Marcia Clark is full of .... - O.J.: Made in America (2016) Discussion

[–] Melancholy11 8 years ago

I found it amusing that she was so confident in this documentary while interviewed. She is a big reason the case was lost. Both her and Darden couldn't hold a candle to the dream team. The defense lawyers were so much more talented and had better educations.

It is a no brainier that they wrote books to cash in and Darden became a defense attorney himself.

I saw Marcia Clark once around 2000 at a drug store. She was with another woman and is a well known lesbian. I wanted to say something to her regarding the trial but I just walked on.

reply

[–] marcag 8 years ago

She seemed to blame everyone but herself. I have heard her blame herself in other interviews. Perhaps they just didn't put it in this doc. They probably interviewed her for a few hours and only used a few parts.

They really did blow it. To be fair OJ's lawyers were brilliant.

reply

[–] mwaldeck2003 8 years ago

I think some people need a reality check.
First of all, lesbian? Really? So if I go to a drugstore with one of my female co-workers, that makes me a lesbian? BTW I am not, I am married and have kids. If a guy goes to a bar with one of his buddies, he is gay? Really?
Second of all, she has blamed herself on numerous interviews. She and Darden have both said at the end of the day, they take the blame. It is not their fault, the jury did not give a crap. DNA is really common sense and that jury did not have it. Even one of the jurors said 90 percent of them said it was payback for Rodney King. And of course the African American jurors did not like Darden trying to prosecute Simpson. Darden said he knew the jurors did not like him and it was evident. The jurors had a no guilty mind set before the case even started.

reply

[–] wowjonesgg 8 years ago

" DNA is really common sense and that jury did not have it." That's all well and good, except for the piss poor collection techniques by LAPD forensics. During the case, no one noticed any blood on a pair of socks collected from Simpson's bedroom until two months later at the crime lab. Defense experts suggested blood was smeared on them while they were lying flat not while someone was wearing them.

Another criticism during the trial dealt with a vial of blood taken from Simpson. Police Detective Philip Vannatter drew Simpson's blood at the LAPD on June 13, the day after the killings. But instead of booking it into evidence, Vannatter put the blood vial in his pocket and went to Simpson's home where criminalists were collecting evidence.

Jurors questioned why he would have carried it around for hours rather than booking it and the defense argued it may have been used to plant evidence such as blood drops on Simpson's front walkway.

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Jurors questioned why he would have carried it around for hours rather than booking it and the defense argued it may have been used to plant evidence such as blood drops on Simpson's front walkway.

That was an incredibly stupid argument from the defense and doesn't say much for the jurors' intelligence, either.

The blood drops on Simpson's driveway and in his foyer and been long collected in the morning. Vannater didn't arrive back at Rockingham with the blood vial until the afternoon, so it being used to plant blood there was a literal impossibility.

Not only that, but even if he'd had a time machine to do it, the collected blood would have had the same high levels of EDTA as the blood in the vial, obviously, and there was none. Even the defense didn't try to claim that.

During the case, no one noticed any blood on a pair of socks collected from Simpson's bedroom until two months later at the crime lab. Defense experts suggested blood was smeared on them while they were lying flat not while someone was wearing them.

Well obviously they did notice it during the case, or it wouldn't have been brought into evidence. But it is true they didn't notice it until a month or more after they were booked into evidence. I can understand why they didn't see the blood at Rockingham -- blood on anything black wouldn't be visible to the eye. However later, back at the lab, with the proper equipment and lights, they should have seen it sooner.

There were also many small spots of Nicole's blood on both socks -- blood that had sprayed from her, become airborne, and landed on his socks in the area between where his pants legs covered and where his shoes covered them.

But the transfer stain does bother me.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

where did the blood on the fence come from , it wasn't in the photo on the day of the crime scene yet 25 days later they discover it ? where did that blood come from when it was clearly not there the day of the murder

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I don't know. Maybe it was the angle of that shot and it actually was there that day. Maybe it wasn't there. Either way, they didn't need that blood on the gate, the rest of the evidence was overwhelming.

Let me ask you, why would they wait 25 days to plant blood there? Just that one drop? And why wouldn't it have the same levels of EDTA in it that the blood in the vial had?

