Nailing History
Introducing "Nailing History," the podcast where two friends attempt to nail down historical facts like they're trying to assemble IKEA furniture without the manual. Join Matt and Jon (or Jon and Matt) as they stumble through the annals of time, armed with Wikipedia, Chat GPT, and a sense of reckless abandon.
In each episode, Matt and Jon pick a historical event that tickles their curiosity (and occasionally their funny bone) and dissect it like a frog in biology class—except they're the frogs, and they have no idea what they're doing. From ancient civilizations to modern mishaps, they cover it all with the finesse of a bull in a china shop.
But wait, there's more! In between butchering historical names and dates, Matt and Jon take a break to explore the intersection of history and pop culture. Ever wondered if Cleopatra would have been a TikTok sensation? Yeah, neither have they, but that won't stop them from imagining it in excruciating detail.
So grab your popcorn and prepare to laugh, cringe, and possibly learn something (though don't hold your breath). With Matt and Jon leading the charge, "Nailing History" is the only podcast where you're guaranteed to leave scratching your head and questioning everything you thought you knew about the past. After all, who needs a PhD when you've got two clueless buddies and a microphone?
Nailing History
Special Edition: The Simpson Saga Pt. 5: Laughter, Lawsuits, and Legendary Trials
Join us on a sartorial rollercoaster as we navigate the hilarities of wedding suit shopping with our friend Emily M, dialing in from her racetrack-adjacent hideaway in the Poconos. As the best man, I recount my misadventures alongside our groom-to-be, John, whose unique fitness regime of daily push-ups didn't quite prepare us for the comedic chaos at the fitting. Emily brings her wit and wisdom on looking wedding-ready while throwing in amusing anecdotes of NASCAR memories that are sure to tickle your funny bone.
Switching gears, we take a deep dive into one of the most sensational legal dramas of the 20th century: the O.J. Simpson trial. From the infamous Bronco chase to Johnny Cochran’s unforgettable courtroom moments, we dissect the intricacies of the trial and its lasting impact on public perception, media, and the justice system. The rollercoaster of events includes Judge Ito’s unexpected celebrity status and the defense's strategic decisions that had everyone on the edge of their seats. Our discussion brings to light the often overlooked aspects of the trial, including the challenges faced by both the jury and legal professionals involved.
Our journey through this monumental trial continues as we unravel the personal dramas and quirky tales of key figures post-verdict. We explore Kato Kaelin's guilty indulgence at McDonald's, O.J.'s unusual jail perks, and the dramatic sequestration endured by the jury. We also ponder the justice system's influence on high-profile cases, questioning whether public and media scrutiny helps or hinders the pursuit of truth. As Emily prepares to rejoin us for more enlightening discussions, we promise future episodes filled with thought-provoking insights and the occasional bout of laughter.
we're back with another episode installment of the nailing History podcast. I'm here with our resident host A resident host, or our host Semi-resident? Well, whatever, we're in studio, john and I are in studio and we have a very special guest remoting in from the Poconos.
Speaker 3:Hello everyone.
Speaker 1:Oh, emily M in from the Poconos. Hello everyone. Oh Emily M, that's who's here from the land of the Poconos.
Speaker 3:Yep, I'm up here in the Pokes, as we call it.
Speaker 2:How far are you from the racetrack?
Speaker 3:She's close About 10-15 minutes, 10 or 15 minutes for the once a year big event. We went not last summer, but the summer before. We went to the day before the big event festivities and there were a lot of military recruiting going on. Um, the kids got to hold a bazooka. They thought that was cool and we watched some trucks go around the track with earplugs in our ears. Wow it was actually pretty fun. I highly recommend If you've never been to a NASCAR event.
Speaker 2:Very cool. Well, happy to have you back on Emily.
Speaker 1:Well, speaking of big moments or big events, we had a big event today, john and I. John's getting married and his fiance was on the air. Last year, lauren G and we went suit shopping. I'm the best man in his wedding, so he wanted his best man to have his back go suit shopping, which has always been a bit of contention for me. I hate doing it. I hate the people who are involved with these stupid stores who don't know what they're doing. I never look good in a suit. Reason, reason, reason. I have a million reasons why. So I was dreading it a little bit, but I was also. Whatever, I'll go with John. The plan is John and I are going to match, we're going to have the same suit and then the rest of the groomsmen are going to have a lesser quality suit. So we know the hierarchy of the wedding party.
Speaker 2:That's the plan.
Speaker 1:It's like you can't have the groomsmen looking better than the best man. I think that's the rule of weddings.
Speaker 2:I think that's more okay than a bridesmaid showing up the bride. Would you agree, emily?
Speaker 3:well, yeah, you can't have the bridesmaid showing up the bride. I you're saying that the best man should show up the groom the groom's men.
Speaker 2:I wouldn't be upset if someone just looked super dapper in a suit and I was like, well, this is supposed to be my day, but dang, that suit looks good on you like really good in that, so I think a man can compliment another man that like looks the part like.
Speaker 3:Looks super sharp.
Speaker 2:I think women would be a little more like that's my day.
Speaker 1:I didn't get fit, john got fitted. It was like an hour. It was like a little bit of an over an hour process Because I'm in the middle of my shredding for the wedding phase, so I don't want to get measurements that aren't going to apply in a couple weeks.
Speaker 2:You know what I mean. So you got a T-minus three, four months to get there.
Speaker 1:So this is what happens, speaking of which, we won't harp on it too long because we have a lot to get to here. Um, emily m's here with the most they anticipated and most requested follow up to the our oj simpson coverage, but just wanted to talk about our day today. It was, we had a couple funny john's. Uh, john's an interesting character. Whenever you're doing anything out in public with him, um, he kind of always says something that makes you laugh. So I was a little stiff. He was nervous getting there. He was very nervous.
Speaker 3:What were?
Speaker 1:the nerves about what were you nervous?
Speaker 3:about.
Speaker 1:So we show up at suit supply. We had an appointment. We get in there and we waited a little bit. We had to look around around, we had to wait for appointment. Our appointment comes up. This gentleman comes up to us. He says like hey, you ready to go? Blah, blah, we start talking and he's like all right, you know, let's go over. We get over the table. Um, the gentleman, I don't, I don't know if you would consider him a tailor, but whoever was fitting the suit, the suits for him? Um, he asked john. He says like hey, he's like just just curious. Do you, you know, since we're fitting you now your wedding's in june? It's a long ways away. Like hey, do you fluctuate and wait at all? John says oh no, I don't. Well, I did just gain 10 more in the context of like it's winter.
Speaker 2:It's winter, you know it's winter time. I now got a new job, a little more sedentary, it's winter. I think once that sun's out, in a couple months I'll be walking more, a little more active. I think my weight will be a little more regulated. It's I wasn't trying to say I'm putting on a lot of weight, I just had a little bit of a lifestyle change.
Speaker 1:So you know, yeah a little give and take, but uh, but what have you been doing to get into shape?
Speaker 2:listen to this, emily m I, uh, I had a new year's resolution of doing 10 push-ups a day, just 10, because most, as we talked about our last podcast, no, most, um, new year's resolutions are broken the second friday of the year by the second friday of the year. So I just you know it the year, so it just starts more.
Speaker 1:So you've decided to do something that takes five minutes to do.
Speaker 3:Are you like? Well, today I'm going to do 10, and tomorrow I'm going to do 11, and by my wedding. I'm going to do 100 or something. Is that the plan?
Speaker 2:Yeah, that might have to walk that plan back a little bit because we worked out that my chest, how I got fitted, my chest was at a good spot oh, I was trying on, so we basically worked out I can't go getting, can't hit the gym hard, I can't maybe you could switch to sit-ups instead of push-ups it was funny because the guy goes.
Speaker 1:So john was on the way there. We were talking about like oh, I don't know if I'm gonna fit my seat, you know whatever, we're talking about all this stuff. And then john brought up like well, I'm doing 20 push-ups a day, so who knows what I'm gonna look like come the wedding. And that made me laugh. So then when we had this conversation about his weight and how he gained 10 pounds, he was like oh well, the guy was nice about it, even though I could tell he was like he let I. I laughed and he kind of was like, yeah, that's pretty funny. And then like he goes, all right, well, he's like that's fine, if 10 pounds, whatever, you could probably fill it out since you're tall or whatever, it's not that big of a deal for you If you lose weight.
Speaker 1:I think he was just like oh, 10 pounds on someone, your height, that's not really that much Like as far as your body shape, so that's okay.
Speaker 2:He said, as you're just not like bulking up or whatever, and I said well, john, you are doing those 20 push-ups. And that made the guy laugh. That was classic, was he? Was he like really?
Speaker 3:impressed.
Speaker 1:By that was he impressed it was funny, it was pretty funny, it was good, as we were getting the fitting underway.
Speaker 2:He did make a comment on my deltoids, so obviously I'm getting some games. What did he say? Oh, your deltoids are really kind of showing here. He said he made a comment. He's like your shoulders are really.
Speaker 3:Oh, he was hitting on you maybe I don't know it was.
Speaker 1:It was fine and it was fine. John did pretty good. He was very awkward when she was getting.
Speaker 1:I was a little I will say I want to give a little psa out to all the men out there with suits. The best thing that I got that I personally got granted this was John's day. I was just there for support. But the best thing that I learned from this whole situation is we were talking about shirts.
Speaker 1:He was getting his custom shirt and started talking about how a lot of the dress shirts are see-through. So I got to the point to ask this guy like hey, man, what should we wear for an undershirt this custom shirt? And started talking about how a lot of the dress shirts are see-through. So I got to the point to ask this guy like hey, man, what should we wear for an undershirt? Because no guy wants to wear like everyone see his white t-shirt under there and it's always see-through and especially we're going to be in june, we're going to be sweating through a shirt. What do we do? And he gave us this great idea get a freaking skin-toned colored shirt undershirt v-neck though like a v-neck, like like a light material he gave us.
Speaker 3:I want to I kind of want to get this company.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean, I don't know about that. I kind of want to give him a shout out. Yeah, airism a-I-R-I-S-M. It was on the store across the way from Suit Supply at the Mall Uniqlo. It's a store.
Speaker 2:Is that what the store is called, japanese or?
Speaker 1:Korean, but it's like a kind of a skin tight. Beige v-neck, light material undershirt. So I was pretty surprised, thanks I guess the funny thing was the best part about this trip when we go over there and we walk through the aisle and this aorism also makes underwear. So john stops at the underwear. He's like man I was wearing. I was very uncomfortable wearing that suit in my current underwear.
Speaker 2:He's like I gotta make sure I'm wearing nice underwear for the night, that's good forethought, but it's gonna be a long day no, like something breathable, I'm, I'm due for, I'm due for an update it's like a bride shopping for lingerie for her wedding night.
Speaker 1:No, it's weird.
Speaker 3:There's nothing wrong with that, John.
Speaker 2:Just drop $1,200 on a suit, I think I can wear a $10 pair of underwear that are breathable and comfort fitting.
Speaker 3:You can't get the Walmart special under that suit. You have to be a little elevated there.
Speaker 2:Thank you, Emily.
Speaker 1:You're welcome.
Speaker 2:I appreciate that I gotta wear nice.
Speaker 1:Gotta wear nice underwear my wedding day well, maybe you shouldn't laugh. Maybe it'll make all the difference as you're sweating I wish I would have gotten that nice underwear too I'm not saying it was wrong, but I'm saying that like it was just a weird situation for us to be in.
Speaker 2:I just dropped twelve hundred dollars and I'm like we understand, I'm no, I'm just like I gotta. I can't do spend all this. Wear all this stuff all the. I'm gonna be wearing cufflinks. I'm gonna be wearing, you know, a tie, a normal length tie an extra long tie I gotta be ready for the all things and I can't be showing up there wearing these lame ass haines.
Speaker 3:What is the anticipated outdoor temperature around the day of your wedding be?
Speaker 2:like 95 to 100 degrees, but it'll be a dry, it'll be a dry it's gonna be really sweet.
Speaker 3:That's toasty yeah.
