Special Edition: The Simpson Saga Pt. 5: Laughter, Lawsuits, and Legendary Trials

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:17):
we're back with another episode installment of
the nailing History podcast.
I'm here with our resident hostA 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 guestremoting in from the Poconos.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
Hello everyone.

Speaker 1 (00:45):
Oh, emily M in from the Poconos.
Hello everyone.
Oh Emily M, that's who's herefrom the land of the Poconos.

Speaker 3 (00:52):
Yep, I'm up here in the Pokes, as we call it.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
How far are you from the racetrack?

Speaker 3 (00:57):
She's close About 10-15 minutes, 10 or 15 minutes
for the once a year big event.
We went not last summer, butthe summer before.
We went to the day before thebig event festivities and there
were a lot of militaryrecruiting going on.
Um, the kids got to hold abazooka.

(01:18):
They thought that was cool andwe watched some trucks go around
the track with earplugs in ourears.
Wow it was actually pretty fun.
I highly recommend If you'venever been to a NASCAR event.

Speaker 2 (01:33):
Very cool.
Well, happy to have you back onEmily.

Speaker 1 (01:36):
Well, speaking of big moments or big events, we had a
big event today, john and I.
John's getting married and hisfiance was on the air.
Last year, lauren G and we wentsuit shopping.
I'm the best man in his wedding, so he wanted his best man to

(02:00):
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 areinvolved with these stupid
stores who don't know whatthey're doing.
I never look good in a suit.
Reason, reason, reason.
I have a million reasons why.
So I was dreading it a littlebit, but I was also.
Whatever, I'll go with John.
The plan is John and I aregoing to match, we're going to

(02:22):
have the same suit and then therest of the groomsmen are going
to have a lesser quality suit.
So we know the hierarchy of thewedding party.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
That's the plan.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
It's like you can't have the groomsmen looking
better than the best man.
I think that's the rule ofweddings.

Speaker 2 (02:41):
I think that's more okay than a bridesmaid showing
up the bride.
Would you agree, emily?

Speaker 3 (02:50):
well, yeah, you can't have the bridesmaid showing up
the bride.
I you're saying that the bestman should show up the groom the
groom's men.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
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 looksgood on you like really good in
that, so I think a man cancompliment another man that like
looks the part like.

Speaker 3 (03:10):
Looks super sharp.

Speaker 2 (03:11):
I think women would be a little more like that's my
day.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
I didn't get fit, john got fitted.
It was like an hour.
It was like a little bit of anover an hour process Because I'm
in the middle of my shreddingfor the wedding phase, so I
don't want to get measurementsthat aren't going to apply in a
couple weeks.

Speaker 2 (03:31):
You know what I mean.
So you got a T-minus three,four months to get there.

Speaker 1 (03:35):
So this is what happens, speaking of which, we
won't harp on it too longbecause we have a lot to get to
here.
Um, emily m's here with themost they anticipated and most
requested follow up to the ouroj simpson coverage, but just
wanted to talk about our daytoday.
It was, we had a couple funnyjohn's.
Uh, john's an interestingcharacter.

(03:57):
Whenever you're doing anythingout in public with him, um, he
kind of always says somethingthat makes you laugh.
So I was a little stiff.
He was nervous getting there.
He was very nervous.

Speaker 3 (04:12):
What were?

Speaker 1 (04:13):
the nerves about what were you nervous?

Speaker 3 (04:14):
about.

Speaker 1 (04:16):
So we show up at suit supply.
We had an appointment.
We get in there and we waited alittle 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 togo?
Blah, blah, we start talkingand he's like all right, you
know, let's go over.
We get over the table.
Um, the gentleman, I don't, Idon't know if you would consider

(04:37):
him a tailor, but whoever wasfitting the suit, the suits for
him?
Um, he asked john.
He says like hey, he's likejust just curious.
Do you, you know, since we'refitting you now your wedding's
in june?
It's a long ways away.
Like hey, do you fluctuate andwait at all?
John says oh no, I don't.
Well, I did just gain 10 morein the context of like it's

(05:09):
winter.

