FX's "American Crime Story: The Assassination Of Gianni Versace (Season 2)

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by Lacit170

doesnt your #4 and #5 contradict each other? you say it seems pretty straight forward hes guilty but then you say most people believed he was innocent but if asked now, people think hes guilty. i dont think any of that is true anyway. i think the show depicted clearly enough that race was the reason he got off and thats the only reason. personally, i cannot recall knowing anyone who thought he was innocent back then or today

Nope. My #4 & #5 don't contradict each other:

4) If OJ didn't commit these heinous crimes, how did his blood/DNA end up at the murder scene?! And, how did the blood/DNA/hair of Nicole & Ron end up all over his car, his house, etc.?! Going along with this, IIRC he had cut(s) on his hands when he was caught. His guilt seems straightforward to me.

My point in #4 was that there was so much physical evidence he should have been found guilty.

5) Re: the outcome of the trial: it's interesting that back in '95, based on the jurors' decision - most of the jurors in the trial obviously didn't believe OJ was guilty....nor did all of the people who cheered when the innocent verdict was reached. However, these days, if you talk to most people they'll say they believe OJ was guilty....

My point in #5 was that back in the '90's when the trial took place, obviously the jurors at the time chose to ignore the plethora of physical evidence & vote towards an innocent verdict. Why?! Possibly because they genuinely believed that he was framed. Ditto re: all of those who cheered when he was found innocent.

Also following up with what I said in #5, despite the fact that many cheered when he was found innocent - it's interesting that these days most of the people you talk to believe he was guilty.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by Lucky Luciano

Fuhrman was gonna be put on that stand come hail or high water...if the prosecution doesn't call him then the defense would have certainly called him as a hostile witness and cross examined him the same way...the racist LAPD out to get OJ was their whole argument so they needed to trap Fuhrman

i think the glove incident was the nail in the coffin...thats gotta the biggest failure in court history...now thats something you let the defense demonstrate so even if it doesn't fit you still have a leg to stand on by saying it shrunk/OJ acted and it was smoke and mirrors

Our point is the prosecution helped out the defense by putting him on the stand. The point you are missing when the prosecution calls him to the stand they he is seen as someone on their side 'how dare they put this racist cop as their key witness' and had the defense called him to the stand it looks desperate to go after his past racial history. They did a lot of the work for the defense and made it easier to counter attack.

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

I completely agree here. If the defense had initiated bringing MF to the stand & also had OJ try on the gloves, it wouldn't have been nearly as damaging as what actually happened - i.e. the prosecution doing both of these things. Not only did it make the prosecuting team look like fools, it also made them look like they had completely lost control of their case - which they had.

I agree that the prosecuting team did the defense's work for them - which was ridiculous.

I also am not 100% sure the prosecution would have done either of these things - at the least, I feel they would have been hesitant to have brought MF to the stand - but, who knows?! We'll never know at this point what could have happened here, unfortunately.

I don't think the gloves were as damaging as MF; as I mentioned in an earlier post, everyone saw that OJ had to put on latex gloves before he put the leather gloves on, so it seems obvious to me why the leather gloves didn't fit. And, I'm not sure why the prosecution didn't bring up both that & the fact that leather shrinks when it gets wet. Though, I guess at that point the damage had already been done.

[bootsy]

Originally Posted by Lucky Luciano

well saying this was a big conspiracy of the racist LAPD out to get OJ was pretty desperate lol...their case relied on far fetched theories because there was far too much evidence that pointed at OJ...so they had to challenge the validity of that evidence at all cost...they split hairs on every piece

the defense getting him up there and asking him that question was good for them either way...if he says yes he looks bad, if he says no then everybody knows hes lying and it would also back him into a corner...don't forget ppl had already said they heard Fuhrman use racial epithets before

it was pretty unfortunate for the prosecution that Fuhrman of all people had to find the glove...it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation...i don't believe for a second it wouldn't have came into fruition had they not called him and wouldve only ended up looking like they were hiding him

defenses argument had the prosecution not called him "see, they were trying hide the truth from yall. these officers were so untrustworthy they were scared to call them to the stand in fear of us exposing them...so why should the evidence these officers found thats being presented be trusted?" damning

if you want say one way reflected the prosecution worse than the other, thats fine. my point was more to say they were screwed 6 ways from sunday the moment Fuhrman found that glove....they had word he was racist so you think they weren't gonna exploit that? please that was their whole case

Yeah that's not even close to what I said or my point. If that is what you got out of what I posted you won't ever get it.