Speaker 1:I think breathable underwear is a good idea, then so any listeners, if they want to send John a nice pair of underwear to wear on his wedding day, feel free to drop us a line on, send us a text or shoot us a message at NailingHistoryPod at gmailcom and we will send instructions on getting them to him Just make sure to not delete the text in the text field with a copy and paste of a URL.
Speaker 1:When you click yes, when you click send us a text message, there will be some numbers and random letters that are populated into the text box Do not delete. It says some random letters and numbers Do not delete. Then you can type Just let it. Don't delete it, Don't even delete the don't Do not delete words.
Speaker 2:Just leave it, just like I left the pleats off of my pants when I was all said and done. We've got to be having a problem because we've only two Ooh history of suits That'd be a good one.
Speaker 1:Only two people seem to know how to not delete the auto-populated letters and numbers that go into a text message, because that's kind of all that we.
Speaker 3:Who are those two people?
Speaker 1:Emily M, who we have here, and Dick Pepperfield.
Speaker 3:Alright, I'm in good company.
Speaker 2:Italian Stallion himself. Well, yeah, so we had a fun day. We're back. We should release our full episodes on Patreon. Yeah, $10 a month.
Speaker 1:It's like a downgradegrade. I feel like we should be. We should charge people to listen to the edited episodes and only put out the unedited version, the three hour long versions on for free and you have to pay for a more edited version. What do you think the editing is where?
Speaker 3:all the work, all the work goes into the editing.
Speaker 2:So it's true, doesn't release this to the world. I don't think the old fawn edits a lot of his stuff. You think I do?
Speaker 1:you know, I think you just don't realize it well, he does a very good job at editing and then or his team I guess that's what happens when you have 10 000 listeners, an episode at least, and getting able to pay for a crew anyway. So that's pretty much it. Emily m, how have you been since, uh, last june, june of 24 anything new in your world?
Speaker 3:um, probably a lot new. I'm trying to think, I don't know. Not, I guess not nothing too big, just keep it on, keep it on did you like our last episode? I sure did learned a lot about inaugurations that's good, that's good.
Speaker 1:I'm glad you did.
Speaker 3:I liked that.
Speaker 1:The other option was going over the history of wildfires in America, so I spared us on that one and picked a little bit more of an interesting topic, I think.
Speaker 3:I did like learning about how people used to be able to go into the White House, like it was like an open house.
Speaker 1:That's kind of hard to imagine.
Speaker 3:So that was. We pay for it. A little, a little tidbit we do, but I mean, there's just so many crazy people. I don't know how you could. I don't, I wouldn't open my house to the public.
Speaker 1:I don't know about opening the white house, I know, but if someone were to pay my mortgage I would let anyone in my house if the public was gonna pay for it even if they were like we're going to come in with like guns and just like terrorize you taxpayer.
Speaker 2:They paid for my house if I, if my was divided by 300 million people, I guess I'd have to let them they own it. They're part owners of it. I just live in it I think that's definition of what the president just lives in the white house. It's not his house, that's true.
Speaker 1:Temporarily holding what the president is.
Speaker 2:He just lives in the White House. It's not his house, that's true.
Speaker 1:Temporarily holding it and also they have security. So if you had 24-hour security in your house, I don't know Would you let people into your house if you had 24-hour security all the time there.
Speaker 3:Anyway, Emily, I don't think so I don't think I'd really want strangers hanging out in my house.
Speaker 2:What if? Someone tried burning an effigy of, of you, of you. That was a thing people used to do.
Speaker 1:Well, they did it to John Tyler. That's pretty much it. And he was like well, I get it. No, we learned on that episode. Emily M, you heard that part right. He's the reason that we're not allowed in the White House.
Speaker 3:Hmm, Well, I wouldn't If people were burning effigies of me. That would probably cross a little bit of a line.
Speaker 1:I wouldn't be a freeloader though, either.
Speaker 3:I mean, I think it's more just like If if I was president, I don't think I'd live in the white house. I think it's more just like we're providing room and board for the person that we are putting into that position, and I don't think we still have a mortgage on the white house.
Speaker 1:I think it's probably paid off we had to build it twice, right?
Speaker 3:well, they could take a teeny bit of that trillion dollars that goes to the military and they can put that towards the care of the white house different, I don't know, or other entitlement programs all right.
Speaker 1:So emily m here, our resident, resident OJ Simpson expert.
Speaker 2:Is that what we call her? You want to be an expert or an amateur enthusiast?
Speaker 3:Oh yeah, Probably amateur enthusiast Professional amateur enthusiast, yeah, I think our resident our PAE resident the Nailing.
Speaker 1:History resident OJ Simpson history enthusiast amateur, semi-professional, very esteemed title you can put that on your LinkedIn profile.
Speaker 3:I will be happy to do that and we wanted to continue the story.
Speaker 1:I guess would you say Emily.
Speaker 3:Yeah, we're going to. We got through to OJ Landon in jail and we kind of left everyone hanging from there. So I think it's a good idea to maybe talk a little bit about the trial and maybe kind of lead everyone to that conclusion that everyone is familiar with with the verdict yeah, I think so.
Speaker 1:So where you got to? So just the I would say. Um, I just want to say that the part one of the oj simpson special is our most downloaded episode, currently sitting at 97 downloads, which is huge.
Speaker 3:That's amazing.
Speaker 1:Almost triple digits.
Speaker 3:You'll get there.
Speaker 1:I think we will. I think we will, so happy to have you back and glad. To finish off, I will say the timing kind of works out. Some of our listeners might know there's a Netflix documentary currently about the whole story and I did start watching it. I was telling Emily that I watched it all the way to the Bronco Chase, which is where we ended the podcast basically. So I'm through the Netflix documentary and our show itself. I'm all caught up to the Bronco Chase.
Speaker 3:It's perfect.
Speaker 1:But just for our listeners that may not remember or haven't watched this Netflix documentary. I think it's called American Manhunt OJ Simpson. I think it's called how did we get here?
Speaker 3:So let's see, In our part one we talked all about OJ and Nicole's relationship and a little bit of the ups and downs that they had from their day to day the outside perception versus what was going on behind the scenes. We talked a little bit about some of the other adjacent people in their lives, like Cato Kaelin and Paula Barbieri and Ron Goldman, and we chronicled up to the point of the murders.
Speaker 1:A certain trip to Cabo was had.
Speaker 3:We talked about some vacations with some big turning point. Jenner's now Kardashians. Uh, we talked about some of OJ's acting career and frog man, where he played a frog man. Um, we talked about their biggest fear.
Speaker 1:And and in that you learned that it was a term for Navy seal, not an actual. Like superhero, yeah, superhero yes, yeah yeah, we're all learning something. Yeah, we're all learning something.
Speaker 3:Um, we learned a little bit about their biggest fears. Oj's was drowning and nicole's was being chopped up into a bunch of pieces, so that was a little little tragic to hear and we, uh, so we ended. I believe we ended part one, uh, with the murders occurring, and then we picked up part two with kind of the next day and oj was in chicago. There was a bag that went missing. Uh, there was a cut on his finger that was a little suspicious. He came back to LA and he got questioned by the police. They released him, he went home, he talked to one of his police friends and the police friend was like whoa, this guy definitely did it because of the questions he's asking me. And then Nicole had a funeral.
Speaker 1:Yeah, he was like like hey, man, how long does it take for dna evidence to come back? Yeah, and like what he failed for a friend he miserably failed a lie detector test, right like.
Speaker 3:And he was asking his friend like oh, is that a bad score to have? And the guy was like whoa, this guy definitely, definitely killed her. Um, they went. He showed up at nicole's funeral and was like hang, he went in the limo with nicole's family, yeah, he went like back with them a little bit strange. Um, and then, after the funeral, he likes evaded everybody and ended up at Rob Kardashian's house.
Speaker 2:And his underwear.
Speaker 3:Yes, there are some pictures of him in his underwear. So that led us to the Bronco chase day, which started out at Rob Kardashian's house. Um, oj being suicidal, writing suicide note. Um, he sends his girlfriend, paula Barbieri, away. She, uh, reluctantly leaves. Aj Callings takes OJ, they escape, nobody can find them. He goes to a church and he's going to kill himself and he doesn't do it. And then he's trying to go to Nicole's grave in Nicole's apartment but he can't get there because of all the police. And eventually they end up deciding he wants to go back to Rockingham and that's where the Bronco chase takes place. Someone spots them. The chase goes on for a long time to go down in infamy. He finally surrenders at his house, the police take him into custody under the disguise of night, he pleads not guilty and he is put in jail. And that is, I think, where we have wrapped up the story thus far. Did I miss anything?
Speaker 2:story. Thus far did I miss anything.
Speaker 1:I think that pretty much covers it um kato and the and the jacuzzi the fan favorite part of the whole story and the trip to mcdonald's yeah but I think that pretty much covers it. Yeah, okay, so that's so that was, that was april, that all no, that happened in june of 94, correct? Correct so now we're going to be fast forwarding to like later in the year. Right, we're going to.
Speaker 3:We're going to talk about what happened. So the trial itself started in January of the next year, so 95. And so we're going to first talk just very, very briefly about what happened from the time OJ got locked up until the time the trial actually got started, because there was a lot of stuff that was going on behind the scenes while all this was happening. One of the things that happened was Judge Ito got appointed to the case and he ended up being a pretty memorable character and he reportedly loved the fame and he was the one who approved cameras to be in the courtroom and he kind of liked his little celebrity status that he got. So you know, being the appointed judge to the case is pretty big deal what's his background?
Speaker 2:who's he? What's his deal?
Speaker 3:he looks like a dweeb the prosecutors decided not to seek the death penalty. Uh, that was, of course, on the table, but they decided not to because they thought that would be a harder conviction to get that. It's harder to get a guilty conviction if the jury knows that you're sentencing someone to death, so it wasn't so much that they didn't think it was violent or they didn't think that he did it.
Speaker 3:It was just that they really wanted him to get that guilty verdict, to get life in prison. So they thought that that was a better way to go.
Speaker 1:I hate life in prison. I hate that. I hate that punishment, I hate it.
Speaker 2:It's a tough one.
Speaker 1:What's the point? You know, I just don't understand to be incarcerated for the rest of your life, like well it's definitely the ultimate miserable life to have.
Speaker 3:I think, and also was in prison either one of two life. Well, it's definitely the ultimate Miserable life to have, I think, and also isn't prison.
Speaker 2:Either one of two things. We either accept capital crime we're going to be a little off topic here but we either accept you commit a certain thing that's against the society. We as a group have decided If it's a capital crime, it requires capital punishment In the form of death, or you're put in prison and we can rehabilitate you. Yeah, isn't that the premise of what? Yeah, that's what I'm saying now so if you're going to be in life prison for life, yeah, what's the point exactly?
Speaker 3:it's like I think it's it's it's meant to be a deterrent, because that is just, I think, the worst for most people. That's the worst outcome you can picture is losing your freedom for the rest of your life.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but I feel like that's not how the getting rid of the death penalty was sold. It was seen as immoral.
Speaker 1:I guess the issue and what Emily M is leading to and why it's easier to get a life in prison maybe a life in prison sentence more so than a death penalty is there's always the possibility for it being an accidental wrongful conviction, right? So I guess the worst possible outcome would be putting someone to death for something they didn't do. But is there that much of a difference than putting someone in prison for the rest of their death for something they didn't do? But is there that much of a difference than putting someone in prison for the rest of their lives for something they didn't do? I mean, it's a lot, I guess, easier to stomach.
Speaker 3:But I would imagine some people would probably prefer the death penalty versus living. I mean, if you're a young person and you're going to be in prison for the next 60, 70 years with no freedom, I get used.
Speaker 1:You probably get used to it though.
Speaker 2:Yeah, let's think about that tax dollars. We're using that money to be fixing up the.
Speaker 1:White House. That's the other thing. Yeah, it's like we need toilet paper. They got to. I mean, they're probably using Scott tissue over there. Single ply.
Speaker 3:Well, you guys could probably do a whole episode on, like the history of prisons and all of that because I think it's pretty. It's pretty corrupt and and you can get into all of that.