Speaker 2 (05:10):
It's winter, you know it's winter time.
I now got a new job, a littlemore sedentary, it's winter.
I think once that sun's out, ina couple months I'll be walking
more, a little more active.
I think my weight will be alittle more regulated.
It's I wasn't trying to say I'mputting on a lot of weight, I

(05:32):
just had a little bit of alifestyle change.

Speaker 1 (05:34):
So you know, yeah a little give and take, but uh,
but what have you been doing toget into shape?

Speaker 2 (05:42):
listen to this, emily m I, uh, I had a new year's
resolution of doing 10 push-upsa day, just 10, because most, as
we talked about our lastpodcast, no, most, um, new
year's resolutions are brokenthe second friday of the year by

(06:03):
the second friday of the year.
So I just you know it the year,so it just starts more.

Speaker 1 (06:07):
So you've decided to do something that takes five
minutes to do.

Speaker 3 (06:11):
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 orsomething.
Is that the plan?

Speaker 2 (06:19):
Yeah, that might have to walk that plan back a little
bit because we worked out thatmy chest, how I got fitted, my
chest was at a good spot oh, Iwas 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 tosit-ups instead of push-ups it
was funny because the guy goes.

Speaker 1 (06:39):
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'retalking about all this stuff.
And then john brought up likewell, I'm doing 20 push-ups a
day, so who knows what I'm gonnalook like come the wedding.
And that made me laugh.
So then when we had thisconversation about his weight
and how he gained 10 pounds, hewas like oh well, the guy was
nice about it, even though Icould tell he was like he let I.

(07:00):
I laughed and he kind of waslike, yeah, that's pretty funny.
And then like he goes, allright, 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.
I think he was just like oh, 10pounds on someone, your height,
that's not really that much Likeas far as your body shape, so
that's okay.

Speaker 2 (07:31):
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 (07:33):
impressed.

Speaker 1 (07:33):
By that was he impressed it was funny, it was
pretty funny, it was good, as wewere getting the fitting
underway.

Speaker 2 (07:41):
He did make a comment on my deltoids, so obviously
I'm getting some games.
What did he say?
Oh, your deltoids are reallykind of showing here.
He said he made a comment.
He's like your shoulders arereally.

Speaker 3 (07:51):
Oh, he was hitting on you maybe I don't know it was.

Speaker 1 (07:55):
It was fine and it was fine.
John did pretty good.
He was very awkward when shewas getting.
I was a little I will say I wantto give a little psa out to all
the men out there with suits.
The best thing that I got thatI personally got granted this
was John's day.
I was just there for support.
But the best thing that Ilearned from this whole

(08:15):
situation is we were talkingabout shirts.
He was getting his custom shirtand started talking about how a
lot of the dress shirts aresee-through.
So I got to the point to askthis guy like hey, man, what
should we wear for an undershirtthis custom shirt?
And started talking about how alot of the dress shirts are
see-through.
So I got to the point to askthis guy like hey, man, what
should we wear for an undershirt?
Because no guy wants to wearlike everyone see his white
t-shirt under there and it'salways see-through and
especially we're going to be injune, we're going to be sweating

(08:36):
through a shirt.
What do we do?
And he gave us this great ideaget a freaking skin-toned
colored shirt undershirt v-neckthough like a v-neck, like like
a light material he gave us.

Speaker 3 (08:52):
I want to I kind of want to get this company.

Speaker 1 (08:57):
Yeah, I mean, I don't know about that.
I kind of want to give him ashout out.
Yeah, airism a-I-R-I-S-M.
It was on the store across theway from Suit Supply at the Mall
Uniqlo.
It's a store.

Speaker 2 (09:12):
Is that what the store is called, japanese or?

