On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:21 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > ...But what surprises and irritates me the most so far is how much of an > apology the series appears to be for Clark, Gil Garcetti and the LAPD. > > Having read Toobin's book upon which this series is based, that was his point-of-view of the trial, that Clark and cops were the good guys. Again, not that I'd want to see a dramatic retelling of the OJ trial, but if I had to, I'd prefer it to be more along the lines of a phrase tossed about during the trial, "the police framed a guilty man, and the DA's office ran with it." I genuinely believe Fuhrman planted the glove at OJ's house, and Vanatter scattered OJ's blood all over Brentwood... I also believe they each did this independently of each other, not as a grand conspiracy but just two bad cops trying to ensure a conviction, both too stupid to know their actions would lead to a not guilty verdict. Had Hodgman not left the case due to a heart condition, I doubt he'd have included the obviously planted evidence, instead letting the very convincing circumstantial case stand on its merit... which would have resulted in a conviction. Clark and Darden saw the evidence and decided to roll the dice with it, despite its obvious flaws. They started allowing in every insane bit of "evidence," including treating barking dogs as though they were freakin' Lassie.
I can't help but draw a comparison between OJ's attorneys and the recently departed Justice Scalia. By many people, these lawyers were the epitome of scumbags, but in terms of the jobs they were given, they were the best in the business. Scalia was, to me, almost entirely lacking morality or ethics, but a lawyer's job is to effectively use the law to advocate a side, and I don't think there has been a more able advocate of conservativism in my lifetime. Likewise, OJ's lawyers had no interest in the truth -- their role was to use the law to free their client. They had no choice but to point out Fuhrman's racist past and Vanatter's improper handling of evidence; it would have been negligent of them to do otherwise. And it forced Judge Ito to include in the jury's instructions that they had the right if not the obligation to reject all evidence by the LAPD as a result of their behavior (and false testimony... something they were never disciplined for after the trial). The DA's office never needed to call Furhman, but they called everybody but the dogs themselves, their strategy being to pile it on. That was a flawed strategy... they were not the heroes Toobin tried to make them out to be. Truthfully, there were no heroes at all in the OJ trial... but that makes for a clunky dramatic narrative. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