Speaker 3:But anyway, but yeah, so moving on, so they decided not to do the death penalty, they decided to go with life in prison, and then a big thing that happened was they did jury selection and that took them 11 weeks to come up with the jury and that was, you know, a lot of news, and it was a lot of. I think they started out with 250 candidates, whittled that down to was it 24? Cause they have to have they have 12 jurors, and then they had at least 10 or 12 alternates. Um, maybe it was 12 jurors and 10 alternates is what they ended up with. And you know, the way the jury selection process works is that both sides get to question the potential jurors and they kind of try to influence. You know, of course both sides want to have a jury that looks like they're going to go for their person Because the trial was decided to be in LA and not in Santa Monica.
Speaker 3:They ended up with a much more African-American jury, which was one of the catalysts to a much more challenging case for the prosecution. The African-American women in particular were not giving good feedback about Marsha Clark, the prosecutor. They said they didn't like her, they didn't trust her, they didn't trust her, and so they kind of knew they had an uphill battle as soon as the jurors were selected.
Speaker 1:She seems a bit uppity, a little know-it-all-y. I can see that Doesn't really relate.
Speaker 2:So they literally just moved the case from LA to Santa Monica, because no, the other way around.
Speaker 3:Santa Monica to LA.
Speaker 2:Oh.
Speaker 3:It was a little controversial when I read about it, though it sounds like part of it was that they knew that the Santa Monica courthouse was not going to be able to handle the media and the people and all of that. But also it did say Brentwood fell in the jurisdiction of LA County. So I guess they could have picked and they chose to do la county for logistical reasons la county's massive yeah right, I guess you can go anywhere yeah, what else is going on in this time?
Speaker 3:well then, we have uh kato kalin uh, our boy do you want to take that one, matthew? You were the one who did a little bit of research onto what he was up to.
Speaker 1:Well, I just wanted to say I just wanted to see what our old buddy Kato was up to Because, if you guys remember, he was living in OJ's bungalow and things didn't end great between him and OJ. Kato kind of got in the way and almost caused oj's whole timeline and his excuses to get to get out of whack because uh, going to mcdonald's like oj took him to mcdonald's um for a big mac and uh, they rushed back. It was this whole thing. So I'm assuming kato, after this whole thing, probably wasn't either welcome back at oj's house or all, or didn't feel welcome or didn't want to stay there. So just curious, what happened to him? Where did he move to? And I guess all that we could really find out is that he couch surfed and bummed around la during the time of the trial, so more of a bit of a nomadic lifestyle. He was really guilty about that mcdonald's trip, john.
Speaker 2:It tore him up inside apparently right emily, is that what you read?
Speaker 3:yeah, because he thought he, like he, messed up the timeline so Ron probably wouldn't have been there if he wouldn't have taken OJ to McDonald's. And maybe if Ron wasn't there, nicole wouldn't have been going to the door or she would have been like not answered the door or something. I don't know. It's a lot of guilt.
Speaker 1:I could see that yeah, so he or something, I don't know. It's a lot of guilt. I could see that. Yeah, so he, and probably the calories. Maybe they went to Arby's.
Speaker 2:If you were at Arby's. You have a little more. What do we get here? What do we actually buy here? You go to McDonald's. You're in, you're out, you get a Big Mac, you're driving. If they went somewhere else where they had to take a longer time to make a decision on what they were ordering.
Speaker 1:Sure, I get that, I get what he's saying. It is kind of like Kato, you're okay buddy, you can't blame yourself, man.
Speaker 2:He's literally a dog in human form. Sure Right, he's literally a dog in human form. Sure Right, emily, he's a yellow lab.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Oh, you think so yeah.
Speaker 3:Not quite a golden retriever.
Speaker 1:Not quite a golden retriever.
Speaker 2:Not that smart.
Speaker 1:Yeah, not like that obedient. He's got a little bit of a wild side. He'll eat a filet of fish.
Speaker 3:You know He'll go off menu okay, now and then, um, you might be wondering what our friend oj was up to while he was waiting trial. So he's in jail, right, um? So this is what. This is what he was up to. He was the only option.
Speaker 1:So no bail for him, huh.
Speaker 3:Correct. They denied bail. He had to stay in jail.
Speaker 1:I would say the Bronco chase probably didn't help too much with trying to get the old bail.
Speaker 3:No, he was a little bit of a flight risk, since they found a disguise and money and a passport. Oh man Like that.
Speaker 1:Dude, I saw on that documentary on Netflix. I saw that disguise. It was absurd.
Speaker 3:It was like Was it like a little mustache?
Speaker 1:It was like a mustache.
Speaker 2:With the big glasses out there.
Speaker 1:With the big nose. No, it wasn't, no't, but it was bad. It wasn't like good at all, from what I remember for the picture that I saw. It was just fun, it was funny, but yeah, so he's obviously a flight risk. They're not going to let him out. They're not going to let him out.
Speaker 3:He's in jail, he's staying yeah, so he was the only occupant in a seven cell wing that was set aside for high profile people. It is LA, after all.
Speaker 1:You know, that's not so bad.
Speaker 3:What most inmates held in isolation got only one hour per week in the crowded visiting room. Oj got unlimited, unlimited but no contact visits with his girlfriend, paula Barbieri, and others in a private booth in a room reserved for inmates meeting with their lawyers. Oj had the exclusive use of the attorney visiting area on weekends and was allowed visitors on christmas. The jail's 6 000 other inmates weren't allowed christmas visitors so paul.
Speaker 3:So him and paul got back together through all this yes, yes, they would like get together and like read the Bible together and things like that. They were they. They were very religious. Um OJ was allowed to sleep later than the other inmates. He was allowed to be about 14 hours each week outside of his cell to stretch his legs, ride an exercise bike provided for his use, talk on the phone or watch TV. Most inmates get up to four hours outside their cells each week. He could take a shower with the extra time out of his cell. A sheriff's spokesman said Other keep-away inmates shower every other day, so he was allowed to shower every day. Everyone else had to shower every other day.
Speaker 1:I think I would be okay with everything in prison, except for the shower. I wouldn't be able to deal with it.
Speaker 3:But showering with other people.
Speaker 1:Other criminals. Oh my God, I'd be a mess.
Speaker 3:He was also very busy. He kept his he's a businessman right, so he did not give up his business ventures. He wrote a book while he was in jail. It was called. I Want to Tell you my Response to your Letters, your Messages, your Questions. It's described as an emotional and factual self-portrait of OJ's mind at this critical time At last, and in his own words, oj talks about his innocence, his life with Nicole Brown Simpson, his kids, the media, the judicial system, spousal abuse, religion and racism.
Speaker 1:The original Reddit by OJ Simpson.
Speaker 3:Did that ever get published? It sure did get published. It came out very close to the first day of the trial, if not the first day of the trial, his defense team— what publisher took that one on huh on?
Speaker 2:probably the same one that published Mein Kampf, but Hitler when he was in prison it's probably like Penguin, or what's that?
Speaker 1:what's that one that you were going to work for, john, wasn't it Penguin?
Speaker 2:yeah, I mean like they're like the biggest publisher in the world.
Speaker 3:Maybe they did so he hires his defense team scholastic, scholastic publishers.
Speaker 3:All right, sorry, emily m so he hired his defense team. They were gonna cost him fifty thousand dollars per day so he needed to figure out how to get some cash flow moving because he had money, but that's a awful lot of money. So he put together. The third day he was in jail he started putting together his marketing and merchandising plan to generate cash for his court defense. So his memorabilia dealer would give him numbers. They would cut the numbers off of his jerseys and give them to his jail and he would sign them, and then they would like stitch them back onto jerseys. He would to his jail and he would sign them, and then they would like stitch them back onto jerseys.
Speaker 3:He would autograph footballs. They would bring them deflated and then he would sign them. And then they would inflate them and sell them. And photos they would bring photos in. He would sign those. He would date them to show that they were autographed while he was behind bars. Because that drove up their price. And how much do you guys think he earned in prison on autographs alone? How much, how much money do you think he racked up?
Speaker 2:cool half half million I'm gonna guess.
Speaker 1:And how long of time? How long the time period?
Speaker 3:well, he spent well, so he let's say six months. This is leading up to the trial. He probably did it during the trial too, but I don't know.
Speaker 1:Six months, six to twelve months six to twelve months just on autographs I'm gonna say like four grand a day for three days a week. I'm gonna say 120 000 three million dollars Weak.
Speaker 3:I'm going to say $120,000. $3 million Woo Weak, and that was in 1994-1995. So that was a lot of money that he he was signing a lot, a lot. I think they said he would just sign for 8 hours a day. He was very motivated to sign these autographs for money.
Speaker 1:Really saturated the market. I'd be mad if I bought anything like that because you thought it'd be like oh wow, I got him to sign something but then it's just like saturated. Three million dollars worth of that stuff.
Speaker 2:That's probably like yeah, it's not that rare at that point.
Speaker 1:Yeah, probably worth 100 bucks now we'll take a look on ebay.
Speaker 2:I don't know, you might be surprised I wonder if anyone uh tried going after everyone else who was getting those autographs so they could keep the market inflated and keep the price up. So this guy was working, he's a working man, he's a working man and we're gonna start getting into some okay hold on oj simpson 1994 signature rookies, autograph 1978 or no, I think that's one not.
Speaker 1:Uh, anyway, out of 2500 jail signed august 1994, 175 dollars, no offers, that's thanks didn't, didn't hold its value.
Speaker 3:Okay, so we're going to get into some details with the trial and you know we went back and forth a little bit on the best way to do that, because it was obviously a nine-month trial. We could probably do hundreds of episodes on it, maybe not hundreds, dozens of episodes. So what we decided that we're going to do is I'm going to give you guys seven things that happened in the trial, situations not like one-off events necessarily, but like situations that came up throughout the nine months, and I would like you guys to rank them. There's seven of them, so one to seven on how absurd they are. So you will be blind ranking them, which means as soon as I give you the scenario, you have to pick if that's number one to seven, and we'll keep going that way. So once your slot is filled, it's filled. Does that make sense?
Speaker 1:Yep, yeah, we're going to jointly do it, or we're each going to have our own list. We're going to jointly do it. We're going to agree to it.
Speaker 3:I'll leave that up to you guys. Do you think you can agree, or? I mean, it's not really like, there's not like a correct answer, so I think probably one list is good.
Speaker 1:That's good. Yeah, I like this idea. It'll be fun. I do want to add a little bit of more research on eBay to compare how much an OJ Simpson jail autograph card is worth. I'm seeing a 2016 Leaf Pop Century, pink Star Power autograph card of Kato Kaelin. It's going for $50 on eBay, so they're pretty close to the same. Okay, so we got seven things, so let me, I'll keep track of this.
Speaker 3:We got seven events and Emily you're going to do them in chronological order or we're gonna be random, okay because they're not all really chronological, you'll see okay um. So before I give you the first one, I was curious what kind of the state of the world was in january of 1994. I was a young lad of eight years old, and so I don't really remember too much.
Speaker 1:A last a young lass this is 20 I mean, I guess you were what you were at this point, I don't know I don't know what I, I, I don't you know it's.
Speaker 3:I look back and yeah, I mean I was. I guess I was the last, but anyway, so I was in I was eight years old, so I was in second grade.
Speaker 1:Third grade, third grade, well, it was 95, so I guess I was in third grade well, no, it was 94 the trial, the trials in 95, so you would have been turning nine so you guys were in first grade throughout all this.
Speaker 3:Do you remember? Do you remember the, I guess. So I remember all the adults. That was like all they were talking about was the trial, all the time I do do remember that I don't remember much of the details.
Speaker 1:We were watching when the chase happened. We were watching TGIF. I remember the chase. Yeah, I think we figured we were. It was in between Family Matters and Full House or something I think we had figured.
Speaker 3:All right, so I'm going to give you guys an opening scene here, so you can close your eyes and transport yourself back to 1995. It's January 24th 1995. The world is buzzing. The start of the year saw Austria, finland and Sweden joining the European Union. Newt Gingrich took on the role of speaker of the house, mike Schmidt. Mike Schmidt was just inducted into the baseball hall of fame. The WB television network launched its first broadcasts and iconic bands like Led Zeppelin and Janis Joplin were inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame. The NHL strike had just come to an end and George W Bush was sworn in as governor of Texas.