Speaker 1 (09:15):
Korean, but it's like a kind of a skin tight.
Beige v-neck, light materialundershirt.
So I was pretty surprised,thanks I guess the funny thing
was the best part about thistrip when we go over there and
we walk through the aisle andthis aorism also makes underwear

(09:35):
.
So john stops at the underwear.
He's like man I was wearing.
I was very uncomfortablewearing that suit in my current
underwear.

Speaker 2 (09:42):
He's like I gotta make sure I'm wearing nice
underwear for the night, that'sgood forethought, but it's gonna
be a long day no, likesomething breathable, I'm, I'm
due for, I'm due for an updateit's like a bride shopping for
lingerie for her wedding night.

Speaker 1 (10:03):
No, it's weird.

Speaker 3 (10:08):
There's nothing wrong with that, John.

Speaker 2 (10:11):
Just drop $1,200 on a suit, I think I can wear a $10
pair of underwear that arebreathable and comfort fitting.

Speaker 3 (10:19):
You can't get the Walmart special under that suit.
You have to be a littleelevated there.

Speaker 2 (10:24):
Thank you, Emily.

Speaker 1 (10:28):
You're welcome.

Speaker 2 (10:28):
I appreciate that I gotta wear nice.

Speaker 1 (10:29):
Gotta wear nice underwear my wedding day well,
maybe you shouldn't laugh.
Maybe it'll make all thedifference as you're sweating I
wish I would have gotten thatnice underwear too I'm not
saying it was wrong, but I'msaying that like it was just a
weird situation for us to be in.

Speaker 2 (10:48):
I just dropped twelve hundred dollars and I'm like we
understand, I'm no, I'm justlike 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 readyfor the all things and I can't
be showing up there wearingthese lame ass haines.

Speaker 3 (11:10):
What is the anticipated outdoor temperature
around the day of your weddingbe?

Speaker 2 (11:16):
like 95 to 100 degrees, but it'll be a dry,
it'll be a dry it's gonna bereally sweet.

Speaker 3 (11:22):
That's toasty yeah.

Speaker 1 (11:24):
I think breathable underwear is a good idea, then
so any listeners, if they wantto send John a nice pair of
underwear to wear on his weddingday, feel free to drop us a
line on, send us a text or shootus a message at
NailingHistoryPod at gmailcomand we will send instructions on

(11:45):
getting them to him Just makesure to not delete the text in
the text field with a copy andpaste of a URL.
When you click yes, when youclick send us a text message,
there will be some numbers andrandom letters that are
populated into the text box Donot delete.
It says some random letters andnumbers Do not delete.
Then you can type Just let it.

(12:07):
Don't delete it, Don't evendelete the don't Do not delete
words.

Speaker 2 (12:13):
Just leave it, just like I left the pleats off of my
pants when I was all said anddone.
We've got to be having aproblem because we've only two
Ooh history of suits That'd be agood one.

Speaker 1 (12:28):
Only two people seem to know how to not delete the
auto-populated letters andnumbers that go into a text
message, because that's kind ofall that we.

Speaker 3 (12:41):
Who are those two people?

Speaker 1 (12:43):
Emily M, who we have here, and Dick Pepperfield.

Speaker 3 (12:48):
Alright, I'm in good company.

Speaker 2 (12:51):
Italian Stallion himself.
Well, yeah, so we had a fun day.
We're back.
We should release our fullepisodes on Patreon.
Yeah, $10 a month.

Speaker 1 (13:03):
It's like a downgradegrade.
I feel like we should be.
We should charge people tolisten to the edited episodes
and only put out the uneditedversion, the three hour long
versions on for free and youhave to pay for a more edited
version.
What do you think the editingis where?

Speaker 3 (13:23):
all the work, all the work goes into the editing.

Speaker 2 (13:26):
So it's true, doesn't release this to the world.
I don't think the old fawnedits a lot of his stuff.
You think I do?

