I agree with you almost completely on this - the exception being that to me OJ's defense team basically were the heroes of that story; as you point out, they did their job, and did it a hell of a lot better than the DA. Defense attorneys are supposed to be focused on getting a not guilty verdict, not on getting to "The Truth". The Truth is the job of the representatives of the State, and they failed mightily in this case. The real tragedy is that they fail in the same ways over and over, both before and after the OJ Trial, but most defendants who go to trial do not have the resources OJ did to make them pay for their mistakes.
Your point about the police framing a guilty man, and the DA's office running with it, is exactly right, and makes me think not so much of Scalia, but of the Avery case told in the Netflix "Making a Murderer" doc. I have a lot of film and tv faculty and student friends who have been bashing the doc for being one-sided; my defense has been that they are misunderstanding the main point; the issue is not "is Avery guilty?", the question is, "did the police and prosecutors behave unprofessionally and illegally to violate his right to a fair trial?" The defense lawyer in that doc says basically the same thing you have here - that police plant evidence and otherwise set up suspects all the time, and almost always do so thinking they are dealing with a guilty party who they want to make sure pays for their crime. However well intentioned, society must have a zero tolerance policy towards this kind of misconduct. It is sickening that after all the money and media hype spent on the OJ case, we still seem to have missed that basic point. I never did read Toobin's book - for some reason I always thought he was a little more hip to the complexities of the case and the flaws in the defense. > > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 1:21 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ...But what surprises and irritates me the most so far is how much of an >> apology the series appears to be for Clark, Gil Garcetti and the LAPD. >> >> Having read Toobin's book upon which this series is based, that was his > point-of-view of the trial, that Clark and cops were the good guys. Again, > not that I'd want to see a dramatic retelling of the OJ trial, but if I had > to, I'd prefer it to be more along the lines of a phrase tossed about > during the trial, "the police framed a guilty man, and the DA's office ran > with it." I genuinely believe Fuhrman planted the glove at OJ's house, and > Vanatter scattered OJ's blood all over Brentwood... I also believe they > each did this independently of each other, not as a grand conspiracy but > just two bad cops trying to ensure a conviction, both too stupid to know > their actions would lead to a not guilty verdict. Had Hodgman not left the > case due to a heart condition, I doubt he'd have included the obviously > planted evidence, instead letting the very convincing circumstantial case > stand on its merit... which would have resulted in a conviction. Clark and > Darden saw the evidence and decided to roll the dice with it, despite its > obvious flaws. They started allowing in every insane bit of "evidence," > including treating barking dogs as though they were freakin' Lassie. > > I can't help but draw a comparison between OJ's attorneys and the recently > departed Justice Scalia. By many people, these lawyers were the epitome of > scumbags, but in terms of the jobs they were given, they were the best in > the business. Scalia was, to me, almost entirely lacking morality or > ethics, but a lawyer's job is to effectively use the law to advocate a > side, and I don't think there has been a more able advocate of > conservativism in my lifetime. Likewise, OJ's lawyers had no interest in > the truth -- their role was to use the law to free their client. They had > no choice but to point out Fuhrman's racist past and Vanatter's improper > handling of evidence; it would have been negligent of them to do otherwise. > And it forced Judge Ito to include in the jury's instructions that they had > the right if not the obligation to reject all evidence by the LAPD as a > result of their behavior (and false testimony... something they were never > disciplined for after the trial). The DA's office never needed to call > Furhman, but they called everybody but the dogs themselves, their strategy > being to pile it on. That was a flawed strategy... they were not the heroes > Toobin tried to make them out to be. Truthfully, there were no heroes at > all in the OJ trial... but that makes for a clunky dramatic narrative. > > > -- > Kevin M. (RPCV) > > -- > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
