Eric Champlin, Your statement is emotional and illogical. The Jury acquitted him because the Prosecution failed to overcome, defeat and thus, go beyond the reasonable doubt presented against every fact that necessarily supports the case of OJ's guilt. Only one reasonable doubt that is not overcome would lead to his acquittal as mandated by the law. But if the Prosecution failed to overcome all reasonable doubts then it is just fair and just to acquit OJ. That is the adversarial nature of the American criminal justice system which many Americans unfortunately do not understand or even accept in OJ's case (because he is black). Consider the Jury Instruction below: QUOTE: However, a finding of guilt as to any crime, may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proof circumstances are not only consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion. Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance upon which such inference necessarily rests, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. UNQUOTE: The consequence of a single failure by the Prosecution to overcome, defeat and thus, go beyond the reasonable doubt against any of the fact that necessarily supports the inference that establishes the Defendant's guilt is ACQUITTAL. But as it was, the Prosecution failed to overcome, defeat and thus, go beyond all the reasonable doubts against all the facts that necessarily support the inference that establishes the Defendant's guilt. So why blame the Jurors for their unanimous verdict of acquittal? They are just following the law represented by the Jury Instruction.
Bradley R Can't resist the chance to drive the racist train into the station. I always know that train never fails to arrive. The jury did the right thing. Too much reasonable doubt. Black ppl don't have a problem convicting other blacks. There were too many inconsistencies in her presentation, and she was too college professor about it. You can present the best evidence, but if you lose the ppl by a boring monotonous, overly technical presentation, it's all for naught.
Oh please. Marcia Clark turned every witness that didnt fit her agenda into a hostile witness. Her harassment of witnesses got so bad, Judge Ito told her to stop. Prosecution had 43 attorneys on payroll and they still couldn't convict OJ.
Not only that the whole prosecution team already made their minds up that he did it because they had all the evidence pointing to him they felt they didn't need to do much work to prove he did it they spend to much time talking about stupid stuff
I thought she was amazing here. I could watch this forever. I question the jury for not being able to understand the overwhelming evidence presented to them.
Marcia did her best to reeducate the combined low IQ of the jurors. She is such a great attorney. She won 20 out of 21 murder prosecution trials prior this one. The distractions the defense had were that of a racist cop, naive and unknown DNA handling by evidence staff and a divided nation after the Rodney King riots in LA. She did one helluva job despite that. She won in the court of public opinion and most of the jurors feel he is guilty now.
Mad men - i mean mad white men (still) The only low IQ here - is yours. What people think today about OJ - is irrelevant - what happened in that courtroom is all that matters - Clark - is and will always be a loser in the largest case in history. For all future - all law classes - bold examples of the dream team will be highlighted and mistakes by Clark ridiculed !
Not sure why some people don't like her, I think she's a badass. This speech may be wordy and repetitive but that's the point. She wanted to get it through people's heads that OJ was guilty...while the prosecution made some unfortunate mistakes throughout the case, it did not erase the mountains of evidence presented against OJ...yet somehow they still voted not guilty. Some people even admitted they just voted not guilty as revenge against cases like Rodney King which is unbelievable considering their job was to vote based on the law and evidence presented, not on their feelings. And the side show that is the "dream team"...ugh. Marcia did the best she could in a shitty situation and the jurors at that point didn't give a damn what happened. Clearly.
B Hall Z She sounded confident here, but that wasn't nearly enough. She believed she had won the case by her demeanor. She was in for a big surprise because in my opinion the members of the jury had already come to a conclusion and probably not even listening closely to what she had to say. Perhaps she was condescending, I really don't know or comprehend.
The problem was the education levels of the jury. While in this era of criminal justice DNA evidence is a "must have" for a conviction, during the 90's this was not the case. Post trial interviews show the people did not understand how DNA evidence worked. I believe one person even said "garbage in garbage out".
Actually a jury has no legal responsibility to listen to the law. The judge and lawyers are not allowed to tell them this or suggest it to them but the whole point of the jury system is to give the people the power not the government and so theyre verdict does not have to have anything to do with the evidence or the law. The jury cannot be punished for their verdict and so they can vote in whatever way they want.
What do you mean somehow? It’s obvious why the jury made the correct decision. The prosecution relied heavily on a racist cop. Once the defense proved him a liar, it was all over. That and all the other evidence was weakened by the prosecution. You don’t understand why people don’t like her? Are you kidding?
True! If Marcia was having out side issues about her divorce, child care, Romancing Chris Darden, and badgering her witnesses out of resulting stress issues, she should have down the honorable thing and simply just stepped down from the major case..everybody expierence personal problems, but she allowed that to affect her job performance thus, losing the trial of the century. nice going Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!!
She's kissing the jury's ass, and they know that she really hates them. She's a great attorney and prosecutor, and fought a great battle against the best who ever existed in American court.
He won because he already knew that the prosecution was going to use wat they already have to indite him,so because the blood dna was the main proof they had to find him guilty,while johnny them know that they hired the two guys to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that was the prosecution mistake not trying to dismiss their finding lazy beyond the reasonable doubt
She started so badly....smiling...laughing... Two people were brutally murdered. The whole trial was a circus. Of course he was guilty. Shame on the jury but shame also on the judge for ALLOWING the defense to make it a circus.
They should never have allowed this case to be televised. Thank God in the United Kingdom they do not allow cameras into the court. We would never have a media circus this trial turned into.
The DA's poor prosecutorial team, combined with a tainted jury pool, against a defense lawyer who had the gift of the silver tongue, led to a horrible miscarriage of justice.
The work wasn't sloppy, they were criminals. And as far as Marcia Clark and Mark Fuhrman. Every time he came around her face lit up..... NOW he's a bad guy? Was he a bad guy when she was blushing and grinning ear to ear?
This seemed to me a situation where she wanted to come across as likeable. But instead she comes across as patronising. Her tone keeps reverting to her natural badass version.
Oj knew the gruesome details of the crimescene the whole time. If he didn't do it he knew who did. It was a cold calculated crime of premeditated murder plain and simple.
I don't think it was pre-meditated. I think he was enraged with jealousy due to Nicole fucking another man. and went to the house and lost it. he's still a murderer and deserves life in prison. but if that was pre-mediated it was idiotic because of all the blood and evidence he left behind.
I think she messed up in the beginning with trying to be positive and kissing the jury’s ass but that wasn’t her fault. The world basically called her an uptight bitch and she wanted to ensure the jury knows she was kind. She shouldn’t have tried so hard to look soft. But then again everyone was ripping her apart in the media. But the rest of her closing argument was amazing. She should have spent more time addressing the race aspect of the case. She did go over it but it was VERY brief. That was the biggest flaw in the defense’s argument was that they did not actually prove he didn’t do it. She should have also addressed the implications outside of the case more and humanized OJ more. The biggest obstacle of the jury was that he was black, rich, and famous. If she knocked down every single one of those aspects, they might have had a different verdict. The mountain of evidence was not nearly enough to move the jury. For a regular murder trial that would be more than enough. But at this point and to this day, it will never be remembered as a murder trial. She needed to attack him as a person and they didn’t even put a scratch on him.