Speaker 1 (13:35):
you know, I think you just don't realize it well, he
does a very good job at editingand then or his team I guess
that's what happens when youhave 10 000 listeners, an
episode at least, and gettingable to pay for a crew anyway.
So that's pretty much it.
Emily m, how have you beensince, uh, last june, june of 24

(13:57):
anything new in your world?

Speaker 3 (14:01):
um, probably a lot new.
I'm trying to think, I don'tknow.
Not, I guess not nothing toobig, just keep it on, keep it on
did you like our last episode?
I sure did learned a lot aboutinaugurations that's good,

(14:24):
that's good.

Speaker 1 (14:24):
I'm glad you did.

Speaker 3 (14:26):
I liked that.

Speaker 1 (14:27):
The other option was going over the history of
wildfires in America, so Ispared us on that one and picked
a little bit more of aninteresting topic, I think.

Speaker 3 (14:36):
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 (14:45):
That's kind of hard to imagine.

Speaker 3 (14:46):
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 myhouse to the public.

Speaker 1 (14:54):
I don't know about opening the white house, I know,
but if someone were to pay mymortgage I would let anyone in
my house if the public was gonnapay for it even if they were
like we're going to come in withlike guns and just like
terrorize you taxpayer.

Speaker 2 (15:08):
They paid for my house if I, if my was divided by
300 million people, I guess I'dhave to let them they own it.
They're part owners of it.
I just live in it I thinkthat's definition of what the
president just lives in thewhite house.
It's not his house, that's true.

Speaker 1 (15:24):
Temporarily holding what the president is.

Speaker 2 (15:24):
He just lives in the White House.
It's not his house, that's true.

Speaker 1 (15:26):
Temporarily holding it and also they have security.
So if you had 24-hour securityin your house, I don't know
Would you let people into yourhouse if you had 24-hour
security all the time there.

Speaker 3 (15:41):
Anyway, Emily, I don't think so I don't think I'd
really want strangers hangingout in my house.

Speaker 2 (15:49):
What if?
Someone tried burning an effigyof, of you, of you.
That was a thing people used todo.

Speaker 1 (15:57):
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 partright.
He's the reason that we're notallowed in the White House.

Speaker 3 (16:11):
Hmm, Well, I wouldn't If people were burning effigies
of me.
That would probably cross alittle bit of a line.

Speaker 1 (16:21):
I wouldn't be a freeloader though, either.

Speaker 3 (16:28):
I mean, I think it's more just like If if I was
president, I don't think I'dlive in the white house.
I think it's more just likewe're providing room and board
for the person that we areputting into that position, and
I don't think we still have amortgage on the white house.

Speaker 1 (16:38):
I think it's probably paid off we had to build it
twice, right?

Speaker 3 (16:47):
well, they could take a teeny bit of that trillion
dollars that goes to themilitary and they can put that
towards the care of the whitehouse different, I don't know,
or other entitlement programsall right.

Speaker 1 (16:59):
So emily m here, our resident, resident OJ Simpson
expert.

Speaker 2 (17:06):
Is that what we call her?
You want to be an expert or anamateur enthusiast?

Speaker 3 (17:10):
Oh yeah, Probably amateur enthusiast Professional
amateur enthusiast, yeah, Ithink our resident our PAE
resident the Nailing.

Speaker 1 (17:27):
History resident OJ Simpson history enthusiast
amateur, semi-professional, veryesteemed title you can put that
on your LinkedIn profile.

Speaker 3 (17:42):
I will be happy to do that and we wanted to continue
the story.

Speaker 1 (17:48):
I guess would you say Emily.

Speaker 3 (17:50):
Yeah, we're going to.
We got through to OJ Landon injail and we kind of left
everyone hanging from there.
So I think it's a good idea tomaybe talk a little bit about
the trial and maybe kind of leadeveryone to that conclusion
that everyone is familiar withwith the verdict yeah, I think

(18:13):
so.