Speaker 3:W you guys there you feeling it yeah.
Speaker 2:Visualizing it all Yep Visualizing it all.
Speaker 1:I was thinking more you were going to go into like oh beanie, babies were all the rage.
Speaker 2:Or like remember your pog slammers, or something I also know 1995 was the last time home purchase rates were as low as they are now. Just hit a 30 year low in home affordability.
Speaker 3:I don't think Beanie Babies are out yet Beanie Babies hadn't come for like three more years. That's crazy. All right, let me pull up my document here. You guys ready to start doing some ranking? Yeah?
Speaker 1:Pitch us some. All right, let me pull up my document here. You guys ready to start doing some ranking? Yeah, yeah, yeah, all right, it's just some. It's just some top seven.
Speaker 3:I'm gonna give you some top seven and I'm gonna give you some context. So, uh, hang on before you make judgment and then, once I'm done, you guys can discuss and decide where you want to rank it. Okay, all right, number one. Okay, all right, number one. Johnny Cochran compares Mike Furman to Hitler on August 29th 1995. Bold statement.
Speaker 2:Okay.
Speaker 3:In Johnny Cochran's closing argument in the OJ Simpson trial. It was already expected to be powerful, but no one could have predicted the moment when he compared LAPD detective Mark Furman to Adolf Hitler. So why did Johnny Cochran go after Mike Furman? So Mike Furman to jog your memory, if you're tuning in here without listening to the prior episodes, he was the LAPD detective who found key evidence, including one of the bloody gloves at Simpson's house. His testimony was crucial to the prosecution's case, but the defense painted him as a racist cop who may have planned an evidence to frame Simpson. The most damaging blow came when taped recordings surfaced of Furman repeatedly using racial slurs and making violent racist remarks. When asked under the oath if he had ever used the N-word, furman pled the fifth, refusing to answer. This destroyed his credibility and made him the defense's biggest target.
Speaker 3:By the time closing arguments came around. Cochran had one job convinced the jury that OJ was a victim of a corrupt, racist system. And that's exactly what he did. So these are some highlights of that closing argument. Cochran tore into Furman with one of the most theatrical closing arguments in legal history. He didn't just call Furman a racist, he called him the worst kind of racist. Then he took it to an extreme, saying there's a reason why we don't let people like Furman run police departments. They are the worst kind of racist. They think they are superior to other people. They are Hitler-like in their approach.
Speaker 3:Yes, he compared an.
Speaker 1:LA cop to Adolf Hitler. The entire courtroom was stunned Well he said he was Hitler-like.
Speaker 3:Okay, the entire courtroom was stunned. Even some of Simpson's own defense lawyers were reportedly shocked at how far he went. This made prosecutor Marsha Clark livid saying that he was turning the whole trial into a political sideshow. The jury deliberated for less than four hours before acquitting Simpson. Many believe the speech was one of the final blows that made it impossible for the prosecution.
Speaker 2:Spoiler alert.
Speaker 1:We didn't get to the verdict yet.
Speaker 2:Well, that's really chronological, so yeah spoiler alert, if you didn't know how it ends.
Speaker 3:that's how it ends, so that is all this?
Speaker 1:lead up four episodes, the fifth episode, and you just spoiled it like that I'm sorry if some of our younger listeners out there didn't know documentaries on the guy if you don't know by now what happened we'll put that in the episode
Speaker 3:description. We'll put it in the episode description spoiler, if you don't know what happens did I cut you off or was that pretty much the end? Sorry, that was the end, so that was that's your first scenario uh, johnny cochran calling mark firman a race, or comparing him to hitler did it kick off a trend that's my fellow?
Speaker 2:the first start the whole. Everyone compares everyone to hitler I was just gonna say it's not, I could see it's funny.
Speaker 1:What I took from that is actually, I thought, the same thing is like it's very more common to hear that now everyone.
Speaker 2:When they just don't like someone, they just say always like hitler. And that's a way to just denigrate. I wonder, did johnny cochran kick that off like before?
Speaker 3:it could also be. This was only what 50 years after the end of world war ii. So, like you know, the world is a different place, where a lot of uh people had fought in the war, right, so maybe it's not yeah, there were a lot more. There were a lot more survivors of the holocaust then right like, we're like 80 years out, so there's very, very, very few world war two survivors still left.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:Hmm.
Speaker 1:And what are we ranking it on? Absurdity or like? Just kind of like highlights, I guess just no real ranking system, Just kind of like what?
Speaker 3:craziness, outrageousness maybe outrageous is a good word.
Speaker 1:That's tough. I don't really that's. I can't. I can see it being a FETS top Interesting. My question is All right, one to seven. I want to put this like towards the bottom, because I feel like there were way crazier things that happened, I'm sure, but I don't want to put it at the bottom. I'd put it at like five, five, five.
Speaker 2:All right putting that number five. I'm writing it down firman as hitler. You guys ready for number two?
Speaker 3:uh-huh, yep, all right, number two kato caylan's testimony one kato's testimony during the oj simpson trial is one of the most bizarre and memorable parts of the case. He was called as a prosecution witness, but his vague, rambling answers and goofy personality made him more of a liability than an asset. Instead of helping to prove Simpson's guilt, he became a media media spectacle, with late night hosts and tabloids turning him into a pop culture joke. So here's some highlights from his testimony. Number one the infamous I don't know what you mean by live response. When asked by prosecutor marcia clark if he lived in simpson's guest house, cato hesitated and then said I don't know what you mean by live. The courtroom erupted in laughter hot tub?
Speaker 1:I don't know like me, I don't know what you mean by pleats I use this hot tub, if that's what you mean by live, and yeah, I live there the courtroom erupted in laughter and clark looked frustrated.
Speaker 3:The response set the tone for his entire testimony unhelpful and meandering. Um okay, the mcdonald's run with oj was the second part of his testimony. That was, uh, memorable. He testified that around 9 30 pm he and simpson drove to mcdonald's to grab food. He said oj was acting totally normal, just chatting casually eating his burger. They returned to simpson's estate where oj then left for the airport a little over an hour later.
Speaker 3:Kato claimed that later that night, while alone in the guest house, he heard three loud thumps on the outside wall of his room. He thought it was earthquake like andlike and went outside to investigate, but didn't see anything. It turned out the thumps were near the location where a bloody glove was later found. This was one of the only pieces of his testimony that actually mattered. Prosecutors argued the thumps could have been OJ disposing of evidence, specifically dropping the bloody glove while sneaking back onto his property. The defense argued the sound could have been anything and that Cato was too scatterbrained to be a reliable witness.
Speaker 3:During cross-examination, defense attorney F Lee Bailey went after Cato hard. At one point. Bailey sarcastically asked Cato if he knew the difference between a guest and a freeloader Cato froze up and didn't respond. The courtroom laughed again, and this moment undermined his credibility even further. The defense painted Cato as a clueless, untrustworthy freeloader who couldn't be relied on for critical details. Cato's testimony should have been helpful to the prosecution, but instead it became one of the strangest, most laughable parts of the trial. He was the ultimate unreliable witness, and his goofy personality overshadowed anything serious that he had to say.
Speaker 1:I mean, how could he not know what she means by live in the in the bungalow? Bungalow, is that what they call it?
Speaker 1:it was like a guest house pool house yeah oh man, you think when they asked him, like what does he know the difference between a guest or a freeloader? You think, like the jacuzzi like whitewashed over his face, like he just like saw and heard the jets going and was like oh my gosh, I'm a freeloader. I don't know, I'm putting that it can't be out of the top three for me. I don't think it's one, I don't think it's number one. Kato's testimony.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I'm trying to think what else? Well, we know what number one is. Well, we don't know. Yet I know what it is, we don't know. I'll put it at two.
Speaker 1:Let's put it at two.
Speaker 2:I know what number one is.
Speaker 1:You're not good at Setting things up Like on a In a show. Like you just like spoiling things and going out.
Speaker 2:I won't say it.
Speaker 3:I won't say it all right, you guys ready for number three?
Speaker 1:all right. Number three kato kato. That was good. I like kato, you know. I think that was really. Let's go back to this. That was Marsha Clark interviewing him. I don't you couldn't be more unlikable. She was just berating this guy on the stand.
Speaker 2:Yeah, really.
Speaker 1:Like oh, you're an aspiring actor. Are you still an aspiring actor? Did you think you were going to get roles from staying in it? Like she's just being so mean to him right away?
Speaker 2:yeah it's true. Well, they had a jury didn't like her and uh yeah, that's probably contributing there.
Speaker 3:If you recall, from our part, when they were doing the grand jury, they had a bit of a, a bad run-in, if you recall. She wanted him to testify, he wanted to have an attorney, she didn't want him to have an attorney and he and he ended up pleading the fifth, which you're not allowed to do, oh yeah so she was really mad at him.
Speaker 3:So I think they had just like a really rough relationship and that probably was coming off in the questioning. Even though he was her witness, it almost came off like she hated him.
Speaker 1:Typical prosecutor, yeah I know that's just. You gotta play. You gotta play the room, marcia all right.
Speaker 3:Number three judge ito's wife becomes a scandal. So the trial's already a media circus. But things got even messier when a potential conflict of interest involving Judge Ito's wife, captain Margaret York, threatened to derail the case. At one point it even looked like Judge Ito might have to remove himself from the trial, which would have caused a mistrial which would have been a disaster for how long the case had been already dragging on.
Speaker 1:So who was his wife. Wait, what happened? I missed that. Why was he going to take himself off of the trial?
Speaker 3:Because his wife threatened to derail the case.
Speaker 2:Now, we're going to get into the details.
Speaker 3:Okay, so his wife her name was Margaret York. She was a high-ranking LAPD officer, specifically a police captain. She was the highest-ranking female officer in LAPD officer, specifically a police captain. She was the highest ranking female officer in LAPD history at the time. More importantly, she had been Mark Furman's superior officer at one point in his career. This connection became a problem because Mark Furman was the prosecution's key witness and his credibility was already under attack due to his history of racism and perjury. If Ito's wife had worked with Furmanman, then the defense could argue that ito might be biased in favor of the lapd, which was exactly what happened.
Speaker 3:During the trial, the defense team found out that judge ito's wife had been a former supervisor of mark firman, johnny cochran, and the defense team pounced on this immediately, arguing that this was a serious conflict of interest. They filed a motion saying that ito should step down from the case because his wife might have inside knowledge about firman or might have negative opinions that could influence the judge's decisions. The defense wanted to call York to the witness stand, meaning Judge Ito would be in the position of watching his own wife testify in his courtroom. If Judge Ito had been forced to step down, it could have led to a complete reset of the trial.
Speaker 3:This was a murder trial that had already seen celebrity drama, racial tension and media theatrics, and now the judge's wife was suddenly involved in a scandal. It felt too ridiculous to be true. If Judge Ito had been forced to step down, the case could have been delayed for months or even collapsed completely. What should have been a straightforward murder case turned into a reality TV show, with even the judge's personal life making headlines. It also made people lose faith in the justice system because, instead of focusing on the murders, everyone was getting caught up in drama, distractions and media hype. Judge Ito kept his job, but after the OJ trial, his reputation never fully recovered. So that is your number three.
Speaker 1:I'm putting that at seven. Why don't you take a look at your phone?
Speaker 2:real quick. I saw, I looked at it. What'd you think?
Speaker 1:very unflattering picture of edo and his wife. His wife is not necessarily the best looking person I've seen in my life, but I don't get the drama like. So she was a police officer, I don't know.
Speaker 3:I think if you put yourself back in the time of the trial, everyone's been watching this trial for nine months and then all of a sudden it comes to light that now the judge might have to step down and it was all going to have to start over again.
Speaker 1:But how did it get to that point?
Speaker 3:I guess it's so bizarre.
Speaker 2:Why did a judge that was married to the captain of the police force. Get the job in the first place. Become a to become a judge or just the? I don't know, Just.
