The People V. . . . Episode Ten (I) Comments

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.

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.