[surfdude12]

Originally Posted by Lucky Luciano

well their argument that this was a big conspiracy of the racist LAPD out to get OJ was pretty desperate lol...their case relied on far fetched theories because there was far too much evidence that pointed at OJ...so they had to challenge the validity of that evidence at all cost...they split hairs on every piece

Exactly. The whole race thing should never have been allowed. There is just as much evidence (none) the LAPD framed him for his race as there is that they framed him for being a former NFL player or for being a USC grad or for being a wife beater. So you might as well quiz LAPD "do you hate football players?" "do you hate wife beaters?" Its not about Fuhrman - its about Ito allowing questions that had no relevance to the facts.

There has to be some standard on questions that are asked. Can the prosecution ask every defense witness if they've used the N word? Why not? Throw the question out there. The jury will automatically assume you've used it just by the question. That's how stupid this circus gets when you throw out the rule book on questions that can be asked.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Exactly. The whole race thing should never have been allowed. There is just as much evidence (none) the LAPD framed him for his race as there is that they framed him for being a former NFL player or for being a USC grad or for being a wife beater. So you might as well quiz LAPD "do you hate football players?" "do you hate wife beaters?" Its not about Fuhrman - its about Ito allowing questions that had no relevance to the facts.

There has to be some standard on questions that are asked. Can the prosecution ask every defense witness if they've used the N word? Why not? Throw the question out there. The jury will automatically assume you've used it just by the question. That's how stupid this circus gets when you throw out the rule book on questions that can be asked.

This is all very easy to say for someone who has never had to deal with the reality of being a minority in a country where minorities, particularly blacks, are viewed as guilty until proven innocent by a certain subset of law enforcement. Racial profiling and police brutality in the greater Los Angeles area were out of control at that time and mistrust of law enforcement in the black community was completely justified.

Being white and saying that suspicions of police misconduct should have no place in a murder trial merely serves to underscore the perceptual fault lines along race that existed in America at that time...and frankly still exist.

If you've never been the victim of police misconduct, of course you're going to view Cochran's strategy with disdain and disbelief. And you're going to say that Ito should never have allowed that line of questioning. But if you have been a victim, you're going to say how could you not allow it? Without it, they never would've uncovered tapes of Mark Fuhrman strongly suggesting that the planting of evidence was a common practice in the LAPD.

That being said...of course OJ did it.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Lucky Luciano

found a interview where Marcia talks about putting Fuhrman on



Vincent Bugliosi who is an amazing prosecutor also says you have to put him up there
---

theres really no choice here, the guy found the bloody glove on OJ's property that was the match for the one found at the crime scene...you gotta either toss his evidence or call him....its that simple

the mistake here was made by Judge Ito WHO WENT AGAINST THE RULEBOOK to allow the defense to ask such a question when there was zero evidence that Fuhrman planted that glove

even in theory Fuhrman planting that glove is illogical. it would have took unbelievable circumstance and unbelievable circumstance for it work the way it did

the prosecution mistake was not really breaking down how ridiculous and illogical the conspiracy claims were...i think they over estimated the jury on this and thought like anybody with common sense could see it was ridiculous

Which rulebook are you referring to?

If the defense felt they had reason to believe that Fuhrman was dirty, which he was, then questioning him about his racial beliefs could conceivably have led to revelations that called into question the reliability of the evidence that he collected. Which I believe it did.

None of which prevented the prosecution from aggressively presenting the DNA and the forensic evidence to the jury.

And nothing Cochran or Ito did forced the jury to ignore that.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Lucky Luciano

Vincent breaks it down @ 43:40

VINCENT BUGLIOSI VS. O.J. SIMPSON ("ABSOLUTELY 100% GUILTY") (1999) (PART 1) - YouTube

That's a matter of judicial interpretation.

Ito interpreted that section of the California Evidence Code differently than Bugliosi did with respect to the Fuhrman questioning. It doesn't mean he ignored the rulebook.

People like Vincent Bugliosi are completely out of touch with the reality of race in America when they suggest that racial bias has no place in a murder trial.

...I'm sure he never met a cop that he would've prosecuted for anything.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Lucky Luciano

thats a terrible excuse with the case Vincent laid out IMHO...even if you want to argue Ito interpreted it different it was still the wrong interpretation and it made for a bad ruling that crippled the prosecutions case when it had no merit...he deserves the blame

Vincent even broke down 2 different ways of why it shouldn't have been allowed

1. saying a racial slur doesn't exactly correlate with committing a felony by planting evidence

2. theres zero evidence that Fuhrman planted anything and there was even testimony from 2 other officers that arrived on the scene before Fuhrman that there was only one glove
----

sure there may have been cases where a innocent black man was framed but in this case "it doesn't fit"...you expect me to believe Furhman arrived at the murder scene and came to the conclusion that either OJ is guilty and needed to make sure they got him or he just came up with some wild idea to frame OJ?

in doing so he got all these other officers and detectives to buy into this and go along with it putting their asses on the line? please thats ridiculous

thats not to mention how would they even pull it off successfully. for one they had no idea what OJ's alibi would be...its hard to frame a man eating at McDonalds and signing autographs during the murders

second they had no clue what they would encounter at Simpsons that could throw off their elaborate (read: poorly thought out) plan. luckily no one was home to intercept them and they were free to plant what would be incriminating blood evidence in the bronco to get on to his property legally

let me stress again: this is all without knowing OJ's alibi

miraculously the only person that could foil their plan, Kato, heard some banging on the back wall that night and let them go check it out and gave these detectives a great place to plant and discover the glove...please...i was born at night but not last night...far too illogical

there i broke down how ridiculous it was to think he planted the glove and the very reason Ito shouldn't have allowed it...it had no relevance

I couldn't care less what Vincent Bugliosi has to say about anything.