Speaker 3:I guess they didn't know the controversy that was going to come out about Mark Furman and then maybe the direct link of her him reporting to her Wasn't like. I mean, there was no Google, so maybe it wasn't as clear, and then, when the defense figured it out, they tried to get the whole trial thrown out because of that.
Speaker 2:So him saying a few racial slurs. It was the biggest deal about Furman, right, yeah, I think so. It was the biggest thing, that, oh my gosh, we're going to derail this whole case because she was his boss and he's a racist.
Speaker 3:And she could be telling Judge Ito that you should protect Furman, so don't let evidence against him come into the case.
Speaker 1:She could have been painting his. It's just more side of I guess it added to the whole the people versus the police.
Speaker 3:Yeah, maybe it's a conspiracy, like, maybe it's a conspiracy. It's not really a fair trial if the judge's wife yeah is on the side of the police like how could? That be. And then just imagine, like, after all this drama, turning on the news and them saying, like well, now the judge might have to step down. That that would have been like, oh my God this is even happening.
Speaker 1:I just don't. Oh yeah, four, four, all right. I mean yeah, all right. Number one, stop Um. I just it's not number one. Stop um. I just yeah, all right, I still just don't yeah. I mean whatever, what speak?
Speaker 3:I don't know what I was gonna say you can give feedback on your ranking because you know at the end of this you can't say that, can't blame John if it's the wrong number, if you didn't give your input no force.
Speaker 1:Fine, you made a good point about like thinking in the times with being a cop and stuff.
Speaker 3:I get that so we're agreed on that. One is number four yeah okay, all right, it's a real eaten affair?
Speaker 1:seems like really eaten affair situation. A little callback to last episode.
Speaker 2:I was getting involved.
Speaker 3:That's true, all right. So then your fourth scenario is the juror drama. So there was a lot of juror drama.
Speaker 1:This is going to be a hot ticket, I think.
Speaker 3:The OJ Simpson trial jury went through some of the most insane drama in legal history, so much so that by the end the case felt like a courtroom proceeding and less like a courtroom proceeding and more like a reality TV show. The jury wasn't just deliberating a case, they were practically prisoners, being watched, controlled and manipulated while completely cut off from the outside world for nearly nine months. The stress was so intense that 10 jurors were dismissed and at one point the entire jury almost revolted. So here's some of the things that happened with the jury. So we talked a little bit about jury selection.
Speaker 3:So, before the trial even started, jury selection was a war between the prosecution and the defense. The defense knew that race would be a major factor, so they fought hard for a jury with as many black jurors as possible, believing they would be less likely to trust the lapd, especially after the rodney king riots. The final jury was predominantly black nine black jurors, two hispanic and one white juror mostly female and had negative opinions of the lapd. Marcia clark, the lead prosecutor, later admitted that she knew this was a disaster for a case, but she had little control over it.
Speaker 1:How. Well, I guess I'm just saying because, racism aside, it's like you're supposed to get your jurors, are supposed to be a representation of your peers and that's obviously Representative of at least LA County.
Speaker 3:Well, I think they were representative of the county. Is LA County a majority?
Speaker 1:black, you think 90%.
Speaker 3:I bet I think they were representative. They were representative of LA County, but not of Brentwood, not of OJ's life.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, yeah, but.
Speaker 2:I just Googled. In 1990, the racial makeup of LA austin's 30 to 35 latino and non-hispanic whites were becoming a minority. Well that's.
Speaker 1:I just don't think it was well okay, I mean it is what it is. I mean that's, that's crazy and like how could they not have anything to do with it?
Speaker 3:they just like give up the fight I think the way it happens is like each juror comes up and you say yay or nay, so you don't know who the next ones are going to be, and I think like our ranking system kind of.
Speaker 3:And then you also object on different things and I think they were just doing a better job at like objecting on the ones that the prosecution wanted, and then by the time they got to the end it was like you don't really know how it's going to end up. And then, like she saw like it was like not going their way.
Speaker 1:But you can't go back and say like well, hey, that's not fair, let's start over again it's like when you do a fantasy football draft, john, and you end up with like four wide receivers with the same bye week and you're like whoops.
Speaker 3:I guess that's what it was like just like you think like okay, well, we'll start with one black person, then maybe the next one won't be, but then it's like the next one is. The next one is you're like uh-oh, but then like the ones maybe that are coming, like you can't convince them to take the ones that you want.
Speaker 2:So according to the 1990 census here we go. African Americans made up 11 percent of la county 57 were white. So if we're just talking about race, just the makeup of what the court would be, you'd expect six or seven white people on the court.
Speaker 1:That's what I just don't get. I mean, you know, how is it that skew?
Speaker 2:I mean if they people knew. I mean, obviously marshall clark knew that grace was going to be a thing and I think anyone with Marshall Clark knew that Grace was going to be a thing, and I think anyone with a brain probably thought it was going to be a thing before the trial started. That's weird.
Speaker 3:Anyway the defense was just really good. That dream team. They were really good at pushing through, I guess.
Speaker 1:Clearly.
Speaker 2:And like the prosecution was hard. It sounds like that's a why did it take nine months?
Speaker 1:That Sounds like that's a. Why did it take nine months? That's what they call an L. That's an L, the L.
Speaker 2:This trial should have been three weeks long. Based on what we're coming out the gates with, that's crazy, all right.
Speaker 3:So the next thing about the jury we're going to talk about their sequestration. They were locked down for nine months.
Speaker 1:They were cut off. Could you imagine being locked down with a bunch of straighters for nine months? God.
Speaker 3:They were cut off from the news, media and even their own families. This was supposed to keep them from being influenced by media coverage, but it ended up turning them into prisoners. They were kept in a hotel but their lives were heavily restricted no newspapers, limited TV, only pre-approved movies. No unsupervised phone calls, no contact with family and friends. They were allowed one supervised trip per week, like to a movie or the mall, but always accompanied by deputies.
Speaker 3:Jurors became depressed and some had emotional breakdowns. Many gained weight due to stress eating. Some refused to talk to each other due to rising tensions. Several later described it as a nightmare worse than being in jail. In June, by the time the trial reached month six, the jury had had enough. The jurors started writing secret notes to Judge Ito complaining about how they were being treated. Some refused to leave their hotel room, saying they were mentally exhausted. At one point, several jurors demanded to be removed from the trial because they couldn't take it anymore, and two jurors were sneaking out for fried chicken. They got caught and then Judge Ito had to put stricter restrictions on them.
Speaker 2:Put the bit on your nose. I think I know which one it wasn't.
Speaker 3:One juror protested by wearing all black and refusing to talk to anyone for an entire day. She was later dismissed.
Speaker 1:That's how there was a water um, um um, you know, all this talk about, like the OJ trial or OJ and and all this stuff, like there should be way more coverage about this, this jury that probably that must have been a nightmare, holy smokes. You can't even talk to your family.
Speaker 3:The trial broke records for the number of jurors dismissed 10 jurors were dismissed over the time of the trial, 10 out of the original 12.
Speaker 1:So when you get dismissed, so you have alternates, I guess. So these people who replaced the dismissals have been sequestered also.
Speaker 3:Yes, yep man, you have to go. But if you don't replace a jury, you don't get a vote in the end. So that's even worse. You don't even get a say. I don't even think you get to delivery. Okay, so here are some of the reasons why some of those 12 jurors had been removed by the judge. Are you ready?
Speaker 1:I was just going to say that you probably don't deliberate because probably by the time closing statements are there, if you have a jury that's going in, you probably get the bounce before the verdict. You think.
Speaker 3:I don't know what if something happened during deliberations.
Speaker 1:Isn't that when you get a hung jury? Anyway, go ahead, I don't want to interrupt.
Speaker 3:So one of the jurors was dismissed because they worked for Hertz. As we remember, oj was the spokesperson for Hertz at that time. One was in an abusive relationship with their boyfriend during the trial, so they saw that as a conflict. One had the same doctor as OJ who was going to be testifying, so they got dismissed. One made a bet. One made a bet OJ would be found innocent or 49ers caps and was weirdly obsessed with OJ things at the Rockingham visit, so they got dismissed like super fan.
Speaker 1:That's funny.
Speaker 3:One was dismissed for not paying attention. One was asked to leave and then later posed for Playboy. One was accused to be planning to write a book.
Speaker 1:John's Googling the Playboy. One immediately, just to give everyone an update.
Speaker 3:One was a bully and was intimidating other jurors, and one said another juror was harassing them. So the jury was constantly changing, which made things even more chaotic.
Speaker 1:Call that a motley crew.
Speaker 3:One of the most bizarre moments in the entire trial came when a juror named Jeanette Harris was dismissed and, instead of quietly leaving, she started dancing in the courtroom. She waved at OJ, did a little shimmy and walked out smiling. The media went wild saying this was a sign the jurors were on OJ's side. Judge Ito was reportedly furious, realizing he had completely lost control of the jury. After nine months of trial, over 100 witnesses and thousands of pages of evidence, the jury only took four hours to reach a verdict. For comparison, the Scott Peterson jury deliberated for over a week how could they have fixed that?
Speaker 1:I feel like if they would have been able to do something like in between the closing statements and the deliberation, like they said, something like we'll let you, we'll take you, you and your family, out to disney world, disney world disneyland, but the family.
Speaker 3:The families have all been watching the trial on TV, so they didn't want them to be influenced by any outside people.
Speaker 1:What if they said hey, if you guys last a week, if you deliberate for at least a week, we will take you to Disneyland for a week.
Speaker 3:After nine months they probably would have been like no way I want to go home.
Speaker 2:I don't understand. Wait, can I just say something I don't know? Can you the jury you're supposed to be? What's the big deal if they're influenced by their peers outside?
Speaker 1:They're the jury. I think Emily M has already said that they don't do this anymore.
Speaker 2:What you can't, you're not sequestered.
Speaker 3:They don't really sequester anymore. I think it's considered. I mean, they were in. They were basically in jail for almost as long as OJ was in jail.
Speaker 2:It's. I mean like, shouldn't they get like other people in their ear? And then, when all 12 of you get together again, it's like well, my dad said this and my brother thought this about this.
Speaker 3:No, it's because they're getting.
Speaker 2:Everyone's watching it on TV.
Speaker 3:No, because so they're getting tabloid headlines.
Speaker 1:I think that's the problem Books being written.
Speaker 3:They're getting opinions and rumors and things that aren't even true. So if the jury starts making decisions off of a rumor that the news was pushing's not fair to anybody.
Speaker 2:What are you talking about? That's true newspaper. More liars than the lawyers on, at least on the defense team probably the prosecutor, that's true.
Speaker 1:That makes a good point to be able to get facts you are 12 adults.
Speaker 2:You went through the american education system all of you should have critical thinking skills enough to decipher tabloids lawyers, judges.
Speaker 3:Oh, I hope that you know I mean have you been on? Facebook, with all of the people thinking that AI images are real, I mean it is the thing between your ears.
Speaker 1:No, Emily, I agree with you, but that represents a portion of the country.
Speaker 2:Yeah, we want a cross-section of your peers, you would never get a verdict.
Speaker 3:You would never get a verdict that's the whole point of having a judge making those decisions, like is this something the jury can learn about? Is this something they can't learn about? Because the judge is there to make sure that their the jury, is not being misled by the, the evidence or the. You know I get it.
Speaker 2:Hunting fathers, I get it really.
Speaker 1:I mean about well, they sure, I don't think they would know, understand, uh, that there's something called a facebook.
Speaker 2:I think they would expect the newspapers, no the newspaper. They would expect the newspapers to be one side or the other, black and white, and you're, they want to hear both sides but it's not.
Speaker 3:But juries are supposed to be impartial and they're supposed to go into open minds, yeah I get that.
Speaker 2:That's just lying to ourselves as a society, then that's they're human beings. You're you're allowed to be impressionable. You're a human being not not in the level that they would have been with o and j with oj.
Speaker 1:That's not just like well, I think, I think what you would. Maybe what john's getting at is why can't we? Have more an opinion like that I think you're supposed to when you're in a jury and maybe that's why they don't sequester anymore is that you're. You sign something saying this is like you sign when you sign up for a jury. I'm like this is me. I'm getting no influence from anybody else, I'm just using the facts that I learned in the case yeah, but everyone around the country was watching it, so everyone out.
