The People V. . . . Episode Four

The opening exchange between Johnny Cochran and OJ gave Jeffrey Toobin the title of his book, THE RUN OF HIS LIFE.  Cochran found OJ to be desperately depressed and did what he could to boost his morale.  Cochran had already told him he believed in his innocence.  Cochran then told of his own experience with depression.  Some years before, his work was going badly.  He was in divorce.  And he only had a football game against the Packers to watch.  The Packers were in steep decline at the time.  But they played a great game that day, winning and keeping OJ to only one touchdown.  Cochran said that what helped him overcome his own depression was that despite how that game was going, OJ had gotten up after every tackle and went back at it again the next play.  Thanking OJ, he described this trial as the run of his life and challenged him to get up and get after it every time he was knocked down.

This episode offered some information about Ron and Nicole.  The Goldmans described to Marcia Clark what a good guy Ron was and how he had been stabbed so terribly.  (More on the stabbing another time.)  I waited to see if the series writers would include Ron’s excellent athleticism.  But instead of saying Ron was helping coach his brother’s high school tennis team, they only touched on Ron’s volunteering for some children’s program.  That implied that Ron was a weak and helpless victim, a very inaccurate impression to give.

Nicole’s character got no specific information from the writers but they brought up how Black women tended to perceive her as a gold-digger.  And they had the Reznick character talk about cocaine parties and fights with OJ as signs of Nicole’s strength.  But Reznick herself was portrayed as a flake hooked on cocaine.

From my reading on the case, I learned that Faye Reznick indeed was a coke-head.  She stayed at Bundy in Nicole’s condo until a few days before the murders.  The only reason Reznick was not at the condo was that she finally took her friends’ advice and went into residential rehab treatment.   There was a possibility that Reznick had a stash of cocaine for which she had not paid the cartel and it may have been at Bundy the night of the murders.

Nicole and Ron Goldman were considering opening a restaurant together with Reznick.  Many Brentwood area restaurants were financially viable because they were selling cocaine on the side.  But Reznick had to clean up her act or there could have been no deal.  I hope the writers show that it was pure coincidence that Ron showed up when he did and did what he could to save Nicole.

This episode portrays the conflict within the dream team.  Egos were involved.  Shapiro was sometimes condescending as was shown in the scene with F. Lee Bailey.  But probably the telling moment in the conflict was when Shapiro made up a scenario that OJ would admit guilt and plea bargain.  When Cochran and Bailey pushed back, Shapiro asked who believed OJ was guilty.  No one raised a hand, not even Alan Derschowitz.

By this time, the defense had a pretty good idea about the quality of the evidence against OJ and what they could do to show its inadequacy.  They also had something else, a timeline which they felt proved OJ could not have done the murders.  The series writers did not either want to share that information or they did not know of it.  But that the dream team showed unanimous disagreement with Shapiro said a lot.

In a recent article in the papers, family members of the victims complained that no one talked with them before the series was televised.  But no one from the series consulted with anyone but the writer of the book on which the series is based.  OJ was not consulted.  I doubt Shapiro was either!

The writers of the series are writing for drama and not a documentary.  They are taking some license with the story and there seems to be a bias toward the side of the victims’ families and the LAPD.  The closing moments of this episode point to a conflict between Cochran and Chris Darden.  That particular drama will be one subplot to watch for sure but let us not lose sight of the evidence that slips in around the edge of the drama.  That is why I am here.

The Run of His Life, the People V. OJ Simpson

OJ didn’t do it.

Ten years ago, I undertook a careful study of the OJ Simpson case.  It became the backdrop of a novel I wrote at the time in which I solved the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.

Hardly anyone believed me.

Now “American Crime Stories,” a fairly popular television show is presenting a series about OJ's case.  Blurbs about the series say it does not attempt to give full evidence but seeks more to dramatize the dynamics surrounding the case such as police-on-Black violence, spousal abuse, and privilege of the wealthy.  Even so, it still must offer evidence or it could not accurately portray the story.  I will be looking to see if the evidence is adequately provided or if it is left out or inaccurately offered.

You know I believe he was innocent. You must also know that the book on which the TV series is based, THE RUN OF HIS LIFE, is written by someone who believes OJ is guilty.  Jeffery Toobin says as much in the book.  Update: He reaffirmed his belief again on March 5 in a NewYorker Magazine essay.

There are three other books that I found to be very helpful in terms of the real facts presented as objectively as possible and one that really unintentionally pointed out how the police went after OJ.

In addition to the Toobin book, Lawrence Schiller’s AMERICAN TRAGEDY, which is told from the perspective of Robert Kardashian, is a must read.  The next book that deserves serious regard is KILLING TIME by Donald Freed and Raymond Briggs.  The fourth book is MADAM FOREMAN by Amanda Cooley who chaired the jury for their trial deliberations.  While Toobin and Schiller started out objective, they both turned against OJ in their updated editions.  Freed and Briggs do not commit to a solution to the murders but add new information, give critical data like the autopsies, and raise major questions about the prosecution's timeline of the murders.  The Cooley book provides grounds for their “not guilty” verdict as well as an articulate statement about the jury members themselves.

Every other book I read was mostly self-serving.  On OJ’s side, the books by Cochran, Shapiro, and Derschowitz were more about their own great careers and less about OJ’s innocence.  Marcia Clark, Chris Darden, Fred Goldman, and all the others on the prosecution side did what they could to minimize anything that would have exonerated OJ and chose only to include what would convict him.  

The worst was MURDER IN BRENTWOOD by Mark Fuhrman.  Yet his book showed some of how the framing of OJ occurred.  And Fuhrman didn’t even realize he was doing it!

I need to tell you that my work since 1980 as an advocate for ministers in trouble gave me a perspective.  I helped with many cases of pastors accused of some nasty stuff and had to sort through everything to come up with a reasonable reconstruction of the actual events, if they even occurred.  In those cases, people lied, sometimes the accuser, sometimes the accused, sometimes both, and sometimes the church leaders handling the case.  

There are several techniques that I learned to help me identify what were facts and what were misrepresentations in nearly all those cases.  One is the development of timelines based on what was said by each person involved or witnessing or handling the matter for the church.  That gave me “what they knew and when they knew it.”  Comparing timelines opened up each case to where gaps and inconsistencies existed and usually led to lines of investigation that found the crucial facts resolving the case.  The book that took that approach was KILLING TIME.  As you watch the series, you may want to take notes and put them into chronological order for yourself.  

Finally, did the series leave out important information?  Did it include things that were not in evidence or proved?  As I have the chance over the ten weeks of the series, I will critique each episode and hopefully give you good reason to look again at your opinion about the crime, whether you agree with me or not.