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

their expert says it was not there on the day of the murder , 25 days later its there , in and of it self its not important h/e when part of the OJ defense is that these cops will plant evidence then the blood drop is consistent w/ that theory , why offer it if it wasn't relevant ? they felt it was important to offer it , yet it was proven it wasn't there , the OJ defense was not based on furman alone , there was other evidence and this was part of it

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Again,

Either way, they didn't need that blood on the gate, the rest of the evidence was overwhelming.

Let me ask you, why would they wait 25 days to plant blood there? Just that one drop? And why wouldn't it have the same levels of EDTA in it that the blood in the vial had?

The blood on the gate was noted in one or more of the officers' reports, on the night of the murders.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

O.J. Simpson's Blood Was Planted on the Back Gate. Most of the blood samples from the crime scene were collected on June 13, 1994, the day after the murders; but the three blood stains on the rear gate were not collected until July 3, 1994. According to the prosecution account, these stains were simply missed during the initial collection and were only noticed later. According to the defense account, these stains were not collected the day after the crime because they were not there at that time. The defense offered a powerful piece of evidence to support the planting theory. A photograph taken the day after the crime shows no blood in the area of the rear gate where the largest and most prominent stain was later found. Barry Scheck introduced this photo during his cross-examination of criminalist Dennis Fung. After displaying a photograph of the stains that Fung collected on July 3, Scheck then showed the photograph of the rear gate taken on June 13. In one of the more memorable moments of the trial, Scheck pointed to the area where the largest stain should have been and demanded, "Where is it, Mr. Fung?" Mr. Fung had no answer, nor was Scheck's question ever answered by the prosecution.

The defense argued that the planting theory was consistent with the quantity and condition of the DNA in the samples from the rear gate. The other samples collected at the crime scene, including those from the front gate, were highly degraded and contained little typeable DNA. By contrast, the samples from the back gate contained high concentrations of undegraded DNA. The defense argued that these samples should have been somewhat degraded had they been exposed to the environment for three weeks before being collected.

The planting theory was also supported by the FBI tests, which showed evidence of EDTA in the samples from the back gate.
http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~jweiss/laws131/unit3/simpson.htm

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Again,

Either way, they didn't need that blood on the gate, the rest of the evidence was overwhelming.

Let me ask you, why would they wait 25 days to plant blood there? Just that one drop? And why wouldn't it have the same levels of EDTA in it that the blood in the vial had?

Are you going to answer my questions or not? I've done you the courtesy of answering yours.

BTW, the guy who actually did the tests for the defense said he never said there was EDTA in the blood in that drop.

reply

[–] bythelake123 8 years ago

BTW, the guy who actually did the tests for the defense said he never said there was EDTA in the blood in that drop.

This. He said it had similar qualities as EDTA, but it was not EDTA. Let's just say even if it was, EDTA does occur naturally in very small levels. If blood was planted from a test tube containing EDTA, the levels would be extremely high, not in the small, minuscule quantities that they were found in just 2 of the blood samples (the socks and the back gate at Bundy). And the compound found was not actually EDTA.

reply

[–] bythelake123 8 years ago

their expert says it was not there on the day of the murder , 25 days later its there , in and of it self its not important h/e when part of the OJ defense is that these cops will plant evidence then the blood drop is consistent w/ that theory , why offer it if it wasn't relevant ? they felt it was important to offer it , yet it was proven it wasn't there , the OJ defense was not based on furman alone , there was other evidence and this was part of it

Whose expert said that the blood was not there on the day after the murders?

I agree with a previous poster who said why would they plant just this one drop of blood? If they did plant it, where did they get it? It couldn't have come from the test tube of OJ's blood because the blood drop on the gate had extremely low levels of EDTA in it which would have made it impossible for it to come from the vial of OJ's blood that was drawn on June 13th. They would have had to get a fresh sample of OJ's blood somehow, and just use one tiny drop of it on the gate. OJ was in jail at the time. Did one of the prison guards sneak into OJ's cell while he was sleeping and secretly draw some of his blood and then hand it off to either Fuhrman, Vannatter, Fung, or someone else so they could go plant it on the gate at Bundy? Because you know, all the blood droplets at the scene of the murder, all the blood in OJ's car, all the blood droplets on OJ's driveway and in the foyer of his home were not enough to convict him. No, they had to add that one tiny drop of blood on the gate in order to seal OJ's fate of being wrongly convicted of double murder. And, if they went through all the trouble of obtaining a fresh sample of OJ's blood, why just use one drop of it? Why not put 2 or 3 drops of it on the gate just to be sure?