Speaker 2:You have just as much facts as everyone else.
Speaker 3:That's outside yeah, but a million people weren't picked to be the jury. They were picked for a specific reason and they bring their personal experiences into their decision making, but I don't think that they should be. You know, you're watching jay leno making fun of judge ito and saying he's a clown, and now you're a jury and you're supposed to be like I mean, you can't, you can't taint them that way, because then it's not fair to OJ or the prosecution at that point.
Speaker 1:They missed out on a lot of laughs.
Speaker 3:I bet this jury huh, it sounds awful Like truly miserable, and I don't blame them for only deliberating for four hours. They probably all their decision made in like four months.
Speaker 1:They also had nine months to think about it or however long the trial went on.
Speaker 2:I also feel like that continues to treat them a little childish. It's like, well, they're going to be influenced, obviously, by late night talk shows. It's like, well, how stupid are these pete?
Speaker 1:I mean, I wonder if that they're comedy shows, but that's the thing everyone is in. You would be influenced and you would be getting influenced by those bozos you listen to on youtube I was influenced by my suit today like seven different times.
Speaker 2:Yeah, but that's fine, but that's why you're not making the decision as one person. It's not, I'm the jury, single one person on jury. And then I go out and I can be.
Speaker 1:You have to get a unanimous decision, though, okay okay.
Speaker 3:So let's say I, I just think it's weird, I hated nicole. I want oj to be found not guilty. So I go on the news and I start this rumor that I actually heard that nicole um had a gun and she pointed it at oj and he was acting in self-defense, and I know I heard nicole left an upper decker in OJ's toilet. Yeah, I heard Kato left the jets on, so OJ was totally justified in this behavior. So someone comes out and is so they're not under oath, they're on a news station.
Speaker 2:You know how much OJ's electric bill was.
Speaker 3:Yeah, and then people see it and they're like, oh my gosh, that person, she knew her, she must be right and that just totally tainted everyone's view. But it's a total lie and I'm not under oath saying that on a news station.
Speaker 2:But evidence in a case could also be a blindfold. That also can be. People put blinders on too. If certain evidence isn't allowed in, who's making that? Call the judge?
Speaker 3:The judge. Well, that's why you have to have trust in the justice system. You have to have trust in the justice system. They're held to a different standard than, like, a e-news reporter would be.
Speaker 1:Maybe we need, maybe the real story is we need to hold everyone to a higher standard.
Speaker 2:Or bring everyone to a lower standard. I think, it is here soon Might be a little bit easier. Stop fooling ourselves. No, I just think it's crazy that everyone here might get jury duty and you bring them in and we deem them unfit for whatever reason.
Speaker 1:Whatever the reason is, I'll tell you what anyone takes one look at you you're getting sent back, so you're getting sent home this guy. This is too much.
Speaker 3:He's an Italian sympathizer. That's what I heard.
Speaker 2:Is he an anarchist? Does he know, giuseppe, hmm?
Speaker 1:I just think. I kind of get what you're getting at, John, but there's kind of a middle ground that you need to meet. You can't be completely I mean this sequestering. I think the real loss here and again. This is another thing that maybe it was the judge's fault or whatever you can't let. If you're going to sequester a jury, you can't let the trial go on. For how long was it?
Speaker 3:nine months nine months, that's insanity, that's five days a week.
Speaker 1:Nine months for five days a week that's any.
Speaker 3:I mean, that's like an inhumane situation for those people. That is horrible. Well, I want tyranny.
Speaker 2:In my definition, I think again our founding fathers. That's tyranny Putting the jury on trial themselves for nine months.
Speaker 1:Well, I think that's what she was saying they had their rights.
Speaker 3:Yeah, they had their rights taken away and they didn't even commit a crime.
Speaker 2:By the justice system that John's getting heated over here.
Speaker 1:I wonder if that's like the attack that the defense made, like knowing that, Like let's drag this on for as long as we can so they don't think it's I'm sure there was probably a tactic to.
Speaker 3:I mean, I think they purposely made the DNA evidence like super confusing so that they couldn't follow. They knew they wouldn't understand it. It was new, it it was new and they were just sitting through days and days and days of these boring science. Like you know they, they were purposely dragging it out none of that.
Speaker 1:My new show really mattered. Well, I feel like that goes to the judge. The judge needs to be the one to put that like. Like guys, why don't you go home and come back with a little bit more of a succinct?
Speaker 2:this guy. This guy's a winner's like super fan. These aren't. These aren't biologists. We didn't bring 12 biologists in here, well that's up to the attorneys.
Speaker 1:Like why don't you go home? Like why don't you go part of a fair trial.
Speaker 3:Part of a fair trial is both sides have to know that they did their best to get the information out there. You can't just say like cutting you off and then sorry if it made you lose.
Speaker 2:And newspaper investigators can't find the information.
Speaker 1:I would say like dude time out, you get 45 minutes to present your case. If you can't do it by then, you're out of here.
Speaker 2:I don't know.
Speaker 1:I don't think this was a fair trial.
Speaker 3:We'll have to get a prosecutor on the pod to debate this. I can hook you guys up with a prosecutor.
Speaker 2:No more. So the defense team. I mean, they're the ones that'll pull out all the stops.
Speaker 1:They're the ones you've got to pay the big bucks to Well, yeah, well, what do they say? Know your enemy?
Speaker 2:You're not I don't care what you did, you're innocent. I what you did, you're not. You're innocent. I don't care if you could tell me you killed the person. Right now You're going to three for the jury Number three.
Speaker 3:Let's rank here. So you have this was number four, right?
Speaker 1:so there's three more that I did, like the guy showing up to the house like whoa, look at that hat. Oh jay, that's pretty cool. That's definitely how I would be let's give it all right.
Speaker 2:Fine, I'll give it a three you don't seem too happy.
Speaker 1:So we got one, three, six and seven.
Speaker 2:Open. We're deciding if their treatment, their overall treatment during the trial. That's where we're ranking this.
Speaker 1:Just like the story of the jury.
Speaker 2:Oh, oh, oh, like the whole, we're going to have to sit with this, wherever we put it. Yeah three, I guess I got pretty agitated.
Speaker 1:That was freaking heated. I don't want to go four or one, I mean no, it's not. John is coming in predetermined I can't wait until what you think is one isn't even on this list. That could happen.
Speaker 3:All right, number five wait until what you think is one isn't even on this list.
Speaker 2:That could happen. All right number five, oj tries on the glove all right.
Speaker 1:Who doesn't know this?
Speaker 3:the moment oj simpson tried on the bloody gloves in front of the jury was one of the most dramatic, shocking and, ultimately, disastrous decisions in the entire trial. This wasn't just a legal misstep. It was a Hollywood style courtroom moment that ended up turning the tide in OJ's favor.
Speaker 1:It was cartoonish how he tried to put those gloves on.
Speaker 3:Have you ever seen?
Speaker 2:it.
Speaker 3:All right. So for those not familiar, what what gloves are we talking about? Where did they come from?
Speaker 1:uh, one came from nicole's house and one came from oj's house right so they were two identical.
Speaker 3:They were two identical leather gloves. One was found at the murder scene next to nicole brown and ron goldman. The other glove was found at oj's house, behind the guest house where kayla kalen stayed, the same place that he heard the thumps the night of the murders. The gloves were Isotoner light gloves, size XL, and DNA testing showed they had blood from Nicole, ron and OJ on them. This was a huge piece of evidence linking OJ directly to the crime. The prosecution believed it was a slam dunk. Why else would one glove be at the scene and the other at OJ's house?
Speaker 3:By June of 95, the trial was dragging on and the prosecution was under pressure to deliver a powerful moment that would make the evidence undeniable. That's when prosecutor Christopher Darden made a huge gamble. He decided OJ should try on the gloves in front of the jury. His thinking was simple If OJ put on the gloves and they fit perfectly, it would visually prove that he was the killer. A live demonstration would be so powerful the jury couldn't ignore it. Darden thought he was about to end the case right there. When OJ was asked to try on the gloves, he dramatically struggled to get them on. He pulled, twisted, tugged at the gloves but they seemed too small. He grimaced and shook his head as if saying see, this is ridiculous. He held up his hands for the jury, fingers spread apart, making it look like the gloves were way too tight. Finally, he said they're too small. The jury watched this whole performance in silence. Darden's face dropped. He knew he had made a fatal mistake.
Speaker 3:There were several reasons why the gloves didn't fit, none of which proved OJ was innocent. The gloves had shrunk. They were leather and had been soaked in blood Over time. Leather shrinks when exposed to moisture. The gloves have been sitting in an evidence locker for months, likely drying out and stiffening. To preserve the evidence, oj was forced to wear latex gloves underneath the leather gloves. This added bulk to his hands, making it harder to slide into the gloves smoothly. Many experts believe OJ deliberately made a show of it. He spread his fingers wide and held them stiff so the gloves wouldn't slip on. Privately, prosecutors later admitted that they thought OJ had stopped taking his arthritis medication, which caused his hands to swell slightly. Johnny Cochran seized on this mistake immediately. During closing arguments he delivered the now famous line If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
Speaker 1:You must acquit.
Speaker 3:The phrase became legendary, replayed on TV and talked about for decades. Cochran argued that this was proof that OJ was being framed. Why would the killer's gloves not even fit him and the jury bought it. This was one of the biggest blunders in legal history. Before this, the prosecution had a strong case with DNA evidence, motive and eyewitness accounts. But this one visual moment overshadowed all of that. The jury completely disregarded the DNA evidence and focused on the glove stunt. All of that. The jury completely disregarded the DNA evidence and focused on the glove stunt. Even Marsha Clark, lead prosecutor, admitted later. I never thought the case would be decided on a pair of gloves.
Speaker 3:Judge Lance Ito himself later said that the prosecution's biggest mistake was letting OJ try on the gloves. It's possible that OJ and his defense team set this up. Oj likely knew the gloves wouldn't fit well. Cochran may have secretly encouraged Darden to push for the glove test, knowing it would backfire. The prosecution walked right to the trap. Even years later, christopher Darden still blames himself for that mistake, just a few months after the glove incident. Who else is?
Speaker 1:he going to blame?
Speaker 3:I hope. Just a few months after the glove incident, the jury took less than four hours to acquit OJ. The glove stunt had done exactly what the defense needed. It planted reasonable doubt. Even if the DNA evidence was strong, jurors couldn't unsee OJ struggling with those gloves. One juror later admitted the moment OJ tried on those gloves. I knew I couldn't convict him. This moment is still one of the most infamous legal blunders of all time. It showed how one theatrical moment could override mountains of forensic evidence. It of all time. It showed how one theatrical moment could override mountains of forensic evidence. It proved that a murder trial could be one with drama, not facts. It helped OJ walk free despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt.
Speaker 1:I have something to say. I have a pair of gloves in my work truck right now that I went to the hardware store to buy this specific glove. It's a leather, they're like yellow leather gloves. I went to buy extra large to buy this specific glove. It's a leather, it was their yellow leather gloves. I went to buy extra large, they only had large and I said, well, they only have large. I guess that's what I'm buying. Sure, they're small, but I still use them. That would have been my you know Thought process in the journey.
Speaker 2:Yeah, they're tight but they're going to get the job done. You can still have their on his hands. They're not child. Child size gloves.
Speaker 1:Like they're extra large gloves. I don't, like I don't. I've never seen a double extra large glove. I've never seen that size exist Right.
Speaker 3:And I'm sure his hands, his hands must be giant right.
Speaker 1:His hands are probably big, but he, I mean, how big is he? He was like six, three, I think.
Speaker 2:he wasn't like super tall they like definitely fit his hands well enough that like, yeah, do what he had to do with them, whether commit, murder, anything like that, like it to me it's like oh yeah, they didn't have my size but I bought them anyway, or whatever.
Speaker 1:But there was a way it was a lose-lose situation. There was no way that was going to accomplish anything. It was a stupid move.