Speaker 1 (18:14):
So where you got to?
So just the I would say.
Um, I just want to say that thepart one of the oj simpson
special is our most downloadedepisode, currently sitting at 97
downloads, which is huge.

Speaker 3 (18:31):
That's amazing.

Speaker 1 (18:32):
Almost triple digits.

Speaker 3 (18:35):
You'll get there.

Speaker 1 (18:37):
I think we will.
I think we will, so happy tohave you back and glad.
To finish off, I will say thetiming kind of works out.
Some of our listeners mightknow there's a Netflix
documentary currently about thewhole story and I did start
watching it.
I was telling Emily that Iwatched it all the way to the

(19:00):
Bronco Chase, which is where weended the podcast basically.
So I'm through the Netflixdocumentary and our show itself.
I'm all caught up to the BroncoChase.

Speaker 3 (19:13):
It's perfect.

Speaker 1 (19:14):
But just for our listeners that may not remember
or haven't watched this Netflixdocumentary.
I think it's called AmericanManhunt OJ Simpson.
I think it's called how did weget here?

Speaker 3 (19:27):
So let's see, In our part one we talked all about OJ
and Nicole's relationship and alittle bit of the ups and downs
that they had from their day today the outside perception
versus what was going on behindthe scenes.
We talked a little bit aboutsome of the other adjacent

(19:47):
people in their lives, like CatoKaelin and Paula Barbieri and
Ron Goldman, and we chronicledup to the point of the murders.

Speaker 1 (19:59):
A certain trip to Cabo was had.

Speaker 3 (20:01):
We talked about some vacations with some big turning
point.
Jenner's now Kardashians.
Uh, we talked about some ofOJ's acting career and frog man,
where he played a frog man.
Um, we talked about theirbiggest fear.

Speaker 1 (20:17):
And and in that you learned that it was a term for
Navy seal, not an actual.
Like superhero, yeah, superheroyes, yeah yeah, we're all
learning something.
Yeah, we're all learningsomething.

Speaker 3 (20:31):
Um, we learned a little bit about their biggest
fears.
Oj's was drowning and nicole'swas being chopped up into a
bunch of pieces, so that was alittle 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 twowith kind of the next day and oj

(20:56):
was in chicago.
There was a bag that wentmissing.
Uh, there was a cut on hisfinger that was a little
suspicious.
He came back to LA and he gotquestioned by the police.
They released him, he went home, he talked to one of his police
friends and the police friendwas like whoa, this guy
definitely did it because of thequestions he's asking me.

(21:17):
And then Nicole had a funeral.

Speaker 1 (21:20):
Yeah, he was like like hey, man, how long does it
take for dna evidence to comeback?
Yeah, and like what he failedfor a friend he miserably failed
a lie detector test, right like.

Speaker 3 (21:32):
And he was asking his friend like oh, is that a bad
score to have?
And the guy was like whoa, thisguy definitely, definitely
killed her.
Um, they went.
He showed up at nicole'sfuneral and was like hang, he
went in the limo with nicole'sfamily, yeah, he went like back
with them a little bit strange.
Um, and then, after the funeral, he likes evaded everybody and

(21:52):
ended up at Rob Kardashian'shouse.

Speaker 2 (21:56):
And his underwear.

Speaker 3 (21:57):
Yes, there are some pictures of him in his underwear
.
So that led us to the Broncochase day, which started out at
Rob Kardashian's house.
Um, oj being suicidal, writingsuicide note.
Um, he sends his girlfriend,paula Barbieri, away.
She, uh, reluctantly leaves.

(22:19):
Aj Callings takes OJ, theyescape, nobody can find them.
He goes to a church and he'sgoing to kill himself and he
doesn't do it.
And then he's trying to go toNicole's grave in Nicole's
apartment but he can't get therebecause of all the police.
And eventually they end updeciding he wants to go back to
Rockingham and that's where theBronco chase takes place.

