snippets of the tapes over radio and TV the previous few days, The only one who really watched Fuhrman enter and sit down was Fred Goldman, Ron's father, who was furious that it was now Fuhrman on trial rather than OJ.
Fuhrman wrote in his book MURDER IN BRENTWOOD that he was ready to explain everything because he felt completely innocent of any tampering with evidence and that his taped conversations had been pure fiction. But on advice of his new lawyer (his old one quit when the tapes were released) and because he knew no one on the prosecution would be willing to be his advocate, he wrote that he had to take the Fifth. Clark did turn her back on him as he came in and Darden left the courtroom, just as the series showed. Poor Fuhrman . . . not!
Anyone who knew the actual content of the tapes knew he was bad. Schilling reported that the writer who had made the tapes was called to the stand and said she was convinced during her interviews with him that he was talking about how he operated as a cop.
In the show, I noticed that there was no jury when Fuhrman testified. The books all confirmed they were not there to see him take the Fifth. Though it was not shown in this episode, Judge Ito brought them in for the writer's testimony and she confirmed it was Fuhrman's voice on the two brief segments (total of fourteen words) that were allowed to be presented. When asked, she said Fuhrman had been totally serious and scary when he described treatment of African Americans and when he used the "N" word. The series writers indicated that the jurors found out about all the stuff outside of the courtroom during conjugal visits with spouses during "pillow talk."
Goldman did a news conference immediately after that session blasting the judge for allowing the trial to turn into the "people v. Fuhrman." In his book, Goldman never used OJ's name, but referred to him as the killer, murderer, and such terms. There is more to know about Goldman and I may do a post on him.
You may ask why Fuhrman didn't say "No" when asked specifically about evidence tampering. Another arcane rule of law is that once he started claiming the Fifth, if he answered anything but that way, he could be subjected to extensive questioning and lose his Fifth Amendment right. Fuhrman later pleaded "no contest" to the felony charge of perjury in OJ's trial. The LAPD found insufficient evidence to try him for the incidents he described for the screen writer. Fuhrman was thus a convicted felon, could no longer be a policeman, and even lost his right to a gun, Meanwhile he has done well as a mystery writer living in Idaho and being a guest expert on FOX.
Was anything entered into evidence in this episode that the jury could have used?
The opening scene has a person of foreign extraction testifying to hearing someone yell "Hey, Hey, Hey" from the crime scene. But no time is given. And Clark says he saw a Bronco by the alley gate to Bundy. What wasn't shown was that the witness went on to say he saw four men running from the scene and driving the white SUV south rather than north toward Rockingham.
The testimony was abridged by the series writers in order to focus on another point about racism. The man said someone responded and sounded like he was Black. Cochran jumped all over that presumption and said there was no way to take that seriously because no one can tell such a thing for sure.
Cochran saw the case as OJ v. American racism. But "Americans" do not realize just how racist we are and so the show leaves the impression Cochran was using a tactic rather than showing the truth. And as Fuhrman came into focus in this episode, his racism was used as the best example of Cochran's tactic to hijack the case and put the LAPD on trial.
The writers and Toobin have set up the jury to be so angry about Fuhrman that they can't think straight and deal with the evidence. Or was Cochran correct when he said earlier in the series that they would be mature enough to look past the epithets directed toward Blacks and be able to keep their poise. We'll see next week if the jury is given that credit.
We saw that in the interactions between Chris Darden and Marcia Clark which the writers made out as very close to being a romantic relationship. There is nothing I remember in my reading that they ever apologized to each other as the series writers suggest. Over the last few days, I've read portions of Detective Fuhrman's, Fred Goldman's, Lawrence Schiller's, and Jeffrey Toobin's books about the Fuhrman testimony. All of the books made Darden out to be very hard-nosed and aggressive, not at all the gentle giant of a man shown in the series. And Clark never softened beyond changing her clothes and hairstyle during the trial.
The series writers may have made up a lot of stuff but they did make points on behalf of women's rights, especially how much they are hounded if they are accomplished and successful. They have also been clear that African Americans have been and still are victimized by the criminal justice system.