Speaker 2:Why did they do it at the beginning of the trial? Why didn't they yeah, why did they waste everyone's time for nine months? I mean the jury specifically.
Speaker 1:You think anyone was like up in, like kind of like him, hauling around like I don't know. Guilty, not guilty, guilty, not guilty, and then um cochran's, just like if the glove must, if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit, and they're like oh I forgot about that. That's right is that true, is that right. He's a lawyer.
Speaker 2:Well, I'm just like dizzy after nine months of sitting in a hotel room every day in and day out. I haven't spoken to my family in nine months. I'm going to believe this guy. His words have been in my head every day. It's a joke, the whole show.
Speaker 1:Him putting the gloves on like he's sticking his tongue out like it doesn't fit.
Speaker 2:It's like me trying to get in the pants I was trying today. It doesn't fit. It's like me trying to get in the pants. I was trying today.
Speaker 1:That was all. That's number one. It's number one, I mean it's like, but it's also like.
Speaker 2:Expecting, though we only have six and seven left. He had latex gloves on. The room was a little hot. That's going to make your blood circulate. Right, you won't get as much blood circulation to your hands. It's stupid.
Speaker 1:That's what I'm saying, if I was in the jury.
Speaker 2:I'd just be like you're not proving anything to me, I know. That's the make or break of the trial. It's just stupid. Yeah, I know it's kind of blown out of proportion, and if I was there in the jury I'd be like you. Ladies are crazy.
Speaker 1:I would have been like try harder. Like put your hands.
Speaker 2:No, see that guard behind you. Now put your hands around his neck and see if you're still able to strangle. Well, he didn't strangle them. Well, he did something.
Speaker 1:Well, did he clasp his hands he acted like he couldn't even get them on.
Speaker 2:The whole time he was showing them he only kept them out like this, fully spread. He didn't actually clasp them because he had a knife.
Speaker 3:I don't think so.
Speaker 1:I don't think so. I feel like they kind of let. It was so bad. What they should have done is have somebody else try to put them on him, like here stick your hand out and then here hold this knife.
Speaker 3:Or they should have gotten a pair. They should have gotten a pair of. They should have ordered a second pair of non-bloody ones and had him try those on Like the exact same brand and size.
Speaker 2:No, his defense team would have been all over that one.
Speaker 3:How do we know?
Speaker 2:it's the same one. How do we know?
Speaker 3:There's variations.
Speaker 2:Someone could have doctored it up, and the jury's still.
Speaker 1:They probably could have hired somebody to create an exact replica. There are other ways to do it. Really stupid move.
Speaker 2:Love manufacturer on trial, bring him in, fly him in soon. When he said darden.
Speaker 1:Is that his name, darden? Right when he? When, when cochran said, look, don't quit fit, you must have quit, he must have been like so good, and he looks over at the jury.
Speaker 3:He's like imagine being marcia clark in that situation and your co-counsel does something like that and ruins the whole all that work in one little stupid stunt that's nonsense if it took them nine months.
Speaker 1:This was a slam dunk case.
Speaker 2:She knew when they picked the jury. It was an uphill battle. Just by looks alone that the jew that they already know it was a hard dump street, as they say.
Speaker 1:I mean, I mean geez, for her to just be like, oh yep, you shouldn't made him to the glove. It's like, well, what about the other? Uh, eight months and 30 days. What about the other? You know, 300 hours in the courtroom, crazy.
Speaker 2:I mean.
Speaker 1:Crazy.
Speaker 2:Well, let's talk about.
Speaker 3:Marsha.
Speaker 1:She's number six on my list Marsha Clark.
Speaker 3:We only have six and seven left, I believe.
Speaker 1:Marsha Clark drama is number six.
Speaker 2:I think we're going to regret putting Kato's testimony at two. I won't Never regret Kato.
Speaker 3:Marsha Clark wasn't just the lead prosecutor in the OJ Simpson trial, she was also one of the most scrutinized public figures in the entire case. She had a solid legal reputation before the trial, but once the cameras turned on, she was suddenly being judged not just for her legal skills, but her personal life, her appearance, her attitude and even her hairstyle. What should have been a battle of evidence and law became a war against sexism, public opinion and nonstop tabloid drama.
Speaker 1:So I agree with that. That's not really that fair.
Speaker 3:The first the first thing. Before the OJ trial even started, Clark's personal life was already in chaos. She was going through a messy divorce with her second husband, Gordon Clark. On top of that, she was fighting for custody of her two young sons. Then, in the middle of jury selection, her ex-husband went to court to demand full custody, arguing that her demanding trial schedule made her an unfit mother. She was already working insane hours preparing for one of the biggest trials in history. Now she had to fight for her children.
Speaker 3:At the same time, the media got a hold of her custody battle and turned it into a huge public spectacle. She later said in interviews this was one of the most painful parts of the trial. She was staying up all night working barely, seeing her kids and then being told she might lose them. She was being torn apart both in court and in her personal life before the trial had even really begun. Once the cameras started rolling, the tabloids and TV news had a field day mocking Marsha Clark, but not for her legal skills. They focused on her looks. The press constantly criticized her hairstyle, causing it frumpy and unflattering. She was mocked for her suits, with one journalist saying she dressed like a librarian from the 1970s.
Speaker 1:Ooh burn.
Speaker 3:This is the tabloids.
Speaker 1:You want these jurors listening to John.
Speaker 3:One newspaper literally ran a headline that said the Shrill Shrew. After weeks of brutal media attacks, clark got a makeover. She straightened her curly hair and showed up to court looking more polished and sleek oh, you don't do that instead of praising her, the press mocked her even more, saying she was trying to be sexy and calling it a desperate move.
Speaker 3:Yeah, you can't do that johnny cochran and the defense team weren't getting this, this kind of scrutiny. Clark was trying to convict a man for double homicide and all anyone could talk about was her hair. It became a national conversation, with TV hosts and comedians taking cheap shots at her every single day. She later said in an interview I was a prosecutor, not a reality TV star, but suddenly it felt like I was on a game show where the audience gets to vote on your outfit. The defense team constantly mocked her, interrupted her and tried to intimidate her. In one of the most sexist moments of the trial, f Lee Bailey called her little miss tough guy, a belittling comment that showed how little respect the defense had for her. She fired back, refusing to be bullied, but it was clear the defense was treating her differently than they treated male prosecutors. Some jurors said they thought Clark was cold, condescending and too aggressive. Marcia tried to relate to them, but it didn't work. One juror even told a reporter she came off like she thought she was better than us. This was a huge problem because Clark needed the jury to trust her. Instead, many of them tuned her out.
Speaker 3:Christopher Darden was Clark's co-prosecutor and at first they worked well together, but during the trial, tension grew between them. Then came the glove incident, one of the worst mistakes in the trial. We already talked about that. After this disaster, clark lost faith in Darden. She blamed him for the mistake that may have cost them the case. They barely spoke to each other in the final days of the trial. Darden later said in interviews that he felt abandoned by Clark, while Clark said she felt betrayed by Darden's mistake. When the jury delivered the not guilty verdict, clark was devastated. She had put everything into her case her career, her personal life, her credibility. She quit being a prosecutor and left the legal world entirely. She was offered TV deals, book deals and even movie offers. She wrote a bestselling book about the trial and later became a legal commentator. She has since said the oj trial was the best and worst thing that ever happened to me my thought with that is I.
Speaker 1:there's obviously a difference in you know how. That's definitely a societal difference from today until like to back in the early 90s, when there was a little bit more of objectification of women, or maybe not objective. What am I thinking of? Holding them at a different standard? Obviously sexism, I guess you would call it. But lawyers, I don't know what's the joke. What do you call a bus full of lawyers going over a cliff A good start? I don't know.
Speaker 2:Do you?
Speaker 1:think she. What's the joke? What do you call a bus full of lawyers going over a cliff A good start? I don't know what they say Lawyers are like.
Speaker 2:Especially defense lawyers. Of course they're going to do everything they can do to put a doubt in their mind.
Speaker 1:That's a shame. I guess she got put into a situation where she normally wouldn't have been in of being under this much public eye. But when you are a prosecutor you are a public figure, I guess, in theory, right, are they elected?
Speaker 3:Not nationally Not nationally.
Speaker 1:No, I'm not saying that, but you are a little bit of a public figure somewhat, but not like this. The district attorney is elected. But you are a little bit of a public figure somewhat, but not like this the district attorney is elected, but the prosecutors are hired. I think it's kind of lame. She blamed Darden. Take ownership for yourself. It took you nine months. You blew the jury selection.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that would have been a tough spot in the 90s to be the lead prosecutor, I'm sure, out the gate, you know, sitting across the table from five other power defense attorneys, male defense attorneys I think someone should have asked like, hey, what's going on? You're like, oh, I'm going through a divorce, I'm fighting for my kids, but you know, I'm just going to run out here and be on television. It's like when she stepped aside, I mean, I understand, so maybe it's trial of her career could have been she didn't know.
Speaker 3:She didn't know it was going to be on tv. She got picked because the day that they found the blood going into rockingham the detective called her and asked her opinion on if he could get a search warrant or not. So since she was involved from the beginning, she got the case. Judge ito decided in those six months to let cameras in the courtroom and that had never really been done before. That was the really the start of this like public fascination with watching courtrooms. So she was not expecting that and maybe if they would have, if she could have looked in the future and seen that, maybe she would have said no, but it was too late they should have made everyone the exception, should have been all right, we're gonna be, it's gonna be on television, but everyone has to wear a richard nixon mask I actually think that I'm surprised that they didn't.
Speaker 1:um, I guess maybe it wouldn't have necessarily have mattered for the outcome of the trial, but you would think that they would have consulted with a public relations person to go over their look and their demeanor in court and that kind of stuff You'd think that these lawyers would get trained that way.
Speaker 3:This was so new I mean, this was even pre-reality TV I don't think lawyers were really used to being in the front and center at all no, but I'm not even saying for that like.
Speaker 1:I'm saying like maybe somebody should have like told marsh carter, hey, you know, don't just start insulting kato as soon as he gets on the stage, maybe laugh with him a little bit, like maybe, maybe, maybe you know, join in on his, just appear likable, yeah, just yeah. But it's not fair to judge somebody like that and it definitely shouldn't have had an outcome to the, to the trial, but it did and that goes probably goes back to jury selection yeah no that stuff is six, seven, seven.
Speaker 2:I'm putting on seven.
Speaker 1:I only have two spots to go by. I was actually kind of bummed. We only have six or seven. I probably would have put it higher.
Speaker 2:Let's put it at six, what would you have? Can we ask that, emily, what?
Speaker 1:would he have put in. We'll do it at the end when we go through it. Marcia Clark.
Speaker 3:You can re-rank at the end. How do you spell her name? Is there an E at the end? No, you guys ready for number seven, seven and last. All right, the Faye Resnick Drug Theory. One of the wildest and most overlooked defense strategies in the OJ Simpson trial was the Columbian Drug Hit Theory, which suggests that Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman weren't killed by OJ but by drug dealers looking for payment from Nicole's friend, faye Resnick. This theory was sensational.
Speaker 1:Faye Resnick is the reality TV star right.
Speaker 3:Yes.
Speaker 1:What's she on Ria Housewives of Beverly Hills.
Speaker 3:Yes, okay, this theory was sensational, ridiculous and completely unsupported by evidence, but it still made headlines and Okay at parties and restaurants in Brentwood. But what made Faye infamous was the fact she was in drug rehab at the time of the murders. Just days before Nicole's murder, faye had checked into rehab for cocaine addiction. Some people in Nicole's circle believed Faye owed money to drug dealers. Defense seized on this, suggesting Nicole was murdered as payback for Faye's unpaid drug debts. The theory was Colombian hitmen came looking for Faye. They couldn't find her, so they killed nicole and ron instead. And there was zero evidence to support this.