Or ...

Perhaps the blood was just missed in the evidence collection the first time? Is that a good thing? No, but this case had so much evidence it was almost too much evidence. Marcia Clark had convicted defendants of murder based on just one drop of the defendants blood at the crime scene. One drop, not the multitude of drops that OJ left all over the place. Since it is their job to collect all the evidence that is found in a case, they collected it once it was determined it was not collected with all the other evidence. I think the picture that Barry Scheck used to in court in trying to impeach Fung was from such an angle that you could not see the blood drop. The defense team tried to do the same thing with the videotape from the Rockingham crime scene and state the socks were not on the video, so they were not there and were planted later. They were wrong. Firstly, it was proven that the video was taken after all the evidence had already been collected and secondly, it was proven that the angle from which the video was shot would not have shown the socks because it didn't pan over the exact area where the socks were found anyway. I read in one of the books on this case that the defense team was perfectly aware of these 2 facts, but still argued the socks were planted anyway. This is where this particular defense team really infuriates me. Yes, you do whatever you can to get your client off, but that does not allow you to blatantly lie, IMO.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

i don't know why they waited 25 days , but if it wasn't relevant they would not have offered it nor would it had been admissible so for some reason that i don't know the prosecutor sought to admit this blood drop for what ever reason , you say that the article i site is incorrect , please site an article which i can refer to which is inconsistent w/ the one i sited ,

re the "Perhaps the blood was just missed in the evidence collection the first time"

it isn't in the photo , they took photos of the gate and the blood was not there , even the prosecutors expert says that its not in the photo where it was discovered later , which is consistent w/ the defense theory that the LAPD planted evidence , in fact the prosecutor never tries to say that the photo was inaccurate or mistaken they just ignore it and move on much like a [previous poster has saying well there was other evidence , yes there was but now if they planted this evidence what else did they plant and furman acknowledges that he has previously planted evidence and took the 5 th when asked if he planted evidence in this case

reply

[–] bythelake123 8 years ago

it isn't in the photo , they took photos of the gate and the blood was not there , even the prosecutors expert says that its not in the photo where it was discovered later , which is consistent w/ the defense theory that the LAPD planted evidence , in fact the prosecutor never tries to say that the photo was inaccurate or mistaken they just ignore it and move on much like a [previous poster has saying well there was other evidence , yes there was but now if they planted this evidence what else did they plant and furman acknowledges that he has previously planted evidence and took the 5 th when asked if he planted evidence in this case

The photo that Barry Scheck showed Fung in court, imo, was at such an angle that you could not see the blood drop. Officers and detectives had seen that blood drop, and it was missed by the criminologist when he was collecting the other evidence at the crime scene. OJ's attorneys should be thanking their lucky stars that the blood on the gate was initially missed by the criminologist because it was also noted by the police officers and detectives on the night of the murders that there was a bloody fingerprint on the lock of the gate. A few days after the murders, a locksmith changed the lock and the fingerprint was lost. How do you think the criminologist knew to go back and check for blood on the back gate of Bundy? It was in the notes of the detectives who were on scene the night of the murders, and when they realized it wasn't collected, they went back to immediately do so.

Fuhrman did not admit to planting evidence. He asserted his 5th amendment privilege in regards to using the "N" word and he had to take the 5th for every single question. He could not pick and choose. I think the things that Fuhrman said on the tape are despicable and abhorrent, but he did not plant the glove or any other evidence. It would have been impossible for him to do so.

Yes, I did read your link. The article was written by someone on the defense team. Here's a link for you to read:

F.B.I. Disputes Simpson Defense on Tainted Blood

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/26/us/fbi-disputes-simpson-defense-on-tainted-blood.html

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

that article doesn't say how the blood got there after it was previously photographed and it was not there , even fung says it wasn't there , he doesn't say the photo is not accurate or does not fully depict the entire gate he says its not there , now if you want to say what he should have said , well thats different but according to him and his observation it was not there when the photo was taken , what does your article say about that ?

i read the article and the FBI disputing the defense is not persuasive the FBI crime lab has had its problems and has been accused of falsifying results

"Investigators on Wednesday sharply criticized the Justice Department’s handling of old FBI crime lab problems.