Ridiculous comment. Did you even watch this video or the trial? And I'm not talking about the TV series. The defense team clearly proved it wasn't OJ by disproving all of the erroneous 'evidence'. They also don't have the burden of proof, which was said countless times in the concluding statements, so if you think they did a bad job because they didn't prove OJ couldn't commit the crime you are wrong, all they had to do is disprove the prosecutions mountain of doubtful evidence
Presenting evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not only about presenting what they believe are "convincing" evidence against the Accuse. These evidence are always claimed by the Prosecution at their face value as "compellingly incriminating" as to prematurely claim it as "proof beyond reasonable doubt in itself." This is a wrong understanding of the adversarial aspect of the criminal justice system. They need to go through a process of presenting evidence and refuting and defeating the REASONABLE DOUBT presented by the Defense. That is the only way to GO BEYOND it. The reason behind it is that the Defense claimed that the evidence presented by the Prosecution are PLANTED EVIDENCE, thus is is not a question of whether they are convincing at its face value or even of overwhelming number but whether they are even valid evidence at all. The Prosecution must always expect that the Defense will present reasonable doubt to every fact that they present that necessarily supports the INFERENCE (theory of guilt) that establishes the Defendant's guilt. Consequently they need to refute, defeat or overcome every reasonable doubt presented against every fact that supports the inference of guilt. It is the ADVERSARIAL NATURE of the criminal justice system and the greatest burden that the Prosecution must meet. This is the meaning of the statement, proof BEYOND and TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. The last phrase is seldom written verbatim in the Jury Instruction. However that is implied in the Jury Instruction in the OJ criminal trial where only circumstantial evidence are presented. See below. QUOTE: However, a finding of guilt as to any crime, may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proof circumstances are not only consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion. Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance upon which such inference necessarily rests, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. UNQUOTE: The consequence of a single failure by the Prosecution to overcome, defeat and thus, go beyond the reasonable doubt against any of the fact that necessarily supports the inference that establishes the Defendant's guilt is ACQUITTAL. But how do they refute, defeat or overcome the Reasonable Doubt? 1. Like the PROBABLE CAUSE all reasonable doubt must be based on the evidence accepted by the court or the conflict in the evidence and in most cases the absence of evidence to establish guilt. The Prosecution must be alert in exposing the reasonable doubt not being based on the evidence thus making it merely an imagination or being based on a made up evidence that were never accepted and presented in court, or; 2. The Prosecution must show that even though the evidence presented in court are being cited as the basis for the FACT-IN-THE-EVIDENCE that created doubt in the Prosecution's theory of guilt, nonetheless it was arrived at illogically. That is, they must show that the FACT-IN-THE=EVIDENCE is a "non-sequitur" (it does not follow) or; 3. The Prosecution must show that the fact-in-the-evidence, even though it was based and arrived at logically on the evidence presented in court, is irrelevant to any fact that necessarily supports the inference that establishes the guilt of the defendant.
My biggest problem is with the jury. Have they ever regretted for what they have chosen to believe or ignore during that final judgement? Did they really think he was innocent or could there be some personal interest behind the trial? To me, Marcia and Darden didn't fail Nicole and Ron. They didn't fail the two families. Even the system is not to blame at that specific moment. It's those chosen ones, that supposed to be moral statues in the crowd failed to do the only righteous thing - to put the heartless pretentious bastard behind the bars. It's not the right moment to take down the LAPD or the system when two lives are taken in the most vicious way. I felt really sorry for the dead and their families who were so close to get the justice but have to bare witness the chance slipping away because of the stupidity and blindness of the jury.
Easy to be an armchair critic when you probably haven't say through several months of evidence, and drama. The whole point of a criminal trial is for the prosecution to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - which they didn't do. The defence created more than enough doubt regarding the evidence for the jury to have no choice but to acquit him. Dennis Fung the criminologist who was in charge of the scene and gathering all the evidence got shredded to pieces by the defence on the stand. Just go watch it for yourself. It was brutal. Mark Fuhrman perjured himself and then pleaded the 5th when he was called to the stand once again. The Glove The blood evidence on the sock which was highly questionable. F Lee Bailey released a 50-page document on proving the innocence of OJ Simpson several years ago: www.scribd.com/document/46623853/Attorney-F-Lee-Bailey-Releases-New-Evidence-OJ-Simpson-is-Innocent Guilty or not. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. They were outgunned by a highly skilled well-paid group of lawyers.
Mark Cuckerberg: It was not necessary for Marcia Clark to re-educate the jury. The jury had enough life experience and common sense to make the distinction between what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. It is evident based upon the jury's not guilty verdict in favor of OJ Simpson that they did not concur with the prosecution's presentation of the evidence. It doesn't matter how great of an attorney you feel Marcia Clark is and how many murder cases that Clark won. Clark did not win the Trial of the Century and she was greatly outmatched by Johnnie Cochran and the other attorneys on The Dream Team. Clark and Darden were demolished so badly by Cochran that they both resigned in disgrace from the LA County District Attorney's Office. Clark and Darden later became defense attorneys themselves. The prosecution blew their own case. LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman used racial slurs to refer to African-Americans, he boasted about unjustifiably pulling over, beating and planting evidence to frame African-Americans. Fuhrman lied about using the N-word under oath and he was a central witness to the case because he allegedly found one of Simpson's gloves at the murder scene. Even though it was never proven in Court, there is always the possibility that Fuhrman could have planted one of Simpson's gloves at the murder scene. After Fuhrman lied under oath in the Simpson Murder Trial, he later retired and was criminally charged for lying under oath and criminally convicted. Fuhrman was criminally convicted of felony perjury and Fuhrman can no longer work in any capacity in law enforcement. LAPD Detective Phil Vannatter kept a vile of Simpson's blood in his shirt pocket for hours before he finally booked it into evidence. Some of Simpson's blood was missing from the Crime Lab and Simpson's missing blood was never accounted for. Although, it was never proven in Court, there is the possibility that Simpson's blood could have been planted at both crime scenes. The conduct of Fuhrman and Vannatter certainly caused reasonable doubt. Marcia Clark lost one of the most notorious cases in our nation's history and whether or not, most of the jurors think Simpson is guilty is debatable. The Rodney King beating highlighted how corrupt LAPD is and the acquittal of Simpson held LAPD accountable.
the problem with America is that everything has become a television commercial. A sales pitch by by bad salesmen. Just tell me the facts without some smarmy fake-ass sales pitch.
Marcia was giving me a college class while she should have been giving me a college play. Ppl need a story - not a lecture - and she was giving a lecture. That's where she went wrong. I was sympathetic to her tho; she was going thru a lot with her custody and childcare issues. Women have it tough in America.
Isn't it very dangerous if the jury decides on who tells the best story instead of analysing the cold, hard facts? That way innocent people could be convicted and guilty people freed.
True, maybe she could've appealed to their emotions more. Stir them up and convince them that Oj is a cold and dangerous person. Ask jurors to be in the victims families shoes. Play the defense at their own game, then find a way to weave in the facts. Idk..just my take
True, the Defense does not need to prove anything BUT THEY NEED TO CAST REASONABLE DOUBT to the facts presented by the Prosecution that necessarily supports the inference that establishes the Defendant's guilt. Failure to do so would mean they accept without challenge the incriminating evidence against the Defendant and all the facts-in-the-evidence that can be logically drawn from them that establish his guilt. This is gross negligence on the part of the Defense. But to cast reasonable doubt the Defense need to extract information or evidence from the Prosecution's witnesses to serve as antagonistic witness testimonies which they can use to draw conclusions (or facts-in-the-evidence) that cast doubt on the facts-in-the-evidence that necessarily supports the inference that establishes the Defendant's guilt. They need also to get the witnesses that can challenge the conclusions of the Prosecution. What the Defense need not do however, is to positively prove his INNOCENCE by presenting witnesses that can point to the real murderer as he/she or they are unknown to the Defense and also not their duty to do so but the Police.
Marcia Clark was running on 24/7 when it came to this trail and she was under so much pressure and public humliation and I don't know how she held it all together b/c this was 11 months of OJ Simpson and she handled herself and I have so much respect for Mrs. Clark and Sarah Paulson played her and she won an Emmy for it**** Marcia Clark didn't stand a chance against OJ's dream team**** now they are all dead. This case was so huge and everyone was talking about it and people made fun of Marcia even her hair and her personal life.