The writers made sure to have Clark say that bringing in Fuhrman for further testimony would so enflame the jury that they would ignore the evidence in order to punish the LAPD. Toobin wrote in his book that OJ was the "undeserved beneficiary" of the the jury's attitude toward the police.
But the writers got it right when they did the court scene with Fuhrman. They had the wrong defense lawyer question him but the truth is that Fuhrman took the Fifth Amendment and looked guilty of all kinds of evidence planting and violence against the African American community.
A few years before the trial, a screen writer from North Carolina had a chance encounter with Fuhrman and thought she found an experienced cop who could give her background for her writing police drama for TV. She recorded and had transcribed their extensive conversations. Not only did Fuhrman use the "N" word forty two times, he described in detail numerous events where police tactics used unprovoked violence toward Black people and tampered extensively with evidence to get convictions. Copies of the tapes and transcripts were gone over carefully by both prosecution and defense and by the time Fuhrman came into the court room, no one wanted to look at him. Even the crowd in the court room had heard snippets of the tapes over radio and TV the previous few days, The only one who really watched Fuhrman enter and sit down was Fred Goldman, Ron's father, who was furious that it was now Fuhrman on trial rather than OJ.
Fuhrman wrote in his book MURDER IN BRENTWOOD that he was ready to explain everything because he felt completely innocent of any tampering with evidence and that his taped conversations had been pure fiction. But on advice of his new lawyer (his old one quit when the tapes were released) and because he knew no one on the prosecution would be willing to be his advocate, he wrote that he had to take the Fifth. Clark did turn her back on him as he came in and Darden left the courtroom, just as the series showed. Poor Fuhrman . . . not!
Anyone who knew the actual content of the tapes knew he was bad. Schilling reported that the writer who had made the tapes was called to the stand and said she was convinced during her interviews with him that he was talking about how he operated as a cop.
In the show, I noticed that there was no jury when Fuhrman testified. The books all confirmed they were not there to see him take the Fifth. Though it was not shown in this episode, Judge Ito brought them in for the writer's testimony and she confirmed it was Fuhrman's voice on the two brief segments (total of fourteen words) that were allowed to be presented. When asked, she said Fuhrman had been totally serious and scary when he described treatment of African Americans and when he used the "N" word. The series writers indicated that the jurors found out about all the stuff outside of the courtroom during conjugal visits with spouses during "pillow talk."
Goldman did a news conference immediately after that session blasting the judge for allowing the trial to turn into the "people v. Fuhrman." In his book, Goldman never used OJ's name, but referred to him as the killer, murderer, and such terms. There is more to know about Goldman and I may do a post on him.
You may ask why Fuhrman didn't say "No" when asked specifically about evidence tampering. Another arcane rule of law is that once he started claiming the Fifth, if he answered anything but that way, he could be subjected to extensive questioning and lose his Fifth Amendment right. Fuhrman later pleaded "no contest" to the felony charge of perjury in OJ's trial. The LAPD found insufficient evidence to try him for the incidents he described for the screen writer. Fuhrman was thus a convicted felon, could no longer be a policeman, and even lost his right to a gun, Meanwhile he has done well as a mystery writer living in Idaho and being a guest expert on FOX.
Was anything entered into evidence in this episode that the jury could have used?
The opening scene has a person of foreign extraction testifying to hearing someone yell "Hey, Hey, Hey" from the crime scene. But no time is given. And Clark says he saw a Bronco by the alley gate to Bundy. What wasn't shown was that the witness went on to say he saw four men running from the scene and driving the white SUV south rather than north toward Rockingham.
The testimony was abridged by the series writers in order to focus on another point about racism. The man said someone responded and sounded like he was Black. Cochran jumped all over that presumption and said there was no way to take that seriously because no one can tell such a thing for sure.
Cochran saw the case as OJ v. American racism. But "Americans" do not realize just how racist we are and so the show leaves the impression Cochran was using a tactic rather than showing the truth. And as Fuhrman came into focus in this episode, his racism was used as the best example of Cochran's tactic to hijack the case and put the LAPD on trial.