In a sweeping, 138-page report, the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General cited “serious deficiencies” in the work of the task force assigned in 1996 to follow up on potentially troublesome crime lab cases. In some instances, the problems associated with 13 specific lab workers were a matter of life and death.

“We found that it took the FBI almost 5 years to identify the 64 defendants on death row whose cases involved analyses or testimony by 1 or more of the 13 examiners,” investigators noted. “The department did not notify state authorities that convictions of capital defendants could be affected by involvement of any of the 13 criticized examiners.”

The investigators cited the case of death row inmate Benjamin H. Boyle, executed in Texas in 1997 before the task force had a chance to review the crime lab’s role in his conviction."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article24770551.html#storylink=cpy

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Fung didn't say it wasn't there, he said he couldn't see it in the photo.

Do you understand that this guy was a defense witness??

Defense lawyers called the F.B.I. special agent, Roger Martz, to buttress their claims that corrupt police officers removed the Simpsons' blood from test tubes containing an anti-coagulating substance used in laboratories, EDTA, and sprinkled it on the sock and gate.

DNA tests have all but proved that the blood on the sock was Mrs. Simpson's, and that the blood smeared on the gate matched Mr. Simpson's. But Mr. Martz said there was no proof that the chemical on the two exhibits was EDTA and even if it were, that it was not of the concentration found in preserved blood.

"Everyone is saying that I found EDTA, but I am not saying that," said Mr. Martz, chief of the F.B.I.'s chemistry toxicology unit, with a hint of frustration. "I was asked to determine whether those blood stains came from preserved blood. Those blood stains did not come from preserved blood."

All that article you posted says is the FBI lab was backed up so badly, it took them 5 years to process the work for 64 people who needed it done a lot faster. Nothing about any problems in their lab, other than being backed up, no falsifying results.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Assistant Attorney General Christopher A. Wray of the Criminal Division and Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine announced today that a former biologist in the FBI’s DNA laboratory has pleaded guilty to falsifying reports prepared in connection with the evaluation of DNA evidence in numerous cases.

Jacqueline M. Blake, 40, of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, pleaded guilty at a hearing before Magistrate Judge Alan Kay of the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia. Blake pleaded guilty to a one-count criminal information charging that she made false statements in preparing her official government laboratory reports.

Blake faces a maximum sentence of one year in prison and a $100,000 fine. Sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 20, 2004.

In her plea of guilty, Blake admitted that, from approximately August 1999 to June 2002, she authored and submitted over 100 casework reports containing false statements regarding the DNA analysis she performed. Specifically, Blake falsely certified that she properly completed several control tests, knowing that she had in fact failed to perform them. These tests are designed to preserve the scientific integrity of the examination process and the reliability of the test results. FBI and Department of Justice analyses, including the retesting of the evidence in many of the cases, have demonstrated that while Blake’s actions did not affect the outcome in any criminal case in which her test results were presented as evidence, her false statements undermined the usefulness of the DNA tests she performed and, in general, the integrity of the FBI’s DNA lab. The Department of Justice Inspector General has conducted a broad review of the lab unit in which Blake worked and will issue a report in the near future detailing its findings and recommendations.

https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2004/May/04_crm_340.htm

here you go , but i feel no matter what i show you , you will defend the prosecution

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

Nearly every criminal case reviewed by the FBI and the Justice Department as part of a massive investigation started in 2012 of problems at the FBI lab has included flawed forensic testimony from the agency, government officials said.

The findings troubled the bureau, and it stopped the review of convictions last August. Case reviews resumed this month at the order of the Justice Department, the officials said.

U.S. officials began the inquiry after The Washington Post reported two years ago that flawed forensic evidence involving microscopic hair matches might have led to the convictions of hundreds of potentially innocent people. Most of those defendants never were told of the problems in their cases.