She's a liar and fucking idiot. She fought like hell for a group of guys she KNEW were criminals. To this day she still claims the amount of EDTA found (in the blood) on the socks and back gate was normal. The FBI even said in court that level of EDTA would kill you, because it's a blood clotting preservative and that the blood came from a test tube.
MS Clark's problem in her closing arguments wasn't about evidence that wasn't collected legally at the scene of the crime ,instead she chose to point out all the mistake that where made. Trying to explain a reasonable doubt to jurors as if their stupid was a big mistake her analogy of the sun rising as a reference in comparison to what constitute reasonable doubt. Her contradictions is in her burden of proof. The burden of proof is solely the responsibility of the state. Trying to say Mark Fuhrman is a racist, but the evidence he found is good and trustworthy is another contradiction, because a racist person has no good intentions. And now her time frame from what was said at trial is totally different. Dogs barking how many people heard dogs barking in the neighborhood? As close as those houses were that entire neighborhoods should have heard a barking dog, but none of witness could say for how long the dog or dogs were barking and that's what the prosecution is basing their time frame on to solve a murder case! They might as well have put the dog on the witness stand. Now once again Ms Clark's timeline is in jeopardy now its closer to 10:30..... she needed to stop repeating herself as we don't know exactly the timeline,. Had the police taken the liver temperature of both Nicole and Ron they could have had an accurate time as to when they were murdered. Not ten hours later, because they found a glove and four little drops of blood and a sock tested two months later with EDTA in it. There's no way a jury would have found OJ Simpson guilty even if the jury was all white jurors as many would have preferred. They would have heard the same thing and they would have found OJ Simpson innocent, because they would have found reasonable doubt several times in this case and the weak closing arguments by both Ms Clark and Darden was pathetic this was a murder case not a domestic violence case. The big difference in this case was that 95% of Ms Clark's convictions were represented by public defenders same as Darden. Now their up against real trial lawyers who don't work for the state. Case over.
@@Tom-lv2mv the jurors weren't stupid they seen the evidence, and also who the evidence was collected by, from the changing of who collected the evidence and how names were changed as to who collected the evidence; and for a Detective to take OJs blood sample to both crime scenes was a huge mistake. They never could explain why EDTA was in OJs blood evidence found at both crime scenes on his socks and the back gate at Bundy. Lying to a judge to get a search warrant. Lying about OJ wasn't a suspect, and then there's Mark Fuhrman who found the majority of the evidence who sat in that witness stand and lied repeatedly and eventually pleaded the fifth amendment and was no longer involved in the case..... there was so much wrong with this case. Ronald Goldman didn't even exist in the case other then he was murdered on Nicole's property. One would be stupid to ignore the obvious that evidence was being tampered with. Had not for the video of detective Vannatter handing OJs blood evidence to Dennis Fung at the crime scene, that would have never been an issue they got caught several times by their own video footage. Blood in Bronco and then going back months later to retrieve evidence little smudges of blood, that truck interior should have been covered in blood. I could see how people on the outside took it because they weren't checking the facts they were caught up in what the media was saying..... They even called it trial of the century, but let's examine that a title carefully! Do you think OJs trial was bigger than Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgway, The B.T.K serial killer, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer? These were the worst and I could have named twenty more, but only one case received the attention of the media and the public OJ Simpson murder trial dubbed, "The Trial Of Century. " But 30 years later Americans are no closer to solving this case, but instead a criminal is running for the Presidentcy and their ignoring all the evidence in that case as well with even more evidence against Donald J Trump then OJ Simpson. Donald J Trump is responsible for the deaths of five people including two police officers January sixth act of insurrection 2021, but he hasn't been charged with a single murder of any of those people that were involved in his insurrection speech orchestrated by Donald J Trump. Yet OJ Simpson a B rated actor, football player, sports castor gets the honors of trial of the century. The Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman case has never been closed, " it will always be a who done it......Luckily for OJ he had the money to fight the LA police Department and expose their many levels of corruption or his @$$ would be in prison right now, because none of those lawyers would have been on his defense team. Reality Suck doesn't it, but the truth really hurts, the police and the prosecution team blew this case.....lying and cover ups are easy to expose when you have money to investigate the people who are charging you with a crime, " It's a different story if your poor."
@@kennethcharles1386 There was no proof of evidence tampering, it was just speculation from the defense side.The EDTA level on the socks was much too low to have come from the reference tube. Also no EDTA was found in other blood drops.There was ample blood, hair, fiber, shoe, glove evidence in this case.It was found everywhere. 12 police officers were there before Fuhrman at Bundt and only saw 1 glove, so there was not even a glove for Fuhrman to pick up and deposit at Rockingham.
@@Tom-lv2mv see that's another lie Mark Fuhrman was the only police officer who made that claim as seeing the cloves even in his own words ( that's when I saw them,but on the witness stand he claimed he miss spoke several times on the witness stand and pleaded the fifth amendment. As for Ms Clark's reasoning for the EDTA was, it's in the foods we eat; and the defense didn't have to prove anything their job was to expose the LA investigation into the murder case and their multitude of mistakes and terrible witnesses and experts witnesses. It got so bad that Ms Clark was trying to explain DNA to the jurors instead of letting her expert witness do it. Instead Ms Clark and Darden who eventually became the scapegoat for losing the trial. In a society built on lies and corruption it's really easy for certain segments of this hypocritical hypocrisy to just ignore the actions of police officers when it comes to others, and Mark Fuhrman as racist as he may have been was given the benefit of humanity by the District Attorney's Office and the prosecutors Ms Clark and I quote directly from Ms Clark, (is Mark Fuhrman a racist " yes! But did he plant false evidence. "No! In his own words on tape recordings he must have said a hundred times that he would frame Black and Hispanics and his hatred for interracial couples were without question, but he to could be ignored by the justice system and the LA police department. Not one single police officer stood up as a character witness for Mark Fuhrman, because they knew he was a dirty cop and worse. Yes he did plant evidence, but like I said there's that element in this society that approves of people who are like the Mark Fuhrman's of the world. "Reasonable doubt " is what was proven by twelve people men and women.
Let’s be real O.j got off not because he wasn’t guilty, he Cleary did the crime, but the reason he got off was because he was famous which is so stupid and annoying. Also how much do the characters look like the actual people 😮
He got off because the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Enough doubt was created. What everyone thinks or says is irrelevant. He might be guilty, he might not be.
why did she not seek other competent lawyers to assist her? OJs team had a few. She wanted to take all the credit for what she thought was a clear cut case. But not realise Furman had planted evidence
Man I wish she just would have drilled the time line into their heads!!!! Why didn't she say over and over HOW COULD HE HAD TIME TO GET ALL 3 blood types planted at OJs house??? She should have pounded the timeline into their heads ..but nooooo she's waaay to nice...goes on and on and on....
If you know anything about the trials, at one point in time Vannatter had all 3 of their blood. He had, OJ's, Nicole's and Ron's. He admitted in the criminal case to having OJ's, in the civil case we found out he went to the coroner and got Ron and Nicole's. And before you give him the benefit of doubt. He admitted in the criminal case IT'S NOT HIS JOB to collect evidence, nor should he be collecting it.
@@Jeromemayle that's not what I mean-- Marcia, in her closing arguments, should have said, look we all know Furman said terrible things but we also know he COULDNT have planted the glove, because he didnt know OJ didn't have an alibi--Furman would have to have known OJ's schedule that night, i.e., what he did, where he went,--see? She should have said no matter how bad of a guy you think Furman is he couldn't have planted that glove!!! Everybody knows it now all these years later--OJ practically admitted it as much in the interview "If I did it"---the prosecution messed up so bad in that case...period. And Marcia's closing remarks to the jury were weak...man she should woke them up....