The writers and Toobin have set up the jury to be so angry about Fuhrman that they can't think straight and deal with the evidence. Or was Cochran correct when he said earlier in the series that they would be mature enough to look past the epithets directed toward Blacks and be able to keep their poise. We'll see next week if the jury is given that credit.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
The People V. . . . The Other Trial
Those who are firm believers in OJ's guilt argue that he was found guilty in that "other" trial. So let me offer some information and insight about that other trial.
Actually, there were three, the criminal trial, the civil ("other") trial, and the child custody hearings. Let me speak about each of the three so that we can put the "other" trial into perspective.
The criminal trial began at the end of January, 1995, seven months after the murders. The "Not guilty" verdict was read on Oct. 3, 1995. The trial took place in the city of Los Angeles downtown mainly because the DA's office, resources, and staff were there. That meant the jury pool was mixed racial, reflecting to some extent the population of that city which was some miles north west of where the murders took place.
The "third" trial was the custody hearing for OJ's and Nicole's two children. I'm not sure yet where that was held but I presume in some location where the hearing judge had Brentwood within her jurisdiction. That concluded December 20, 1996. There was no jury since it was a custody hearing to determine if the children should be in the custody of OJ or of Nicole's parents who had them while OJ was in jail. Recall he was arrested June 17, 1994. On October 3, 1995 he was freed by the criminal jury's verdict. The Browns appealed the hearing judge's decision favoring OJ and on Nov. 10, 1998, the case was remanded back for rehearing by an appeals court with OJ retaining custody until the case was resolved. - One recent source indicated the Browns and OJ reached an agreement out of court.
The "other" trial, the civil case brought by the Goldmans (Ron's parents) and the Browns (Nicole's parents) began October 26, 1996, and ended January 17, 1997, with the verdict coming down on February 5, 1997. It was held in Santa Monica, the nearest large city to Brentwood, because it was a location handier to those bringing the lawsuit against OJ. The jury was consistent with the population of Santa Monica, 9 white, 2 blacks, and 1 Asian American.
Notice that both the child custody hearing and the civil trial occurred at the same time. OJ won the custody hearing, for which his children were glad, according to a news report quoting the children's lawyer. - In child custody hearings, the court appoints a lawyer to protect the interests of the children. They were eight and eleven at the time.
Remember that OJ's lawyers were looking ahead from the moment OJ was arrested to not only handle the criminal trial but to protect as much of his income and resources as possible against wrongful death lawsuits and child custody suits. The first wrongful death suit was brought six weeks after the murders! OJ needed to have the means to support his family whether or not he won the criminal trial. The "other" trial had as its main purpose stripping OJ of any wealth he had as punishment for the deaths of Nicole and Ron. The law provided some protection against complete financial ruin in such cases: money in certain trusts, pension, and residence are usually untouchable so that the one who is sued can survive. State laws vary and can be changed but usually the one sued is not left completely destitute.
Everyone recalls that there was a great divide in the country over the criminal jury's "Not Guilty" verdict. The mixed racial jury was called too stupid to understand the DNA evidence, too racially oriented to allow another of their kind to be convicted, too insensitive to spousal abuse, and too attuned to the allegations of police brutality against ethnics to be objective. The white community believed that with eight African Americans, two Hispanics, and only two white persons on the jury, the prosecution didn't have a chance.
I will address all of that in a post related to the last episode of the AMERICAN CRIME STORY series.
But for now, needless to say, the "other" trial was set up in a place where the outcome was far more likely to be what the white community wanted. It was far more supportive of the police than any in the city of Los Angeles would have been at the time. (Detective Fuhrman was not a witness and was not even mentioned during the civil trial!). The level of proof needed was not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "preponderance of evidence," which is closer to the level of proof needed for "probable cause." Because the civil case did not involve a possible death penalty or incarceration, the level of proof did not need to be very high. It was only to settle financial responsibility and provide the respective families for the loss of their loved ones.
Civil action also did not require a unanimous verdict, just 9 of 12 jurors had to agree. Remember the jury in the civil case consisted of 9 whites, two blacks, and 1 Asian American.
The Santa Monica civil trial became far more, however. For the white community, it became a setting in which to overturn the criminal trial verdict. And it succeeded. The only thing it failed to do was put OJ behind bars. That would occur another ten years later when OJ was convicted of some nasty stuff related to an ill-conceived effort to retrieve some of his own memorabilia. He is in jail as of this writing and may be released as early as next year.