(22:40):
Someone spots them.
The chase goes on for a longtime to go down in infamy.
He finally surrenders at hishouse, the police take him into
custody under the disguise ofnight, he pleads not guilty and
he is put in jail.
And that is, I think, where wehave wrapped up the story thus

(23:00):
far.
Did I miss anything?

Speaker 2 (23:10):
story.
Thus far did I miss anything.

Speaker 1 (23:11):
I think that pretty much covers it um kato and the
and the jacuzzi the fan favoritepart of the whole story and the
trip to mcdonald's yeah but Ithink that pretty much covers it
.
Yeah, okay, so that's so thatwas, that was april, that all no

(23:32):
, that happened in june of 94,correct?
Correct so now we're going tobe fast forwarding to like later
in the year.
Right, we're going to.

Speaker 3 (23:43):
We're going to talk about what happened.
So the trial itself started inJanuary of the next year, so 95.
And so we're going to firsttalk just very, very briefly
about what happened from thetime OJ got locked up until the
time the trial actually gotstarted, because there was a lot
of stuff that was going onbehind the scenes while all this
was happening.

(24:03):
One of the things that happenedwas Judge Ito got appointed to
the case and he ended up being apretty memorable character and
he reportedly loved the fame andhe was the one who approved
cameras to be in the courtroomand he kind of liked his little
celebrity status that he got.

(24:23):
So you know, being theappointed judge to the case is
pretty big deal what's hisbackground?

Speaker 2 (24:30):
who's he?
What's his deal?

Speaker 3 (24:32):
he looks like a dweeb the prosecutors decided not to
seek the death penalty.
Uh, that was, of course, on thetable, but they decided not to
because they thought that wouldbe a harder conviction to get
that.
It's harder to get a guiltyconviction if the jury knows
that you're sentencing someoneto death, so it wasn't so much

(24:52):
that they didn't think it wasviolent or they didn't think
that he did it.
It was just that they reallywanted him to get that guilty
verdict, to get life in prison.
So they thought that that was abetter way to go.

Speaker 1 (25:04):
I hate life in prison .
I hate that.
I hate that punishment, I hateit.

Speaker 2 (25:12):
It's a tough one.

Speaker 1 (25:14):
What's the point?
You know, I just don'tunderstand to be incarcerated
for the rest of your life, likewell it's definitely the
ultimate miserable life to have.

Speaker 3 (25:23):
I think, and also was in prison either one of two
life.
Well, it's definitely theultimate Miserable life to have,
I think, and also isn't prison.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
Either one of two things.
We either accept capital crimewe're going to be a little off
topic here but we either acceptyou commit a certain thing
that's against the society.
We as a group have decided Ifit's a capital crime, it
requires capital punishment Inthe form of death, or you're put
in prison and we canrehabilitate you.
Yeah, isn't that the premise ofwhat?

(25:49):
Yeah, that's what I'm sayingnow so if you're going to be in
life prison for life, yeah,what's the point exactly?

Speaker 3 (25:56):
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 youcan picture is losing your
freedom for the rest of yourlife.

Speaker 2 (26:09):
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 (26:16):
I guess the issue and what Emily M is leading to and
why it's easier to get a life inprison maybe a life in prison
sentence more so than a deathpenalty is there's always the
possibility for it being anaccidental wrongful conviction,

(26:38):
right?
So I guess the worst possibleoutcome would be putting someone
to death for something theydidn't do.
But is there that much of adifference than putting someone
in prison for the rest of theirdeath for something they didn't
do?
But is there that much of adifference than putting someone
in prison for the rest of theirlives for something they didn't
do?
I mean, it's a lot, I guess,easier to stomach.

Speaker 3 (26:51):
But I would imagine some people would probably
prefer the death penalty versusliving.
I mean, if you're a youngperson and you're going to be in
prison for the next 60, 70years with no freedom, I get
used.

Speaker 1 (27:03):
You probably get used to it though.

Speaker 2 (27:07):
Yeah, let's think about that tax dollars.
We're using that money to befixing up the.