That judge was such a joke dude had no balls!! Scary ass judge.. The whole trial was just a waste of time oj was gonna get off as soon as he was arrested
Now women are going to come out of the wood work talking about how strong, brave and courageous she was, despite not knowing anything beyond what a TV series literally just told them.
this is 20 years old i'm fairly sure women knew about this shit before a tv god in heaven above let me guess women are vapid clueless creatures to you huh
The jury was bad? The cops were proven to plant evidence. If you don't think they didn't plant evidence - Then your one of the millions of people who never saw the trial.
wow - it's VERY sad that the VICTIMS (not just these two, all victims) are represented by state employees and DEFENDANTS, meanwhile, can hire a "dream team" and get off. It is SAD. She is HORRIBLE at presenting closing arguments and public speaking, in general ! If the STATE had a better attorneys/prosecutor presenting the evidence and giving CONCISE, SHARP CLOSING ARGUMENTS they would have won !!!!!!!! The droning on and on is awful ! THE BLOOD OF RON GOLDMAN, NICOLE BROWN AND OJ SIMPSON WAS *IN* OJ'S BRONCO, IN OJ'S SOCKS AND OJ'S GLOVES..........in my opinion, that's pretty clear that he is the killer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She should have presented the closing short and sweet.........kept to the FACTS.....the blood evidence and the timeline........that ENOUGH would have put him behind bars! At least he is there now ! RIP NICOLE BROWN AND RIP RONALD GOLDMAN. Heartbreaking!
of course.......my sister did it. almost all attorneys that I know start as civil servants I'm just saying this was so wordy and unfortunately the jury was razzle-dazzled by the flashy distractions thrown at them. MC is a good woman and attorney I'm sure - it's just so sad to me how this group came in and just cast doubt over the entire LAPD and it worked- all you need is a shadow of a doubt. So sad...
marcia- immediately interrupted. thank you sir- to Judge Ito. Ms. Clark - “ im a not sir. im a person. Please say thank you Person your Honour. You are my mentor. Been abused/ being given payback now. first case. - given 2 hrs for summation. 1.5 hrs into it, say not crim case what defendants did criminal. his honor: yr time is up. please conclude. subbed to yr trial- and post trial happiness and book.i am target by person no longer doing what his ppl did in 1985. oops. not personal. ctroom packed- everyone crying. no notes. feel like crying even now when said “ seems like ages since told u i want jury trial not judge. dec 9- now mlk weekend. what was this about? money. not rehab. condo conversion - uh new laws. told jury after 1.5 hrs- i lived in this bldg 2 yrs. lived the facts- my clients were shell ahocked bldg destroyed it was ok. They looked to me and organizer to help you. We saw it. Clients cdnt believe- now I take the burden and aid given to me for 2 yrs and give it to you. please punish. so learn not to do again- deter others. oops now its 2018, i am target like bldg and clients. i am shellshocked. who cd have guessed ? thx Marcia- i was very impressed with book, yr interviews, congrats u got life back. My book i began called No Doubt. No Doubt why crazy wacky things done to me last few yrs by mds, attys, local cops, nj gsp - need atty cuz got civil rights violations, false imprisonment. intentional infliction of emotional distress. i have 3d Circuit Fed license, former law prof. no car cuz atty malpractice and ptsd from being trial atty law prof tenure track clinical nite prof cuz wanted 2d career students to get a shot at real court. ACLU person in 2007- hand has nerve damage- from cop- my name is in published case so is rogue cop’s in later case. trusted person related to Senator. cop lawfirm abused me- first physical assault by cops - have lawyer disability insurance covering ability to practice law as jury trial atty. so fucked by atty- really bad. charges changed. cops assault me at food store- tort of outrage.ACLU is bs so is Legal Aid. ACLU sought help. treated real bad. in cthouse at night, wearing black boots with big heel- got up- smacked foot as hard as i cd on cthouse floor. Aclu dude jumped. I dont lie or fib. i felt for you discussing reading juror questionaire #1. it was over. in2007, judges clerk called me as pro se suing rogue cops, town, “ drop the case”. hello ? google me. got no car cuz insurance from atty shd lose license was in cahoots. imagine being in LA no car. insurance 2k since age 17. dropped. cuz plead me out, lied, never met, hurt me, teased me. im 60. chronic pain. cuz believed in Justice my dad taught me so🎏
They all look so much like the actors portraying them. Except Cuba.
Winduct yep just finished watching the people v oj Simpson and all of them look like the actors
The casting director did an amazing job.
Winduct I don't think he has the acting chops to pull it off, but if you gave the rock some hair he would look extremely similar to 1995 O.J
Cuba got the antics and narcissism down portraying OJ
That was some weird casting of Cuba there
OJ could've stood up in the middle of the trial, walked over to the jury and said: "I killed them both" and he still would've been found not guilty.
im so frustrated
bullshit
true! they knew he was guilty. they let him off cause of his skin color.
Eric Champlin lmfao so true .....sick but true
Eric Champlin,
Your statement is emotional and illogical. The Jury acquitted him because the Prosecution failed to overcome, defeat and thus, go beyond the reasonable doubt presented against every fact that necessarily supports the case of OJ's guilt.
Only one reasonable doubt that is not overcome would lead to his acquittal as mandated by the law. But if the Prosecution failed to overcome all reasonable doubts then it is just fair and just to acquit OJ. That is the adversarial nature of the American criminal justice system which many Americans unfortunately do not understand or even accept in OJ's case (because he is black).
Consider the Jury Instruction below:
QUOTE:
However, a finding of guilt as to any crime, may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proof circumstances are not only consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion. Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance upon which such inference necessarily rests, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
UNQUOTE:
The consequence of a single failure by the Prosecution to overcome, defeat and thus, go beyond the reasonable doubt against any of the fact that necessarily supports the inference that establishes the Defendant's guilt is ACQUITTAL. But as it was, the Prosecution failed to overcome, defeat and thus, go beyond all the reasonable doubts against all the facts that necessarily support the inference that establishes the Defendant's guilt.
So why blame the Jurors for their unanimous verdict of acquittal? They are just following the law represented by the Jury Instruction.
Such a brave, brave woman. Chapeau bas.
PLUTREA she brought her AP math binder to a special ed English class. the evidence had little to no potential in this situation.
PLUTREA she brought her AP math binder to a special ed English class. the evidence had little to no potential in this situation.
Bradley R Can't resist the chance to drive the racist train into the station. I always know that train never fails to arrive. The jury did the right thing. Too much reasonable doubt. Black ppl don't have a problem convicting other blacks. There were too many inconsistencies in her presentation, and she was too college professor about it. You can present the best evidence, but if you lose the ppl by a boring monotonous, overly technical presentation, it's all for naught.
smarmy sales lady.
Oh please. Marcia Clark turned every witness that didnt fit her agenda into a hostile witness. Her harassment of witnesses got so bad, Judge Ito told her to stop. Prosecution had 43 attorneys on payroll and they still couldn't convict OJ.
Sarah Paulson would have got him convicted.
that dog could've spoken English it still wouldn't have made a difference
Dallas Bagley who?
She was an excellent attorney but the prosecution made the critical mistake of thinking the black jury would ignore the racial aspect of the case.
Definitely.
They Underestimated the Defence and Couldn't refude all the doubts presented by defence.
Not only that the whole prosecution team already made their minds up that he did it because they had all the evidence pointing to him they felt they didn't need to do much work to prove he did it they spend to much time talking about stupid stuff
"black people don't ignore racial aspect, but white people do" ahahahhahaha you bigots are SO goofy
Ur racist, pls stop.
I thought she was amazing here. I could watch this forever. I question the jury for not being able to understand the overwhelming evidence presented to them.
gerry Way to be part of the problem
Maybe because the lead detective pleaded the fifth to the direct question..did you PLANT evidence..
@@francistamara2 he was going to plead the 5th to any question tho and u dont think the jury saw that
Forensic science was so new, no one understood it. He likely would be in jail if the trial had happened today.