He's spent the last 40+ years using the Manson murders to keep his name in the public eye.

He wasn't involved in the OJ Simpson trial.

I never said I thought that Fuhrman or anyone else actually planted evidence in the case. I have said on more than one occasion that I think OJ is guilty. But that's a separate issue from whether his attorneys should've been allowed to explore the possibility that race could've played a factor in the investigation.

They had reason to believe that Fuhrman was a racist. They dared him to claim that he had never used the n-word in the previous ten years. He lied about it. They caught him in that lie and in the course of doing so uncovered hours of tape that showed Fuhrman was a raging bigot who acknowledged that police brutality and evidence manipulation were a part of LAPD culture.

Then he pleaded the 5th when asked a direct question about whether he planted evidence against OJ Simpson.

And there is nothing in the language of the 5th amendment that says it can't be used selectively by a witness...that it's an all or nothing proposition...that if you invoke it in response to one question then you have no other choice but to invoke it for all questions.

Fuhrman had good reason to use it up to that point, because he was on tape making all sorts of damning statements about general law enforcement practices. Then he was asked specifically about his actions in the OJ Simpson case. The idea that he had no other choice but to plead the 5th, simply because he had already invoked it in response to previous questions is absurd.

At a bare minimum it raises legitimate questions about his credibility as a witness. And one could make the argument that it opened a small crack of suspicion into the possibility that he may have done something improper during the course of collecting evidence.

That may all seem like unethical hogwash to someone who has never been the victim of police misconduct. But to the many people in minority communities who have, it seems very relevant in a trial where a racist cop is offering testimony about the evidence he collected against a black suspect.

And I'll leave it that...otherwise someone is inevitably going to get suspended before too long.

Either way...fantastic television show.

[bootsy]

Lucky Luciano you are trying wayyyy too hard. Just stop already. The show and the case is what it is. Bringing up youtube clips and all and going back and forth with everybody is extremely tiresome. My/our opinions aren't going to change no matter how many times you try. The show was great and that is what this topic should mostly be about. You have turned this into your own agenda to reinvent this trial.

[Tony208]

Starting my binge of this show and I can't stop laughing whenever the Kardashians are on screen

[varmintx]

Originally Posted by Tony208

Starting my binge of this show and I can't stop laughing whenever the Kardashians are on screen

Given the "point" the show is making, their screen time serves a purpose.

[Tony208]

Binged the whole season and it was incredible. Vance was sensational as Cochran and made you buy whatever he was selling. The rest of the cast was very good as well except for the weak links in Cuba and Travolta.

I have no doubt it would be a slam dunk conviction today as long as things like chain of evidence and crime scene integrity were done proper, but the case took place when forensic evidence was still a relative unknown. All you had to do is tell a story and Cochran won when he spun it into a race thing. At that point it didn't even matter if he even did it anymore, they just had to get him off for all the times other people were wrongly convicted. That and the missteps by the prosecution.

Don't know if the upcoming season about Katrina will be as compelling as this.

[blurayfriend]

Originally Posted by Tony208

Don't know if the upcoming season about Katrina will be as compelling as this.

It doesn't feel like a Crime Story, at all. I don't think Ryan Murphy should get to just do whatever he wants whether it makes sense or not, he toys with his audience too much and tries to foist his agenda on them. (by this I mean his agenda of complaining about Katrina as worthy of the "Crime" title rather than "Natural Disaster,", not denying what happened or anything)

[Rodney-2187]

O.J. Simpson parole hearing is live.

[Rodney-2187]

Parole granted.

[JamesKurtovich]

Great show. Cuba Gooding, Jr. might be the least OJ-like actor ever though.

[BluProofie]

Season 2 is off to a fun start. Love Cruz as Donatella.

[Hawkguy]

Originally Posted by BluProofie

Season 2 is off to a fun start. Love Cruz as Donatella.

Yeah, found myself looking forward to next week as soon as it ended

[Impossible]

Ep 1 was dreadfully directed.

WTF was with all those bloody pans, I felt whoosy for an hour.

Ep 2 was great though.

Criss and Cruz are fantastic!