The inquiry includes 2,600 convictions and 45 death-row cases from the 1980s and 1990s in which the FBI’s hair and fiber unit reported a match to a crime-scene sample before DNA testing of hair became common. The FBI had reviewed about 160 cases before it stopped, officials said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/federal-review-stalled-after-finding-forensic-errors-by-fbi-lab-unit-spanned-two-decades/2014/07/29/04ede880-11ee-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html

like i said the prosecution relying on FBI crime lab is not so persuasive , but you believe what you want

reply

[–] bythelake123 8 years ago

Another criticism during the trial dealt with a vial of blood taken from Simpson. Police Detective Philip Vannatter drew Simpson's blood at the LAPD on June 13, the day after the killings. But instead of booking it into evidence, Vannatter put the blood vial in his pocket and went to Simpson's home where criminalists were collecting evidence.

Vannatter explained in his book that immediately after taking OJ's blood, he put in in sealed envelope, not in his pocket. He said he drove the blood out to Rockingham because he wanted to put it directly in the custody of the criminologist in charge of collecting evidence in the case. There were no evidence numbers yet from this case because during the time OJ's blood was being drawn, the evidence was still being collected at the crime scenes. If Vannatter did not bring OJ's blood over to the criminologist, he would have had to either lock it in a locker or his desk drawer. Can you imagine the field day the defense would have had with OJ's blood being somewhere in the LAPD, but not yet booked into evidence, and overnight to boot? Can you imagine the stories they would be able to spin with that? Vannatter went immediately to Rockingham and handed off the sealed envelope to Fung, who had just finished processing the crime scene. Vannatter handed off the blood within 3 minutes of arriving at Rockingham according the the police logs. Vannatter took the blood vial to Rockingham, not Bundy where the murders had occurred. If he wanted to sprinkle some of OJ's blood around to frame him for murder, wouldn't it have made much more sense for him to bring the blood to Bundy, where the murders had actually occurred? Also, as someone else had stated, OJ's blood drops at his property did not have high levels of EDTA which would have had to be present in order for them to have come from his test tube of blood. There was EDTA found in very small, minuscule quantities I believe on the socks and on the back gate at Bundy, but that blood also couldn't have been planted from the test tube of OJ's blood because the amount of EDTA would have had to have been thousands of times higher than it was in order for it to have come from that test tube.

During the case, no one noticed any blood on a pair of socks collected from Simpson's bedroom until two months later at the crime lab. Defense experts suggested blood was smeared on them while they were lying flat not while someone was wearing them.

In terms of the socks, the blood wasn't noticed by visual examination because they were dark in color. They weren't noticed until the socks were able to be thoroughly examined. In a case with this much evidence, not everything can be examined on the first day. The smear was thought to maybe occur when OJ took the socks off. Not every little thing during an investigation is going to be explained or known. An investigation is a series of puzzles you are trying to put together from all the evidence/information you have collected. Sometimes you have missing pieces, sometimes you have pieces that don't seem to fit anywhere, sometimes you have pieces that are mysterious and can't be explained, etc. It's the totality of everything put together that paints the picture. Why would someone risk their career, their livelihood to smear blood on one of OJ's socks that already had Nicole's blood drops on them? So really, the defense wanted everybody to believe that everyone from the first cops on the scene, to the criminologists that collected the evidence, to the lab personnel who were running the tests on the evidence were all in on some vast conspiracy to frame OJ for murder? These same people who loved him so much that they looked the other way almost a dozen times when he abused his wife over the years? Wouldn't the easier explanation be that perhaps OJ himself smeared them when he was trying to get them off in the frantic rush he must have been in after the murders? The attorneys in the civil trial put a very good visual together during closing arguments. They had listed all the people that would have to have been lying in order for OJ and his defense team to be telling the truth. They listed 50+ people on their poster board that in some way, shape or form would have had to been in on this vast conspiracy. It was very effective. It shows just how preposterous it is to believe any of the theories of OJ's defense team. Read the book "Triumph to Justice" by Daniel Petrocelli (Fred Goldman's civil attorney). It's a long book, but it's well worth reading it. They put on the case I wish the prosecution would have put on in the criminal trial. The civil trial had a great judge who did not allow cameras in the courtroom, had a gag order in place, and he also did not allow OJ's attorneys to make a mockery of the justice system like they did in the criminal trial.

reply

[–] wowjonesgg 8 years ago

" Vannatter went immediately to Rockingham and handed off the sealed envelope to Fung, who had just finished processing the crime scene. Vannatter handed off the blood within 3 minutes of arriving at Rockingham according the the police logs. Vannatter took the blood vial to Rockingham, not Bundy where the murders had occurred.'