Johnnie was better thats why
Sarah Paulson did such an amazing job with this role
People were so mean to her
Not mean enough
Marcia did her best to reeducate the combined low IQ of the jurors.
She is such a great attorney. She won 20 out of 21 murder prosecution trials prior this one. The distractions the defense had were that of a racist cop, naive and unknown DNA handling by evidence staff and a divided nation after the Rodney King riots in LA. She did one helluva job despite that. She won in the court of public opinion and most of the jurors feel he is guilty now.
Marcia did a good job Johnny was just better but it's ok OJ is going to hell
This is exactly what I was thinking about!
Low iq?????
What makes you say they had a low iq?
Mad men - i mean mad white men (still)
The only low IQ here - is yours.
What people think today about OJ - is irrelevant - what happened in that courtroom is all that matters -
Clark - is and will always be a loser in the largest case in history.
For all future - all law classes - bold examples of the dream team will be highlighted and mistakes by Clark ridiculed !
Not sure why some people don't like her, I think she's a badass. This speech may be wordy and repetitive but that's the point. She wanted to get it through people's heads that OJ was guilty...while the prosecution made some unfortunate mistakes throughout the case, it did not erase the mountains of evidence presented against OJ...yet somehow they still voted not guilty. Some people even admitted they just voted not guilty as revenge against cases like Rodney King which is unbelievable considering their job was to vote based on the law and evidence presented, not on their feelings. And the side show that is the "dream team"...ugh. Marcia did the best she could in a shitty situation and the jurors at that point didn't give a damn what happened. Clearly.
B Hall Z She sounded confident here, but that wasn't nearly enough. She believed she had won the case by her demeanor. She was in for a big surprise because in my opinion the members of the jury had already come to a conclusion and probably not even listening closely to what she had to say. Perhaps she was condescending, I really don't know or comprehend.
The problem was the education levels of the jury. While in this era of criminal justice DNA evidence is a "must have" for a conviction, during the 90's this was not the case. Post trial interviews show the people did not understand how DNA evidence worked. I believe one person even said "garbage in garbage out".
Actually a jury has no legal responsibility to listen to the law. The judge and lawyers are not allowed to tell them this or suggest it to them but the whole point of the jury system is to give the people the power not the government and so theyre verdict does not have to have anything to do with the evidence or the law. The jury cannot be punished for their verdict and so they can vote in whatever way they want.
What do you mean somehow? It’s obvious why the jury made the correct decision. The prosecution relied heavily on a racist cop. Once the defense proved him a liar, it was all over. That and all the other evidence was weakened by the prosecution. You don’t understand why people don’t like her? Are you kidding?
ua-cam.com/video/Zg8su9gCwDw/v-deo.html
The jury was smart enough to see her as she truly is
Marcia was amazing
Hannia Corena She's smart. but d f lee Bailey is too slick and experienced a lawyer.
Amazingly boring
Darden didnt help the argument by sleeping through it.
True! If Marcia was having out side issues about her divorce, child care, Romancing Chris Darden, and badgering her witnesses out of resulting stress issues, she should have down the honorable thing and simply just stepped down from the major case..everybody expierence personal problems, but she allowed that to affect her job performance thus, losing the trial of the century. nice going Marcia, Marcia, Marcia!!
She's kissing the jury's ass, and they know that she really hates them. She's a great attorney and prosecutor, and fought a great battle against the best who ever existed in American court.
Idk about that. Thurgood Marshall was a bad mf
Cochran won with the "Chewbacca defense". God I love South Park
He won because he already knew that the prosecution was going to use wat they already have to indite him,so because the blood dna was the main proof they had to find him guilty,while johnny them know that they hired the two guys to prove beyond the reasonable doubt that was the prosecution mistake not trying to dismiss their finding lazy beyond the reasonable doubt
She started so badly....smiling...laughing...
Two people were brutally murdered.
The whole trial was a circus.
Of course he was guilty.
Shame on the jury but shame also on the judge for ALLOWING the defense to make it a circus.
They should never have allowed this case to be televised.
Thank God in the United Kingdom they do not allow cameras into the court. We would never have a media circus this trial turned into.
*Porque haya camaras y sea filmado no implica que sea un circo.*
Thanks for posting this. It's been deleted on another playlist.
too much detail. You should make it short, clear and concise so that you can get the story easily
+GlobalWatch EXACTLY! That's what I was just commenting on above; I couldn't help but get so frustrated!
Johnnie Cochran's closing argument took 2 days. I get the impulse, but this comment really makes no sense, and that isn't how the law generally works.
do you realize closing arguments go over 2 days easily, especially in a case of this magnitude.
GlobalWatch, clearly you don't know how the legal system works. Johnnie Cochrans closing argument took TWO days bra... TWO.
@@MrKingoverall ok but it worked better for Johnnie Cochran than it did for Marcia Clark. Marcia was not playing on strength in this closing argument.
Imagine being on trial for murder with no motive, planted evidence, and Reese's police officers willing to lie on the stand
The DA's poor prosecutorial team, combined with a tainted jury pool, against a defense lawyer who had the gift of the silver tongue, led to a horrible miscarriage of justice.
I love that Marcia didn't let Mark Fuhrman or the sloppy work of the LAPD slide 8:49 !!! 😄😄😄
The work wasn't sloppy, they were criminals. And as far as Marcia Clark and Mark Fuhrman. Every time he came around her face lit up..... NOW he's a bad guy? Was he a bad guy when she was blushing and grinning ear to ear?
This seemed to me a situation where she wanted to come across as likeable. But instead she comes across as patronising. Her tone keeps reverting to her natural badass version.
reminder no cut on the glove.peace.
Oj knew the gruesome details of the crimescene the whole time. If he didn't do it he knew who did. It was a cold calculated crime of premeditated murder plain and simple.
I don't think it was pre-meditated. I think he was enraged with jealousy due to Nicole fucking another man. and went to the house and lost it. he's still a murderer and deserves life in prison. but if that was pre-mediated it was idiotic because of all the blood and evidence he left behind.
I was able to bring my cat into court
He should of put a time limit on their closing statements
I think she messed up in the beginning with trying to be positive and kissing the jury’s ass but that wasn’t her fault. The world basically called her an uptight bitch and she wanted to ensure the jury knows she was kind. She shouldn’t have tried so hard to look soft. But then again everyone was ripping her apart in the media. But the rest of her closing argument was amazing. She should have spent more time addressing the race aspect of the case. She did go over it but it was VERY brief. That was the biggest flaw in the defense’s argument was that they did not actually prove he didn’t do it. She should have also addressed the implications outside of the case more and humanized OJ more. The biggest obstacle of the jury was that he was black, rich, and famous. If she knocked down every single one of those aspects, they might have had a different verdict. The mountain of evidence was not nearly enough to move the jury. For a regular murder trial that would be more than enough. But at this point and to this day, it will never be remembered as a murder trial. She needed to attack him as a person and they didn’t even put a scratch on him.
Ridiculous comment. Did you even watch this video or the trial? And I'm not talking about the TV series. The defense team clearly proved it wasn't OJ by disproving all of the erroneous 'evidence'. They also don't have the burden of proof, which was said countless times in the concluding statements, so if you think they did a bad job because they didn't prove OJ couldn't commit the crime you are wrong, all they had to do is disprove the prosecutions mountain of doubtful evidence
Presenting evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not only about presenting what they believe are "convincing" evidence against the Accuse. These evidence are always claimed by the Prosecution at their face value as "compellingly incriminating" as to prematurely claim it as "proof beyond reasonable doubt in itself."
This is a wrong understanding of the adversarial aspect of the criminal justice system. They need to go through a process of presenting evidence and refuting and defeating the REASONABLE DOUBT presented by the Defense. That is the only way to GO BEYOND it. The reason behind it is that the Defense claimed that the evidence presented by the Prosecution are PLANTED EVIDENCE, thus is is not a question of whether they are convincing at its face value or even of overwhelming number but whether they are even valid evidence at all.
