Dude I caught that. CrazyArrogant murdering scumbag is OJ. The comment OJ made the night he surrendered and was driven out of his residence by the cops. He says to them What are all these "N's" doing in Brentwood?
just straight up eerie man..
What a Con job his team of lawyers did, if any of them still alive they should be in jail for knowingly defending a cold blooded killer.
was the show better than the series on FX??
was the show better than the series on FX??
He's where he needs to be. Out of society. In a cage like the animal that he is. Karma catches up. He will get out of prison at some point and he'll likely find his way back-----like hardened criminals most always do.....
And yet there are people that still believe he didn't do it......
eMac
Loved the earlier series on the trial. But, that was a made for tv drama about the trial alone.
This current program is a documentary about the life and times surrounding and including OJ. So far, I've loved learning about his upbringing in SF, stardom at JUCO and transfer to the bright lights of LA at USC. His avoidance of black activist athletes (eg Ali, Bill Russell, Jim Brown, etc) was striking. "I'm not black, I'm OJ."
He loved immersing himself in rich, white social circles accepting the praise and being the model black athlete all could love. Until things got off track a bit......
Phenominal Documentary. Ezra did an amazing job bringing in different perspectives and adding more context. Great all around.
There are no winners, only losers, when it comes to homicide. Unfortunately our court system allowed this to become the circus that it became, particularly allowing outside influences into it. The court system and attorneys practicing law all need some reform starting with the fvck sticks in congress.Just finished all Five Parts on the live stream on Watch ESPN...
GREAT JOB by Ezra Edalman. Brilliant.
First and foremost, Ezra does a great job of juxtaposing the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's-1970's to OJ's early life at USC and in the NFL What is particualry interesting is the fact that OJ's father was gay and that OJ saw his father engaging in homosexual activities at an early age- the psychological impact of this event becomes important in the context of OJ's relationship with Nicole.
Second, I thought Ezra gave the public a unique perspective about OJ an endorser of so many products. During the 1970's and 1980's, Corporate America did not have a lot of black people has their "face" to promote certain products. Hertz, Chevrolet, RC Cola, etc... all paid OJ big time, unprecedented money, to promote these companies, mostly because OJ was a superstar athlete, but also because OJ was not a controversial black movement black man. OJ had that charming, good looking smile and he was exactly what Corporate America wanted during that era as someone who could resonate and relate to Anglos. In a way, Corporate America used OJ in a way that I think people underestimate, and I think (purely speculation) that OJ's control, manipulation, and abuse of Nicole was in certain respects a retaliation and revenge on Corporate America. Nicole being white represented white Corporate America which OJ was harboring anger against for many years... Just at theory on my part, but I think I am on to something.
Ezra transitions the documentary into the late 1970's and 1980's, when there were multiple incidents of racism, police brutality, and violations of civil rights by the LAPD... I don't think anyone can dispute that, and Ezra brings in compelling footage and interviews from different people to talk about this issue. This is important because it leads up to the Rodney King riots and provides context as to why race was so important in OJ's trial.
Then we get to the systematic pattern of abuse, control, and ultimately Nicole's death. This is a very interesting dynamic. We saw a beautiful "power" interracial couple in Nicole and OJ that was relatively uncommon during that timer period in the 1980's. My impression of Ezra's Part 2 and Part 3 was that from a psychological standpoint, OJ really viewed Nicole as a trophy. A beautiful, blonde, white, 18 year old girl as a trophy woman who he could control, manipulate, and ultimately abuse. OJ, at that time, was a man of incredible success, fortune, and fame. A man who earned all of his success on the field as a Hall of Fame Running Back, and off of the field as both a gifted and created actor, broadcaster, and role model. OJ was someone transcended race on an unprecedented level- his intelligence is HIGHLY UNDERRATED in light of everything that is discussed about OJ. OJ is a BRILLIANT man. But, this brilliance could not be used to control Nicole in a way that OJ wanted to control her. He was insecure, and the threat of his white trophy wife even looking at another man triggered an incredible amount of rage within OJ...
To this day, we don't know who killed Nicole and Ron... Most of us may think OJ did it, but I won't go that far. OJ hired arguably the best legal team ever hired to defend a high profile American. Shapiro; F. Lee Bailey; Cochran; Scheck (DNA Mastermind); Kardashian; and Carl Douglass, who is often not credited with the excellent work he did defending OJ... OJ's team was simply TOO GOOD for Marcia Clark and Chris Darden and the Prosecutors' Team... TOO GOOD. People often criticized Cochran for playing the proverbial "race card" during the trial and turing the "OJ Trial" into the "Mark Furhman Trial", but a constitutional law attorney, I think Cochran did a BRILLIANT JOB defending OJ. Just brilliant. Cochran and Shapiro and those defense attorneys were a MILE AHEAD of the Prosecution as far as what to aspect, what to anticipate, and what to prepare for- that's what you pay big bucks for in defense attorneys. The Prosecution butchered the OJ case about 5-7 different ways, and OJ was absolutely entitled to an acquittal under the law. Whether or not the jurors disregarded the evidence and emotionally voted for racial reasons is irrelevant, in my opinion, because Marcia Clark and her team simply did NOT prove that OJ committed those murders BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. There were MANY REASONABLE DOUBTS.