How is it that despite being judged not guilty in Los Angeles and getting custody of his children, the Santa Monica trial went against him. I think there were three things: prejudice, OJ's "issues," and his real goal, keeping his children.
I contend that America's racism, noted by foreign scholars every generation since the mid-nineteenth century, was the dominant reason. The very thing the Los Angeles jury was accused of motivated the Santa Monica jury. In the mythos surrounding race in America, there is no way a Black man could be allowed to go free once he is accused. Deep within our culture is the view that there is only right and wrong, good and evil, black or white, There are no shades of gray, not alternatives to guilty or innocent. And, of course, "we" are on the right, the good side. That leaves no room for anything but evil and wrong on the other. It must be pretty deep within us because we become irrational trying to sustain this bifurcated view of the world and people around us when it comes to race. Being an ethnic in America is pretty scary. Just ask any of your ethnic acquaintances.
Next, I contend that OJ's personality was not that helpful to him. His desire to protect his family from the invasion of his and Nicole's privacy came across as defensiveness and avoidance rather than as respect for the dead and protection of his children. The charm with which he had been successful all his athletic career and into his acting/broadcasting careers was seen as shallow and inappropriate. His impatience with those who did not let him be the center of the universe came across as mean-spirited. There may even have been the effects of head injuries plus the constant arthritic pain he was in from his football days which were not understood at the time but seen as just plain nastiness.
Finally, the civil trial and the custody hearings were going on at the same time, meaning that he could not be in both places. His priority was his children and so the jury at the civil trial did not see him every day their trial was going on. The lawyers had done their job of protecting a lot of OJ's wealth so even losing in Santa Monica was no big deal. Losing his children would have been something he could not bear.
So OJ lost the civil trial. The Browns would get something to compensate for their loss and the Goldmans would get nothing, actually, though they would continue trying in other ways. And OJ got his children.
Yes, even though OJ won two out of three trials, it is the "other" one that is clung to by those who do not want to believe OJ might have actually been innocent. It may well have been a set up for just that purpose. And it succeeded, I am convinced, because OJ was more interested in keeping his family together than playing that game.
Actually, there were three, the criminal trial, the civil ("other") trial, and the child custody hearings. Let me speak about each of the three so that we can put the "other" trial into perspective.
The criminal trial began at the end of January, 1995, seven months after the murders. The "Not guilty" verdict was read on Oct. 3, 1995. The trial took place in the city of Los Angeles downtown mainly because the DA's office, resources, and staff were there. That meant the jury pool was mixed racial, reflecting to some extent the population of that city which was some miles north west of where the murders took place.
The "third" trial was the custody hearing for OJ's and Nicole's two children. I'm not sure yet where that was held but I presume in some location where the hearing judge had Brentwood within her jurisdiction. That concluded December 20, 1996. There was no jury since it was a custody hearing to determine if the children should be in the custody of OJ or of Nicole's parents who had them while OJ was in jail. Recall he was arrested June 17, 1994. On October 3, 1995 he was freed by the criminal jury's verdict. The Browns appealed the hearing judge's decision favoring OJ and on Nov. 10, 1998, the case was remanded back for rehearing by an appeals court with OJ retaining custody until the case was resolved. - One recent source indicated the Browns and OJ reached an agreement out of court.
The "other" trial, the civil case brought by the Goldmans (Ron's parents) and the Browns (Nicole's parents) began October 26, 1996, and ended January 17, 1997, with the verdict coming down on February 5, 1997. It was held in Santa Monica, the nearest large city to Brentwood, because it was a location handier to those bringing the lawsuit against OJ. The jury was consistent with the population of Santa Monica, 9 white, 2 blacks, and 1 Asian American.
Notice that both the child custody hearing and the civil trial occurred at the same time. OJ won the custody hearing, for which his children were glad, according to a news report quoting the children's lawyer. - In child custody hearings, the court appoints a lawyer to protect the interests of the children. They were eight and eleven at the time.