The Prosecution must always expect that the Defense will present reasonable doubt to every fact that they present that necessarily supports the INFERENCE (theory of guilt) that establishes the Defendant's guilt.
Consequently they need to refute, defeat or overcome every reasonable doubt presented against every fact that supports the inference of guilt. It is the ADVERSARIAL NATURE of the criminal justice system and the greatest burden that the Prosecution must meet. This is the meaning of the statement, proof BEYOND and TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. The last phrase is seldom written verbatim in the Jury Instruction. However that is implied in the Jury Instruction in the OJ criminal trial where only circumstantial evidence are presented. See below.
QUOTE:
However, a finding of guilt as to any crime, may not be based on circumstantial evidence unless the proof circumstances are not only consistent with the theory that the defendant is guilty of the crime, but cannot be reconciled with any other rational conclusion.
Further, each fact which is essential to complete a set of circumstances necessary to establish the defendant's guilt, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, before an inference essential to establish guilt may be found to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, each fact or circumstance upon which such inference necessarily rests, must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
UNQUOTE:
The consequence of a single failure by the Prosecution to overcome, defeat and thus, go beyond the reasonable doubt against any of the fact that necessarily supports the inference that establishes the Defendant's guilt is ACQUITTAL.
But how do they refute, defeat or overcome the Reasonable Doubt?
1. Like the PROBABLE CAUSE all reasonable doubt must be based on the evidence accepted by the court or the conflict in the evidence and in most cases the absence of evidence to establish guilt. The Prosecution must be alert in exposing the reasonable doubt not being based on the evidence thus making it merely an imagination or being based on a made up evidence that were never accepted and presented in court, or;
2. The Prosecution must show that even though the evidence presented in court are being cited as the basis for the FACT-IN-THE-EVIDENCE that created doubt in the Prosecution's theory of guilt, nonetheless it was arrived at illogically. That is, they must show that the FACT-IN-THE=EVIDENCE is a "non-sequitur" (it does not follow) or;
3. The Prosecution must show that the fact-in-the-evidence, even though it was based and arrived at logically on the evidence presented in court, is irrelevant to any fact that necessarily supports the inference that establishes the guilt of the defendant.
We will always remember this verdict..
Mocha Pony Get over it
Marcia has the personality of a Zip code in Kansas
Finding what makes people human is what the trial should take seriously
"EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE PROVES IT - THE PROSECUTION STILL GONNA LOSE IT. I AM OUTRAGED " -johnny b.cochran
If it don’t fit you must acquit
My biggest problem is with the jury. Have they ever regretted for what they have chosen to believe or ignore during that final judgement? Did they really think he was innocent or could there be some personal interest behind the trial? To me, Marcia and Darden didn't fail Nicole and Ron. They didn't fail the two families. Even the system is not to blame at that specific moment. It's those chosen ones, that supposed to be moral statues in the crowd failed to do the only righteous thing - to put the heartless pretentious bastard behind the bars. It's not the right moment to take down the LAPD or the system when two lives are taken in the most vicious way. I felt really sorry for the dead and their families who were so close to get the justice but have to bare witness the chance slipping away because of the stupidity and blindness of the jury.
No, I dont believe not one juror has came out and stated they where wrong. the jurors saw the EVIDENCE. . ua-cam.com/video/XOsc7An-Cco/v-deo.html
Easy to be an armchair critic when you probably haven't say through several months of evidence, and drama.
The whole point of a criminal trial is for the prosecution to prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT - which they didn't do.
The defence created more than enough doubt regarding the evidence for the jury to have no choice but to acquit him.
Dennis Fung the criminologist who was in charge of the scene and gathering all the evidence got shredded to pieces by the defence on the stand. Just go watch it for yourself. It was brutal.
Mark Fuhrman perjured himself and then pleaded the 5th when he was called to the stand once again.
The Glove
The blood evidence on the sock which was highly questionable.
F Lee Bailey released a 50-page document on proving the innocence of OJ Simpson several years ago:
www.scribd.com/document/46623853/Attorney-F-Lee-Bailey-Releases-New-Evidence-OJ-Simpson-is-Innocent
Guilty or not. The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. They were outgunned by a highly skilled well-paid group of lawyers.
I think the jury thought that the LAPD was trying to fame OJ Simpson for the murder.
Mark Cuckerberg: It was not necessary for Marcia Clark to re-educate the jury. The jury had enough life experience and common sense to make the distinction between what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.
It is evident based upon the jury's not guilty verdict in favor of OJ Simpson that they did not concur with the prosecution's presentation of the evidence.
It doesn't matter how great of an attorney you feel Marcia Clark is and how many murder cases that Clark won.
Clark did not win the Trial of the Century and she was greatly outmatched by Johnnie Cochran and the other attorneys on The Dream Team.
Clark and Darden were demolished so badly by Cochran that they both resigned in disgrace from the LA County District Attorney's Office. Clark and Darden later became defense attorneys themselves.
The prosecution blew their own case. LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman used racial slurs to refer to African-Americans, he boasted about unjustifiably pulling over, beating and planting evidence to frame African-Americans.
Fuhrman lied about using the N-word under oath and he was a central witness to the case because he allegedly found one of Simpson's gloves at the murder scene.
Even though it was never proven in Court, there is always the possibility that Fuhrman could have planted one of Simpson's gloves at the murder scene.
After Fuhrman lied under oath in the Simpson Murder Trial, he later retired and was criminally charged for lying under oath and criminally convicted. Fuhrman was criminally convicted of felony perjury and Fuhrman can no longer work in any capacity in law enforcement.
LAPD Detective Phil Vannatter kept a vile of Simpson's blood in his shirt pocket for hours before he finally booked it into evidence.
Some of Simpson's blood was missing from the Crime Lab and Simpson's missing blood was never accounted for.
Although, it was never proven in Court, there is the possibility that Simpson's blood could have been planted at both crime scenes. The conduct of Fuhrman and Vannatter certainly caused reasonable doubt.
Marcia Clark lost one of the most notorious cases in our nation's history and whether or not, most of the jurors think Simpson is guilty is debatable.
The Rodney King beating highlighted how corrupt LAPD is and the acquittal of Simpson held LAPD accountable.
the problem with America is that everything has become a television commercial. A sales pitch by by bad salesmen. Just tell me the facts without some smarmy fake-ass sales pitch.
Can I take you to dinner Marcia??
I think she would be good at motivational speaking
Marcia was giving me a college class while she should have been giving me a college play. Ppl need a story - not a lecture - and she was giving a lecture. That's where she went wrong. I was sympathetic to her tho; she was going thru a lot with her custody and childcare issues. Women have it tough in America.
Paul Haye-Wrong,there was EDTA.
Isn't it very dangerous if the jury decides on who tells the best story instead of analysing the cold, hard facts? That way innocent people could be convicted and guilty people freed.
True, maybe she could've appealed to their emotions more. Stir them up and convince them that Oj is a cold and dangerous person. Ask jurors to be in the victims families shoes. Play the defense at their own game, then find a way to weave in the facts. Idk..just my take
the whole thing was overkill......shes pleading the case again at closing arguments......
I was unaware of the "Domino-Effect" that this trial and verdict produced.
"Inferences" didn't cut it
What is she doing? Smh
She's not doing a good job lol
The show done well with the casting
True, the Defense does not need to prove anything BUT THEY NEED TO CAST REASONABLE DOUBT to the facts presented by the Prosecution that necessarily supports the inference that establishes the Defendant's guilt. Failure to do so would mean they accept without challenge the incriminating evidence against the Defendant and all the facts-in-the-evidence that can be logically drawn from them that establish his guilt. This is gross negligence on the part of the Defense.