OJ's not-guilty verdict may have been the result of the black community getting back at the city of Los Angeles and the LAPD for a disgusting, inexpleciable not-guilty verdict for the officers acquitted of the Rodney King beat down. Maybe that was an eye for any eye justie. Maybe. But for me that is all irrlevelant, because at the END OF THE DAY, the Proseuction led by Marcia Clark did NOT prove her case on behalf of the victoms BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Period. The Defense team won that case.
Overall, I give Ezra Edalman's Five Part Documentary an A-, It delivers on so many levels- it brings perspectives to issues of a case that is still hotly debated. Fantastic job.
Just finished all Five Parts on the live stream on Watch ESPN...
GREAT JOB by Ezra Edalman. Brilliant.
First and foremost, Ezra does a great job of juxtaposing the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's-1970's to OJ's early life at USC and in the NFL What is particualry interesting is the fact that OJ's father was gay and that OJ saw his father engaging in homosexual activities at an early age- the psychological impact of this event becomes important in the context of OJ's relationship with Nicole.
Second, I thought Ezra gave the public a unique perspective about OJ an endorser of so many products. During the 1970's and 1980's, Corporate America did not have a lot of black people has their "face" to promote certain products. Hertz, Chevrolet, RC Cola, etc... all paid OJ big time, unprecedented money, to promote these companies, mostly because OJ was a superstar athlete, but also because OJ was not a controversial black movement black man. OJ had that charming, good looking smile and he was exactly what Corporate America wanted during that era as someone who could resonate and relate to Anglos. In a way, Corporate America used OJ in a way that I think people underestimate, and I think (purely speculation) that OJ's control, manipulation, and abuse of Nicole was in certain respects a retaliation and revenge on Corporate America. Nicole being white represented white Corporate America which OJ was harboring anger against for many years... Just at theory on my part, but I think I am on to something.
Ezra transitions the documentary into the late 1970's and 1980's, when there were multiple incidents of racism, police brutality, and violations of civil rights by the LAPD... I don't think anyone can dispute that, and Ezra brings in compelling footage and interviews from different people to talk about this issue. This is important because it leads up to the Rodney King riots and provides context as to why race was so important in OJ's trial.
Then we get to the systematic pattern of abuse, control, and ultimately Nicole's death. This is a very interesting dynamic. We saw a beautiful "power" interracial couple in Nicole and OJ that was relatively uncommon during that timer period in the 1980's. My impression of Ezra's Part 2 and Part 3 was that from a psychological standpoint, OJ really viewed Nicole as a trophy. A beautiful, blonde, white, 18 year old girl as a trophy woman who he could control, manipulate, and ultimately abuse. OJ, at that time, was a man of incredible success, fortune, and fame. A man who earned all of his success on the field as a Hall of Fame Running Back, and off of the field as both a gifted and created actor, broadcaster, and role model. OJ was someone transcended race on an unprecedented level- his intelligence is HIGHLY UNDERRATED in light of everything that is discussed about OJ. OJ is a BRILLIANT man. But, this brilliance could not be used to control Nicole in a way that OJ wanted to control her. He was insecure, and the threat of his white trophy wife even looking at another man triggered an incredible amount of rage within OJ...
To this day, we don't know who killed Nicole and Ron... Most of us may think OJ did it, but I won't go that far. OJ hired arguably the best legal team ever hired to defend a high profile American. Shapiro; F. Lee Bailey; Cochran; Scheck (DNA Mastermind); Kardashian; and Carl Douglass, who is often not credited with the excellent work he did defending OJ... OJ's team was simply TOO GOOD for Marcia Clark and Chris Darden and the Prosecutors' Team... TOO GOOD. People often criticized Cochran for playing the proverbial "race card" during the trial and turing the "OJ Trial" into the "Mark Furhman Trial", but a constitutional law attorney, I think Cochran did a BRILLIANT JOB defending OJ. Just brilliant. Cochran and Shapiro and those defense attorneys were a MILE AHEAD of the Prosecution as far as what to aspect, what to anticipate, and what to prepare for- that's what you pay big bucks for in defense attorneys. The Prosecution butchered the OJ case about 5-7 different ways, and OJ was absolutely entitled to an acquittal under the law. Whether or not the jurors disregarded the evidence and emotionally voted for racial reasons is irrelevant, in my opinion, because Marcia Clark and her team simply did NOT prove that OJ committed those murders BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. There were MANY REASONABLE DOUBTS.
OJ's not-guilty verdict may have been the result of the black community getting back at the city of Los Angeles and the LAPD for a disgusting, inexpleciable not-guilty verdict for the officers acquitted of the Rodney King beat down. Maybe that was an eye for any eye justie. Maybe. But for me that is all irrlevelant, because at the END OF THE DAY, the Proseuction led by Marcia Clark did NOT prove her case on behalf of the victoms BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Period. The Defense team won that case.
Overall, I give Ezra Edalman's Five Part Documentary an A-, It delivers on so many levels- it brings perspectives to issues of a case that is still hotly debated. Fantastic job.
AD , there was no doubt . The blood didn't magically get from the scene of the crime to OJs house 3 miles away. There has never been any evidence that Furman did anything wrong. His tape discussions with some fiction writer was irrelevant and highly prejudicial. I suppose that they argued that they were introduced to impeach Furmans testimony, but I still don't get why the state did not object to the initial questions regarding his use of the N word.
The whole defense was based on notion that maybe, possibly, could be a situation where race may have come into play. Or that the forensics weren't perfect . But the evidence was compelling looked at from a non biased perspective