Speaker 3:Johnny cochran and effley bailey needed to create alternative explanations for the murders. The key points that the defense pushed were nicole was friends with a known cocaine user. Fay fay owed money to drug dealers. Maybe those drug dealers went to nico Nicole's house looking for Faye and killed her instead. The flaws were Nicole had no known drug involvement, ron Goldman wasn't involved in drugs and there was no actual evidence of a drug cartel connection ever even presented. Even the judge wouldn't allow the defense to bring it up in court, but it still became part of the media narrative. Just four months after Nicole's murder, faye Resnick released a tell-all book Nicole Brown Simpson the Private Diary of a Life Interrupted. Faye painted herself as Nicole's best friend Four months.
Speaker 3:Yep. During the trial Wow or no? Before the trial, faye painted herself as Nicole's best friend and revealed intimate details about Nicole's relationships and personal struggles. She heavily implied that Nicole feared OJ and she knew he was dangerous. She also included details about their alleged drug use, party lifestyle and sex lives. Nicole had just been brutally murdered and Faye was profiting off her death. Many of Nicole's real friends slammed the book, saying it was full of exaggerations and lies. Even OJ's defense team used it against the prosecution, saying it proved nicole was connected to drugs, fueling the colombian hitman theory. Faye defended herself, saying I wrote the book to tell nicole's story and expose the abuse she suffered suffered at the hands of oj.
Speaker 1:That's number seven you think nicole brown simpson would be on real housewives of beverly hills? Do you seem like a socialite?
Speaker 3:There's probably a good chance or she would be on the Kardashians or something. She was really good friends with Kris Jenner.
Speaker 2:But then the Kardashians wouldn't be a show if the OJ thing didn't happen.
Speaker 3:You think I don't know.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it wasn't the whole thing because Kardashian was famous no, but people were interested in them because people knew in them, because people knew of them, because of his robert kardashian no, no, I think it was.
Speaker 1:I think it was paris hilton hung out with kim kardashian.
Speaker 3:Yeah, kim kardashian was on the hills.
Speaker 2:She was a closet organizer for heidi really the thing with her dad was nothing to do with it. His relation to OJ.
Speaker 1:Not as much. No, I don't think.
Speaker 3:Just that they were very well connected in the entertainment industry. I don't think people knew, I don't think Rob Kardashian was like a household name to people our age.
Speaker 2:I just wasn't sure if that was the jumping off point anyway, um fey, fey, fey, fey.
Speaker 1:Well, I'm glad this is. I'm glad this is number seven, because it obviously didn't have any impact to the actual trial. So I think it's a. It's a well-deserved spot at number seven, easily. I don't know, it would have been interesting for them to bring this up in trial because I would have been like, okay, if that happened then how did OJ's blood get on the gloves and how did Nicole's blood get into OJ's white Bronco?
Speaker 3:it does bring up an interesting debate of like well, if the defense is saying that OJ didn't murder Nicole even though there's like all this, like domestic violence issues then like who did? No one else was trying to murder her, and so it kind of gives that interesting. Like so who then? How? Like she was just murdered? Totally random, totally random, none of that.
Speaker 2:None of that matters. You know, Edo's sitting up there. He's just thinking to himself this is going to get so much airplay. Oh, this cocaine drug dealer's coming in, that's great, but it never made it.
Speaker 1:He didn't let him talk about it. Oh, it didn't get that far.
Speaker 2:Did you listen? What's the big deal? What's her problem?
Speaker 1:She didn't get it that far. That's why I'm saying it's good. It's number 7. They talked about it in the media.
Speaker 3:He brought it to Judge Ito and Judge Ito said no, because there was no evidence about it. But this is another reason why the jury had to be sequestered, because then they didn't hear about it there you go, john aliens arrived and killed Nicole Brown Simpson.
Speaker 2:Oh gotta keep her sequestered. We don't want you. Aliens arrived and killed Nicole Brown Simpson. Oh gotta keep your sequestered. We don't want you thinking that that's a seven, that's easy.
Speaker 3:Seven.
Speaker 2:I don't even know who this lady is, but Lisa Vanderpump called her Faye Rancid, so I'm with my girl, lisa, on that one. She sounds like she sounds whack.
Speaker 3:Well, and then Marcuscus allen's wife and faye were went to a dinner together on one of the episodes and that was a very uncomfortable interaction, because remember marcus and nicole were having the affair and then like but he was married to katherine at the time, why?
Speaker 2:Why wasn't Marcus Allen put on trial? He fled the country.
Speaker 1:The whole time. I think so, didn't he.
Speaker 3:They deposed him for the civil trial. There's definitely testimony from him, but he didn't testify for the murder trial.
Speaker 2:We don't think you're as good at running back as OJ Simpson murder trial.
Speaker 1:We don't think you're as good at running back as oj simpson, so I wonder who thought dreamt that story up?
Speaker 3:I think it was the defense team it was yeah, I don't know probably the defense team. Oj knew he did it, so he probably wasn't very good at coming up with other stories. Well, we don't know if he did it, so he probably wasn't very good at coming up with other stories.
Speaker 1:Well, we don't know if he did it.
Speaker 2:Excuse me, what was the verdict?
Speaker 1:What was the verdict again, emily?
Speaker 2:Yeah, Well, then he wrote his book, then he wrote his book, If I. Did it and did that weird interview and just told the whole story.
Speaker 1:But If was really teeny tiny. Everything was on the up and up baby.
Speaker 3:If If real tiny and then big, I did it.
Speaker 1:Well, that's what the Golemans made him do, but like why, yeah? And then Ron was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yeah, I mean I'm happy with that as seven, I think. I mean you could say that about anybody, I feel like everybody's everybody, everybody's two, three people removed from some kind of drug situation, especially especially in la, yeah I think it was maybe more scandalous at the time to talk about that publicly. Yeah.
Speaker 3:All right. Well then, what is your final ranking? Let's hear it and see if you're happy with it.
Speaker 2:See, if I remember Number one, are we starting from seven?
Speaker 1:We'll go from number one.
Speaker 2:You want to go? Okay, number one.
Speaker 1:Oh no, Go from number seven.
Speaker 2:Number seven faye resnick, her nonsense number six marcia clark, and her trials and tribulations outside of court, in and outside of court judgment. The judgment judgment yeah, five was. Was the jury. No Three was the jury yeah, five was.
Speaker 1:Furman as Hitler Furman as Hitler. Mark Furman as Hitler. That was a lifetime man I know. Well, it does feel like a lifetime ago, yeah. Four, judge Ito's wife being a cop, yeah With, like Furman's, like Mark firman's co-worker. Three was the jury uh-huh.
Speaker 2:Two was kato, gotta love kato, and one was the glove yep, that's it.
Speaker 1:it's an okay list Furman as Hitler.
Speaker 3:I can't believe they got that much rage.
Speaker 1:I think Furman as Hitler would probably go up a little bit.
Speaker 2:You think it should go closer to one.
Speaker 1:Like up. Yeah, like I would maybe swap Furman as Hitler and Jadgeta's wife. Other than that, I think it's a pretty good list. What do you think, Emily?
Speaker 3:I thought you guys did pretty good. I liked the Colombian drug theory Personally, I thought that was fun.
Speaker 1:It's tasty. It's tasty, but I'm not really sure how we're ranking these, so I'm not really sure this is based on.
Speaker 3:It's just kind of a list, I guess it's just like, if I think about it being outrageous, it's definitely an outrageous theory, but if it made its way into the court, you made a good point that it didn't really end up affected public opinion but not the trial itself.
Speaker 2:So I guess again if it affected public opinion and the jury could see that public opinion, then I'd say OK, but they didn't.
Speaker 3:John just wants like all the fake news getting to juries so they can just believe whatever they want to believe.
Speaker 2:You're supposed to use your brain.
Speaker 3:People can't do that. We've learned that we have not evolved to use our brain.
Speaker 1:That is part of the problem. So they don't have juries anymore. I'm not against that. Stop having juries. It doesn't seem to really work out that well. You're supposed to be judged by a jury of your peers. And if everyone's an idiot, then that's what comes with it, that's what comes with the territory.
Speaker 2:That's true.
Speaker 3:What if they could be like I'm an idiot.
Speaker 2:Other idiots can judge me.
Speaker 1:Maybe if your life depended on people reading about stuff on Twitter and Facebook or whatever, people will be more interested in being like yeah, maybe we shouldn't have this stuff.
Speaker 2:Yeah, if you know what the consequences are.
Speaker 3:But it's just the reality. You have to accept the reality.
Speaker 2:That we have idiots and you can't try to delude yourself by having smart people on juries. Yeah, I think the judge will get there and put idiots in there.
Speaker 3:You choose if you want a jury trial or a judge trial.
Speaker 2:Oh, do you.
Speaker 3:Yes, you get to make that decision.
Speaker 2:There you go, John.
Speaker 3:So some people think it's like OJ probably would have definitely been found guilty if it was just a judge right, because the judge would have understood all the evidence. So they thought they had a better chance if they could make enough people doubt it in a jury trial they should just be like yeah, okay, do you want a jury trial or a judge trial?
Speaker 1:if anybody says jury trial, they'd be like are you guilty, put her in jail like in today's world, I would say that's probably the case.
Speaker 3:No, oh boy, that's funny oj asked for it to be a speedy. You have a right to a speedy trial.
Speaker 1:He requested that because I feel like they, if it took longer in between, you'd have more time to prepare yourself, so you'd have a more succinct defense.
Speaker 3:And then the jurors would have been sequestered for nine months. I think that was definitely part of it and I think because they were still figuring out how to do DNA evidence, I think that took a lot longer than it does now.
Speaker 1:It's a very good approach by the OJ team. They just got outworked, but at the same time it's the way they knew how to use the system. So some of the things were out of the control of the prosecution. So, emily M, do you think that was a good idea or a bad idea for it to be televised the trial?
Speaker 3:Well, that's a good question. I probably think it was a bad idea. I think it probably offered way too many distractions and really lost sight of the people who were killed and justice for them, because, you know, I think it would have been a media circus regardless, but having that 24-7 view of it, I think, just amplified it so much.
Speaker 2:Should have been on the just radio.
Speaker 3:Yeah, that could have maybe helped. Or just had court reporters go in and give summaries every day. I mean there's other ways to share the information at any, I guess.
Speaker 1:I guess some people just sat there like you listen. You could have listened to the whole trial on tv right it was on court tv 20 like live.
Speaker 3:That was the first time they'd ever done that, so, yeah, you could just sit I'm sure people did oh, people that were like homebound I'm sure they did, and then I'm sure it was all the news was talking about. So you probably got all the highlights every night. I'm sure it was like you were probably so sick of hearing about it by the end. Do we think this was a good format to go over the trial? I think we covered probably the most interesting parts yeah, I mean, what else we're gonna do?
Speaker 1:go over dna. We'll be talking for nine months. We'll have to sequester our.
Speaker 2:We'll have to sequester our listeners we've been doing this podcast longer than that trial. Can you believe that I mean?
Speaker 3:well, thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1:This was fun oh yeah, thanks, emily m. I don't know, is that the end of the oj saga fans? Let us know if you want to hear. I mean, we got the aftermath that we could talk about we have aftermath.
Speaker 3:We have his time in florida, we have his second stint in jail, when he did a armed robbery to get his own memorabilia back.
Speaker 2:That's probably even crazier.
Speaker 1:I think we need to dig into the JFK files.
Speaker 3:I am a big JFK conspiracy theorist. I have to say I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist but I am for that one.
Speaker 1:Have they been released yet?
Speaker 3:No, he gave them 15 days to come up with a plan to release them. So maybe once they get released we could go over some of that together.
Speaker 1:All right, emily M thanks for taking the time.
Speaker 3:Thanks for having me, guys.
Speaker 1:Glad to have you back.
Speaker 3:I'm going to edit this down a little bit, like in half.
Speaker 1:Yeah, that might be a tough one. John didn't put timestamps together, so that's part of the issue.
Speaker 2:We'll do it next time, all right, thanks guys. Thanks, emily. All right, thanks guys. All right, thanks Emily. Guys, keep on keeping on and stay curious, especially when you're working with a tailor.
Speaker 1:You don't know what, just stay curious, you blow it trying to be funny.
Speaker 3:I can't hear that through my headphones, just so you know.
Speaker 1:I got hairy legs. Come on, man, and we say bye-bye.