But to cast reasonable doubt the Defense need to extract information or evidence from the Prosecution's witnesses to serve as antagonistic witness testimonies which they can use to draw conclusions (or facts-in-the-evidence) that cast doubt on the facts-in-the-evidence that necessarily supports the inference that establishes the Defendant's guilt.
They need also to get the witnesses that can challenge the conclusions of the Prosecution.
What the Defense need not do however, is to positively prove his INNOCENCE by presenting witnesses that can point to the real murderer as he/she or they are unknown to the Defense and also not their duty to do so but the Police.
Marcia Clark was running on 24/7 when it came to this trail and she was under so much pressure and public humliation and I don't know how she held it all together b/c this was 11 months of OJ Simpson and she handled herself and I have so much respect for Mrs. Clark and Sarah Paulson played her and she won an Emmy for it**** Marcia Clark didn't stand a chance against OJ's dream team**** now they are all dead. This case was so huge and everyone was talking about it and people made fun of Marcia even her hair and her personal life.
Top notch Prosecutor and the cards were stacked against her
She's a liar and fucking idiot. She fought like hell for a group of guys she KNEW were criminals. To this day she still claims the amount of EDTA found (in the blood) on the socks and back gate was normal. The FBI even said in court that level of EDTA would kill you, because it's a blood clotting preservative and that the blood came from a test tube.
@ 15:09 How can it even be possible that the sun won't come up tomorrow?
MS Clark's problem in her closing arguments wasn't about evidence that wasn't collected legally at the scene of the crime ,instead she chose to point out all the mistake that where made. Trying to explain a reasonable doubt to jurors as if their stupid was a big mistake her analogy of the sun rising as a reference in comparison to what constitute reasonable doubt. Her contradictions is in her burden of proof. The burden of proof is solely the responsibility of the state. Trying to say Mark Fuhrman is a racist, but the evidence he found is good and trustworthy is another contradiction, because a racist person has no good intentions. And now her time frame from what was said at trial is totally different.
Dogs barking how many people heard dogs barking in the neighborhood? As close as those houses were that entire neighborhoods should have heard a barking dog, but none of witness could say for how long the dog or dogs were barking and that's what the prosecution is basing their time frame on to solve a murder case! They might as well have put the dog on the witness stand. Now once again Ms Clark's timeline is in jeopardy now its closer to 10:30..... she needed to stop repeating herself as we don't know exactly the timeline,.
Had the police taken the liver temperature of both Nicole and Ron they could have had an accurate time as to when they were murdered. Not ten hours later, because they found a glove and four little drops of blood and a sock tested two months later with EDTA in it. There's no way a jury would have found OJ Simpson guilty even if the jury was all white jurors as many would have preferred.
They would have heard the same thing and they would have found OJ Simpson innocent, because they would have found reasonable doubt several times in this case and the weak closing arguments by both Ms Clark and Darden was pathetic this was a murder case not a domestic violence case. The big difference in this case was that 95% of Ms Clark's convictions were represented by public defenders same as Darden. Now their up against real trial lawyers who don't work for the state. Case over.
That jury was stupid.they ignored a mountain of hard evidence and coincidences. The reasons they gave for the acquittal post trial were embarassing
@@Tom-lv2mv the jurors weren't stupid they seen the evidence, and also who the evidence was collected by, from the changing of who collected the evidence and how names were changed as to who collected the evidence; and for a Detective to take OJs blood sample to both crime scenes was a huge mistake. They never could explain why EDTA was in OJs blood evidence found at both crime scenes on his socks and the back gate at Bundy. Lying to a judge to get a search warrant. Lying about OJ wasn't a suspect, and then there's Mark Fuhrman who found the majority of the evidence who sat in that witness stand and lied repeatedly and eventually pleaded the fifth amendment and was no longer involved in the case..... there was so much wrong with this case. Ronald Goldman didn't even exist in the case other then he was murdered on Nicole's property. One would be stupid to ignore the obvious that evidence was being tampered with. Had not for the video of detective Vannatter handing OJs blood evidence to Dennis Fung at the crime scene, that would have never been an issue they got caught several times by their own video footage. Blood in Bronco and then going back months later to retrieve evidence little smudges of blood, that truck interior should have been covered in blood. I could see how people on the outside took it because they weren't checking the facts they were caught up in what the media was saying..... They even called it trial of the century, but let's examine that a title carefully! Do you think OJs trial was bigger than Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgway, The B.T.K serial killer, John Wayne Gacy, Jeffrey Dahmer?
These were the worst and I could have named twenty more, but only one case received the attention of the media and the public OJ Simpson murder trial dubbed, "The Trial Of Century. "
But 30 years later Americans are no closer to solving this case, but instead a criminal is running for the Presidentcy and their ignoring all the evidence in that case as well with even more evidence against Donald J Trump then OJ Simpson. Donald J Trump is responsible for the deaths of five people including two police officers January sixth act of insurrection 2021, but he hasn't been charged with a single murder of any of those people that were involved in his insurrection speech orchestrated by Donald J Trump.
Yet OJ Simpson a B rated actor, football player, sports castor gets the honors of trial of the century. The Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman case has never been closed, " it will always be a who done it......Luckily for OJ he had the money to fight the LA police Department and expose their many levels of corruption or his @$$ would be in prison right now, because none of those lawyers would have been on his defense team.
Reality Suck doesn't it, but the truth really hurts, the police and the prosecution team blew this case.....lying and cover ups are easy to expose when you have money to investigate the people who are charging you with a crime, " It's a different story if your poor."
@@kennethcharles1386 There was no proof of evidence tampering, it was just speculation from the defense side.The EDTA level on the socks was much too low to have come from the reference tube. Also no EDTA was found in other blood drops.There was ample blood, hair, fiber, shoe, glove evidence in this case.It was found everywhere. 12 police officers were there before Fuhrman at Bundt and only saw 1 glove, so there was not even a glove for Fuhrman to pick up and deposit at Rockingham.
@@Tom-lv2mv see that's another lie Mark Fuhrman was the only police officer who made that claim as seeing the cloves even in his own words ( that's when I saw them,but on the witness stand he claimed he miss spoke several times on the witness stand and pleaded the fifth amendment. As for Ms Clark's reasoning for the EDTA was, it's in the foods we eat; and the defense didn't have to prove anything their job was to expose the LA investigation into the murder case and their multitude of mistakes and terrible witnesses and experts witnesses. It got so bad that Ms Clark was trying to explain DNA to the jurors instead of letting her expert witness do it. Instead Ms Clark and Darden who eventually became the scapegoat for losing the trial.
In a society built on lies and corruption it's really easy for certain segments of this hypocritical hypocrisy to just ignore the actions of police officers when it comes to others, and Mark Fuhrman as racist as he may have been was given the benefit of humanity by the District Attorney's Office and the prosecutors Ms Clark and I quote directly from Ms Clark, (is Mark Fuhrman a racist " yes! But did he plant false evidence. "No! In his own words on tape recordings he must have said a hundred times that he would frame Black and Hispanics and his hatred for interracial couples were without question, but he to could be ignored by the justice system and the LA police department. Not one single police officer stood up as a character witness for Mark Fuhrman, because they knew he was a dirty cop and worse. Yes he did plant evidence, but like I said there's that element in this society that approves of people who are like the Mark Fuhrman's of the world. "Reasonable doubt " is what was proven by twelve people men and women.
Terrible closing argument..
#justicefornicolebrown #justiceforronaldgoldman
It's 2023...
Didn't we learn from this Trial!? 🤔 💭
Nope bc law enforcement is still not held to account!
Let’s be real O.j got off not because he wasn’t guilty, he Cleary did the crime, but the reason he got off was because he was famous which is so stupid and annoying. Also how much do the characters look like the actual people 😮
He got off because the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. Enough doubt was created.