I'm a retired LEO. You get evidence, you book it. You don't travel around with evidence. You don't take evidence home, as Det Tom Lange did with the Bruno Maglia shoes. And you NEVER, EVER take evidence you took at the police station, back to anywhere near the original crime scene. It's known as the chain of custody.

reply

[–] bythelake123 8 years ago

I'm a retired LEO. You get evidence, you book it. You don't travel around with evidence. You don't take evidence home, as Det Tom Lange did with the Bruno Maglia shoes. And you NEVER, EVER take evidence you took at the police station, back to anywhere near the original crime scene. It's known as the chain of custody.

Per the books I have read, there was no place to book it yet because the crime scenes were still being processed. Here's an article I found on Vannatter's explanation of why he brought the blood sample to Rockingham (this was from the civil trial):

Vannatter Tells Why Brought Blood Sample to Simpson Home

http://articles.latimes.com/1996-11-02/local/me-60419_1_philip-vannatter

Also, Lange did not bring the Bruno Magli shoes home with him. The Bruno Magli shoes themselves were never found and likely disposed of by Simpson in either one of his neighbor's trash cans or else at LAX. Lange brought home a different pair of OJ's shoes so they could be used for a size comparison. They were not and never were evidence in this case.

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

I think I'll let you take over, ByTheLake, LOL! Great job.

I have difficulty believing the other poster is a retired LEO, just from reading many of the comments she or he has made.

You're absolutely right: the Bruno Magli shoes were never found, and Lange never took home any evidence. That poster should know this.

reply

[–] wowjonesgg 8 years ago

You book evidence in your station and put it into inventory. Police stations have inventory bags. You create a report and you use a sequential inventory #

O.J. Simpson case taught police what not to do at a crime scene

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/general-news/20140608/oj-simpson-case-taught-police-what-not-to-do-at-a-crime-scene

Detective Tom Lange took evidence—i.e., O.J.’s shoes—home with him overnight—to Simi Valley.

True, though it was a private investigator employed by the defense who discovered in conversation where Lange lived and told Johnnie Cochran. More importantly, it’s true that Cochran hammered that Lang lived in Simi Valley over and over again.

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/03/people-v-oj-simpson-episode-6-recap

reply

[–] stud-kickass 8 years ago

I agreed with what she said most of the time.. but the way she said it, her wording and her condescending tone, it was hard to like her and I could see why the jury didn't like her.

I'm sure OJ's guilty. But it's their job to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And if they put a cop who has said extremely racist things on the stand, and he pleads the fifth to having planted evidence. And then you have the prosecution, not the defense but the prosecution, have OJ try on the gloves, and they don't fit.. That's reasonable doubt.

I would rather have a guilty man be free than an innocent man be locked up. Like I said, I honestly feel OJ is guilty, but the prosecution should have done a better job otherwise it just sets up a bad precedent for all the trials where the accused actually is innocent.

reply

[–] nameismike69 8 years ago

Marcia in the interview was acting and looking more feminine ( as much as she can get ) . Marcia has that type of personality that certain women have just has a hard tone of voice that would intimate anyone. Usually police women and attorneys. They have to compete with the men.

reply

[–] fede_4488 8 years ago

WTF is this sexist BS? What is this, 1994?

