The People V. . . . Episode Five

This episode sets the two main themes, battered women and racism, into juxtaposition.  For Jeffrey Toobin, from whose book this series was adapted, and practically all of those who believe OJ was guilty, the presumption that a spouse abuser can take the step up to murder settled the question of guilt, and the "race card" was a strategy to blind the jury to the "mountain of evidence" against OJ.  

Is it possible that racism was the actual dynamic for the accusing of and arrest of OJ and evidence manufactured to point at him and that the spouse abuse issue was used to blind the jury to the facts and in the process justify the racism?  My unsolicited opinion is that both are heinous and need to be set aside as we try to find the evidence that leads us to what really happened.  Unfortunately, drama lends itself to bringing in emotion and this series is good drama, no matter what the truth of the case was.  Also unfortunately, this episode makes the defense look like the racism defense was contrived simply for the sake of winning.  

Fortunately, this episode also shows some sensitivity to just how scary it is to be a black man in a white society.  Johnny Cochran was harassed by the police when he was an assistant DA early in his career.  Chris Darden saw he was being used because he was African American.  It was quite a moment when he persuaded Marcia Clark to take over questioning of Mark Fuhrman.  The drama of that moment was right on: she really had no clue what putting Fuhrman on the stand would do to her case.

The view of the series' writers is that every move by the defense was contrived.  That was illustrated in three ways.  First, it showed the way Cochran staged OJ's mansion.  That was really driven home by the fact that the condo was left unfurnished while OJ's mansion was gussied up.  I want to remind you that the condo was an empty commercial property, was on the market not long after the murders in June of 1994, and the jurors did not get to see the two sites until nearly a year later.  The prosecution had not anticipated that the condo would be empty and made no effort to bring in the very things that would have shown Nicole being a mother and a human being with a life.  

Did you notice that there were no scenes of the outside where the murders occurred?  Neither was there an effort to show the walkway at Rockingham where the bloody glove was found and how it related to the entrance to OJ's house. 

The second effort to show Cochran contrived the defense was in the conversation between Cochran and Darden about Darden's concern to show respect to one another.  Cochran looked bad in the scene because he said respect didn't matter.  Winning was all that mattered.  That conversation was not shown to be nuanced.  All lawyers by the nature of our adversarial trial processes are out to win.  And respect does not require one side to agree with the other.  Disagreeing cannot always be agreeable in the courtroom.

I liked how the argument between Darden and Cochran about the use of the "N" word was shown.  Don't forget the argument occurred before the jury was brought in.  Darden urged Judge Ito to prohibit the use the racial epithets on the grounds that they would enflame the jury and blind them to the evidence.  Cochran forcefully countered that the African American members of the jury heard that word and worse every day and were grown up enough to look past them in considering the evidence.

The third effort to show Cochran was a manipulator was the discussion about how juries accepted the best story and that the Defense would just have to tell a better one.  One key line may have gone unnoticed because it was set amidst the emotional discussion: "They will accept the story that covers the facts best."  In my experience working on defense of accused pastors, I saw how the prosecution's narrative, especially when it could use a very emotionally loaded cause to enrich its telling, like victimizing women, became very hard to overcome with a narrative that better accounted for the facts.  Cochran must have been very good at neutralizing the prosecution's story in the other cases he won fighting for justice for African American victims of police brutality.  

This episode brings up several other interesting things but let me touch on only one more, the dinner party of Judge Ito's friend, Dominic Dunn, at which the battered woman issue is brought up.  The host said that Nicole's parents were the ones who insisted that Nicole stay with OJ after the incidents of alleged abuse occurred.  Earlier in this episode, Marcia Clark had said there were 62 such incidents.  Somehow I find it hard to believe that even the loving grandparents would force her back into a violent relationship 62 times.  In the reading that I did, I saw only five.  One is too many, of course, but what actually happened in each and why are important.  While most battered women are victims of bad men and too many are killed upon separation from those men, there are rare situations where the woman is the violent one.  There are also instances where the woman contrives or makes up situations as a way of setting up a very lucrative divorce.  Being OJ's spouse was a very lucrative spot to be in.  To be divorced from him could also be very lucrative.  

We can examine that possibility just like we can the possibility that Cochran was only using the race card to manipulate the jury.  But neither will lead us to a meaningful conclusion about OJ's guilt or innocence.  Only legitimate evidence will do that.

We need to see what evidence is brought up by the series writers, which is inaccurate or inadequate, and which is ignored.  "Just the facts, Ma'am."

O. J. Simpson’s “Confession” Part 2

Five years ago, OJ tried to publish a book that told his side of the story and included a “confession” which he called “hypothetical.” The last I’d heard, the book was not published because of the Goldman law suit against it.

Turns out that the Goldmans were given the rights to the book and decided to publish it after all.

The library had a copy so I read it this past week.

OJ spent 90 percent of the story describing his marriage to Nicole and its break up. His story was what had been pieced together by Freed and Riggs eight years earlier but had more details which I found persuasive. He was married to an energetic, confrontational, and caring woman who got caught up with a crowd of drug-users and partiers. I do not think he was the spouse abuser poster boy he was made out to be by the anti-abuse movement peaking at the time.

He spent a few pages on his early life and first marriage and a few pages on his reactions to the news of the murders and the police arresting him. The slow “chase” in the white Bronco was revealing because he said why he decided not to commit suicide.

The “confession” chapter was pretty lame because it really did not fit into the narrative, ignoring such facts about his arthritis and his incredible patience with Nicole based on his commitment to parenting established in the rest of the book.

The “confession” also included things that could not have happened.

I reported my findings to my friend who said he was not surprised. “You wouldn’t believe it if OJ came up to you and said he did it.”

He was right! I’d have asked him a ton of questions because I did not think the facts I had would support a confession and he would have to show me how it was possible. I could be persuaded but, for example, he would have to tell me about the cobwebs he encountered just hours before Mark Furman went through them during his investigation.

My friend didn’t think I could ever be shown OJ did it so I challenged him if he was open to the possibility that OJ was innocent.

“Only if someone else confesses,” he wrote back.

I think the killers are long since dead just to prevent that from happening. Besides, can anyone get past the roadblocks to the evidence held by the LAPD. Is anyone else even interested because of the overwhelming prejudice against OJ?