What everyone thinks or says is irrelevant. He might be guilty, he might not be.
I am being real. The prosecution sucked, and OJ was probably innocent. Try harder.
the closing arguments from Marcia was so fuckin bad that the jury just deliberated for 2 hours, in a case that took almost 9 months to finish...
Felipe Queija I guess you could have done better huh? You should have been the lead prosecutor then
She's so impressive.
so is she a bad attorney or not?
terrible. Cant speak clearly
that doesn't make someone a bad attorney though
She doesn't exactly come off as being charismatic, or eloquent here. Let's be honest.
why did she not seek other competent lawyers to assist her? OJs team had a few. She wanted to take all the credit for what she thought was a clear cut case. But not realise Furman had planted evidence
Fuhrman didn't plant evidence.
28:15 "wake it up" she's talking about a little baby!? Smh go sit down somewhere🤦♂️
yea
Man I wish she just would have drilled the time line into their heads!!!! Why didn't she say over and over HOW COULD HE HAD TIME TO GET ALL 3 blood types planted at OJs house??? She should have pounded the timeline into their heads ..but nooooo she's waaay to nice...goes on and on and on....
If you know anything about the trials, at one point in time Vannatter had all 3 of their blood. He had, OJ's, Nicole's and Ron's. He admitted in the criminal case to having OJ's, in the civil case we found out he went to the coroner and got Ron and Nicole's. And before you give him the benefit of doubt. He admitted in the criminal case IT'S NOT HIS JOB to collect evidence, nor should he be collecting it.
@@Jeromemayle that's not what I mean-- Marcia, in her closing arguments, should have said, look we all know Furman said terrible things but we also know he COULDNT have planted the glove, because he didnt know OJ didn't have an alibi--Furman would have to have known OJ's schedule that night, i.e., what he did, where he went,--see? She should have said no matter how bad of a guy you think Furman is he couldn't have planted that glove!!! Everybody knows it now all these years later--OJ practically admitted it as much in the interview "If I did it"---the prosecution messed up so bad in that case...period. And Marcia's closing remarks to the jury were weak...man she should woke them up....
O.J. was guilty as hell, but the defense raised so much doubt that the jury had to acquitt.
Guilty as hell??? Lol
Black previlege!
Jose Meda No no, that’s different tax bracket privilege
She is nervous
That judge was such a joke dude had no balls!! Scary ass judge.. The whole trial was just a waste of time oj was gonna get off as soon as he was arrested
Now women are going to come out of the wood work talking about how strong, brave and courageous she was, despite not knowing anything beyond what a TV series literally just told them.
I liked the TV version of her quite better, lol.
this is 20 years old i'm fairly sure women knew about this shit before a tv god in heaven above let me guess women are vapid clueless creatures to you huh
If he killed or not, she lost the case anyway.
Levi Domingos serioisly IF???? They all but drew a map.
When the star witness said he planted evidence them it's a no
Lol who sees Marcia Clark on life Time
inept, tenuous, obtuse...
This is like the giants beaten the undefeated patriots oj got away
wtf is with the quality
Sazzandara 1996 hello this whose 1995 the whose k4
Sazzandara 1996 it was recorded 22 years ago? Are you really that confused?
Jacob Dexter no, he's that stupid.
Hi
Sounds d 5
.
This jury was bad
The jury was bad? The cops were proven to plant evidence. If you don't think they didn't plant evidence - Then your one of the millions of people who never saw the trial.
She is chatting crap
Go Marcia. He was guilty
Sure. Everyone looks guilty if you plant evidence on them.
That was an absolutely pathetic closing argument.
Lonzo Dennis she had to educate the combined low IQ of the jurors.
Jalen Daniels Where did you go to law school?
@@2legit2Kwit Just say you are racist and move on
@@GregoryKeller it’s not racism, the jury was extremely dumb
She was terrible 🤷🏾♂️
wow - it's VERY sad that the VICTIMS (not just these two, all victims) are represented by state employees and DEFENDANTS, meanwhile, can hire a "dream team" and get off. It is SAD. She is HORRIBLE at presenting closing arguments and public speaking, in general ! If the STATE had a better attorneys/prosecutor presenting the evidence and giving CONCISE, SHARP CLOSING ARGUMENTS they would have won !!!!!!!! The droning on and on is awful ! THE BLOOD OF RON GOLDMAN, NICOLE BROWN AND OJ SIMPSON WAS *IN* OJ'S BRONCO, IN OJ'S SOCKS AND OJ'S GLOVES..........in my opinion, that's pretty clear that he is the killer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! She should have presented the closing short and sweet.........kept to the FACTS.....the blood evidence and the timeline........that ENOUGH would have put him behind bars! At least he is there now ! RIP NICOLE BROWN AND RIP RONALD GOLDMAN. Heartbreaking!
of course.......my sister did it. almost all attorneys that I know start as civil servants I'm just saying this was so wordy and unfortunately the jury was razzle-dazzled by the flashy distractions thrown at them. MC is a good woman and attorney I'm sure - it's just so sad to me how this group came in and just cast doubt over the entire LAPD and it worked- all you need is a shadow of a doubt. So sad...
I guess I'm trying to say that they made it the trial against LAPD and they lost ..... that isn't fair IMO
Hey rob kardashian
Grrst
😋😛😖😟😤☺️
u r hot
marcia- immediately interrupted. thank you sir- to Judge Ito.
Ms. Clark - “ im a not sir. im a person. Please say thank you Person your Honour.
You are my mentor. Been abused/ being given payback now. first case. - given 2 hrs for summation. 1.5 hrs into it, say not crim case what defendants did criminal.
his honor: yr time is up. please conclude. subbed to yr trial- and post trial happiness and book.i am target by person no longer doing what his ppl did in 1985. oops. not personal. ctroom packed- everyone crying. no notes. feel like crying even now when said “ seems like ages since told u i want jury trial not judge. dec 9- now mlk weekend. what was this about? money. not rehab. condo conversion - uh new laws. told jury after 1.5 hrs- i lived in this bldg 2 yrs. lived the facts- my clients were shell ahocked bldg destroyed it was ok. They looked to me and organizer to help you. We saw it. Clients cdnt believe- now I take the burden and aid given to me for 2 yrs and give it to you. please punish. so learn not to do again- deter others.
oops now its 2018, i am target like bldg and clients. i am shellshocked. who cd have guessed ? thx Marcia- i was very impressed with book, yr interviews, congrats u got life back. My book i began called No Doubt. No Doubt why crazy wacky things done to me last few yrs by mds, attys, local cops, nj gsp - need atty cuz got civil rights violations, false imprisonment. intentional infliction of emotional distress. i have 3d Circuit Fed license, former law prof. no car cuz atty malpractice and ptsd from being trial atty law prof tenure track clinical nite prof cuz wanted 2d career students to get a shot at real court. ACLU person in 2007- hand has nerve damage- from cop- my name is in published case so is rogue cop’s in later case. trusted person related to Senator. cop lawfirm abused me- first physical assault by cops - have lawyer disability insurance covering ability to practice law as jury trial atty. so fucked by atty- really bad. charges changed. cops assault me at food store- tort of outrage.ACLU is bs so is Legal Aid. ACLU sought help. treated real bad. in cthouse at night, wearing black boots with big heel- got up- smacked foot as hard as i cd on cthouse floor. Aclu dude jumped. I dont lie or fib. i felt for you discussing reading juror questionaire #1. it was over. in2007, judges clerk called me as pro se suing rogue cops, town, “ drop the case”.
hello ?
google me. got no car cuz insurance from atty shd lose license was in cahoots. imagine being in LA no car. insurance 2k since age 17. dropped. cuz plead me out, lied, never met, hurt me, teased me. im 60. chronic pain. cuz believed in Justice my dad taught me so🎏
Cynthia McKee uhh what?