If I don't reply, you're most likely on my ignore list

reply

[–] nameismike69 8 years ago

Marcia in the interview was acting and looking more feminine ( as much as she can get ) . Marcia has that type of personality that certain women have just has a hard tone of voice that would intimate anyone. Usually police women and attorneys. They have to compete with the men.

reply

[–] nameismike69 8 years ago

Marcia in the interview was acting and looking more feminine ( as much as she can get ) . Marcia has that type of personality that certain women have just has a hard tone of voice that would intimate anyone. Usually police women and attorneys. They have to compete with the men. OJ got off because of the race thing nothing else. No DNA no evidence nothing but OJ and race even if OJ didn't know he was black.

reply

[–] I_Love_Netflix 8 years ago

Yeah I can't stand her either. She was told repeatedly that female black jurors were responding poorly to her, but picked them anyway.

reply

[–] mwaldeck2003 8 years ago

Um well it wasn't her fault it was tried in L.A and they picked the best jurors they felt they had at that time.

reply

[–] Lydia12 8 years ago

Marica has as many excuses for her trial mistakes as she has hair styles. What a mess she is.

reply

[–] mwaldeck2003 8 years ago

But yet prior to Simpson, she won the majority of her cases.
Give me a break. Not the Prosecutions fault once again, that Mark was a racist. It was not definitely her fault 90 percent of the jury said it was payback for Rodney King prior to the case even starting.

reply

[–] Lydia12 8 years ago

Marcia picked the jury. Marcia was too stupid to understand that her pandering condescending attitude might be offensive to women on that jury, as well as men. She was too stupid to understand that her whole approach to the domestic violence thing was played wrong. Those women on the jury (as well as plenty of other women watching on TV) knew that Nicole was no angel. They knew that Nicole was the one who reeled OJ back in after they split up. He was moving on, she would't let him go. Nicole made a play for OJ's best friend. Whether she did or didn't have an affair with Marcus...you don't do that to a guy like OJ and expect that it will ever be forgotten. Many women on that jury looked at Denise crying on the witness stand and they didn't think oh that poor women her sister was killed. They thought Denise (and Nicole?) is probably the type who would make a play for my husband if she had the chance. I'm not blaming Nicole. She seems to have been a wonderful mother and a good friend etc. I'm simply saying that Marcia 's disingenuousness about Nicole's role in the dysfunctional relationship with OJ might have cost her the sympathies of some women on the jury.

reply

[–] gioconda91423 8 years ago

OJ's team spent $250,000 to hire a specialist in jury selection from Chicago -- who happens to be female. Paid off.

Prosecution did not have that kind of money in the budget for jury selection.

reply

[–] tango09212 8 years ago

johnny cochran didn't need help in selecting a L.A. jury , in the black community JC was a fighter against injustice , there was a black newspaper called the centinal which championed JC and his fight again st the LAPDC in numerous cases , he was the man there were his people and it was timely ,

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Then I guess he was just stupid and paid $250,000 for nothing?

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wowjonesgg 8 years ago

One juror said 90% of jurors voted that way as payback. Not very compelling

reply

[–] candacbap-88-377616 8 years ago

I don't think any prosecutor could have won this case. The collecting of the evidence was botched. I cannot understand why the Bronco was impounded the night of the murder.

reply

[–] cadeduelg-59371 8 years ago

Very self-serving

reply

[–] Geek_XX 8 years ago

She's obviously still bitter and angry about it.

Can you blame her? But she needs to admit that she and Darden messed up.

True, they didn't have a chance in hell that OJ would be found guilty considering the Jury selection, but overall, she and Chris were outmatched and outclassed in every turn by the dream team.

reply

[–] mwaldeck2003 8 years ago

I do not see how ANY Prosecutor at that time could have won the case.
Sorry, but the glove mishap should not prove that O.J did not do the crime. He was acting and pretending it did not fit. And considering how Clark has won what 18 out of 20 cases prior to that? Does not seem to be that is someone who is "outmatched" and "outclassed". And you can throw an incompetent Judge who let the defense run the table. The Prosecution made mistakes, will not deny that, but the jury just did not care and was in denial that O.J was guilty.

reply

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Sorry, but the glove mishap should not prove that O.J did not do the crime. He was acting and pretending it did not fit.

That is true. He was "trying to put the gloves on" by pinching the ends of the fingers of the gloves, which is what you do when you're trying to loosen gloves to remove them. Splaying his fingers. Doing everything he could to not get them on.

I do think the prosecution was outmatched, though. Simpson had hired many of the most high profile attorneys in the country, and even had Dr. Lee and Baden as their expert witnesses. Dr. Lee had volunteered to help the prosecution, but they turned him down, so the defense got him. Big mistake.

reply