Remember that OJ's lawyers were looking ahead from the moment OJ was arrested to not only handle the criminal trial but to protect as much of his income and resources as possible against wrongful death lawsuits and child custody suits. The first wrongful death suit was brought six weeks after the murders! OJ needed to have the means to support his family whether or not he won the criminal trial. The "other" trial had as its main purpose stripping OJ of any wealth he had as punishment for the deaths of Nicole and Ron. The law provided some protection against complete financial ruin in such cases: money in certain trusts, pension, and residence are usually untouchable so that the one who is sued can survive. State laws vary and can be changed but usually the one sued is not left completely destitute.
Everyone recalls that there was a great divide in the country over the criminal jury's "Not Guilty" verdict. The mixed racial jury was called too stupid to understand the DNA evidence, too racially oriented to allow another of their kind to be convicted, too insensitive to spousal abuse, and too attuned to the allegations of police brutality against ethnics to be objective. The white community believed that with eight African Americans, two Hispanics, and only two white persons on the jury, the prosecution didn't have a chance.
I will address all of that in a post related to the last episode of the AMERICAN CRIME STORY series.
But for now, needless to say, the "other" trial was set up in a place where the outcome was far more likely to be what the white community wanted. It was far more supportive of the police than any in the city of Los Angeles would have been at the time. (Detective Fuhrman was not a witness and was not even mentioned during the civil trial!). The level of proof needed was not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "preponderance of evidence," which is closer to the level of proof needed for "probable cause." Because the civil case did not involve a possible death penalty or incarceration, the level of proof did not need to be very high. It was only to settle financial responsibility and provide the respective families for the loss of their loved ones.
Civil action also did not require a unanimous verdict, just 9 of 12 jurors had to agree. Remember the jury in the civil case consisted of 9 whites, two blacks, and 1 Asian American.
The Santa Monica civil trial became far more, however. For the white community, it became a setting in which to overturn the criminal trial verdict. And it succeeded. The only thing it failed to do was put OJ behind bars. That would occur another ten years later when OJ was convicted of some nasty stuff related to an ill-conceived effort to retrieve some of his own memorabilia. He is in jail as of this writing and may be released as early as next year.
How is it that despite being judged not guilty in Los Angeles and getting custody of his children, the Santa Monica trial went against him. I think there were three things: prejudice, OJ's "issues," and his real goal, keeping his children.
I contend that America's racism, noted by foreign scholars every generation since the mid-nineteenth century, was the dominant reason. The very thing the Los Angeles jury was accused of motivated the Santa Monica jury. In the mythos surrounding race in America, there is no way a Black man could be allowed to go free once he is accused. Deep within our culture is the view that there is only right and wrong, good and evil, black or white, There are no shades of gray, not alternatives to guilty or innocent. And, of course, "we" are on the right, the good side. That leaves no room for anything but evil and wrong on the other. It must be pretty deep within us because we become irrational trying to sustain this bifurcated view of the world and people around us when it comes to race. Being an ethnic in America is pretty scary. Just ask any of your ethnic acquaintances.
Next, I contend that OJ's personality was not that helpful to him. His desire to protect his family from the invasion of his and Nicole's privacy came across as defensiveness and avoidance rather than as respect for the dead and protection of his children. The charm with which he had been successful all his athletic career and into his acting/broadcasting careers was seen as shallow and inappropriate. His impatience with those who did not let him be the center of the universe came across as mean-spirited. There may even have been the effects of head injuries plus the constant arthritic pain he was in from his football days which were not understood at the time but seen as just plain nastiness.
Finally, the civil trial and the custody hearings were going on at the same time, meaning that he could not be in both places. His priority was his children and so the jury at the civil trial did not see him every day their trial was going on. The lawyers had done their job of protecting a lot of OJ's wealth so even losing in Santa Monica was no big deal. Losing his children would have been something he could not bear.
So OJ lost the civil trial. The Browns would get something to compensate for their loss and the Goldmans would get nothing, actually, though they would continue trying in other ways. And OJ got his children.
Yes, even though OJ won two out of three trials, it is the "other" one that is clung to by those who do not want to believe OJ might have actually been innocent. It may well have been a set up for just that purpose. And it succeeded, I am convinced, because OJ was more interested in keeping his family together than playing that game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)