Speaker 1 (27:12):
White House.
That's the other thing.
Yeah, it's like we need toiletpaper.
They got to.
I mean, they're probably usingScott tissue over there.
Single ply.

Speaker 3 (27:24):
Well, you guys could probably do a whole episode on,
like the history of prisons andall of that because I think it's
pretty.
It's pretty corrupt and and youcan get into all of that.
But anyway, but yeah, so movingon, so they decided not to do
the death penalty, they decidedto go with life in prison, and
then a big thing that happenedwas they did jury selection and
that took them 11 weeks to comeup with the jury and that was,

(27:47):
you know, a lot of news, and itwas a lot of.
I think they started out with250 candidates, whittled that
down to was it 24?
Cause they have to have theyhave 12 jurors, and then they
had at least 10 or 12 alternates.
Um, maybe it was 12 jurors and10 alternates is what they ended
up with.
And you know, the way the juryselection process works is that

(28:10):
both sides get to question thepotential jurors and they kind
of try to influence.
You know, of course both sideswant to have a jury that looks
like they're going to go fortheir person Because the trial
was decided to be in LA and notin Santa Monica.
They ended up with a much moreAfrican-American jury, which was

(28:31):
one of the catalysts to a muchmore challenging case for the
prosecution.
The African-American women inparticular were not giving good
feedback about Marsha Clark, theprosecutor.
They said they didn't like her,they didn't trust her, they
didn't trust her, and so theykind of knew they had an uphill
battle as soon as the jurorswere selected.

Speaker 1 (28:50):
She seems a bit uppity, a little know-it-all-y.
I can see that Doesn't reallyrelate.

Speaker 2 (28:56):
So they literally just moved the case from LA to
Santa Monica, because no, theother way around.

Speaker 3 (29:03):
Santa Monica to LA.

Speaker 2 (29:05):
Oh.

Speaker 3 (29:05):
It was a little controversial when I read about
it, though it sounds like partof it was that they knew that
the Santa Monica courthouse wasnot going to be able to handle
the media and the people and allof that.
But also it did say Brentwoodfell in the jurisdiction of LA
County.
So I guess they could havepicked and they chose to do la
county for logistical reasons lacounty's massive yeah right, I

(29:29):
guess you can go anywhere yeah,what else is going on in this
time?
well then, we have uh kato kalinuh, our boy do you want to take
that one, matthew?
You were the one who did alittle bit of research onto what
he was up to.

Speaker 1 (29:44):
Well, I just wanted to say I just wanted to see what
our old buddy Kato was up toBecause, if you guys remember,
he was living in OJ's bungalowand things didn't end great
between him and OJ.
Kato kind of got in the way andalmost caused oj's whole

(30:05):
timeline and his excuses to getto get out of whack because uh,
going to mcdonald's like oj tookhim to mcdonald's um for a big
mac and uh, they rushed back.
It was this whole thing.
So I'm assuming kato, afterthis whole thing, probably
wasn't either welcome back atoj's house or all, or didn't
feel welcome or didn't want tostay there.

(30:25):
So just curious, what happenedto him?
Where did he move to?
And I guess all that we couldreally find out is that he couch
surfed and bummed around laduring the time of the trial, so
more of a bit of a nomadiclifestyle.
He was really guilty about thatmcdonald's trip, john.

Speaker 2 (30:43):
It tore him up inside apparently right emily, is that
what you read?

Speaker 3 (30:47):
yeah, because he thought he, like he, messed up
the timeline so Ron probablywouldn't have been there if he
wouldn't have taken OJ toMcDonald's.
And maybe if Ron wasn't there,nicole wouldn't have been going
to the door or she would havebeen like not answered the door
or something.
I don't know.
It's a lot of guilt.

Speaker 1 (31:06):
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 thecalories.
Maybe they went to Arby's.

Speaker 2 (31:16):
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 geta Big Mac, you're driving.
If they went somewhere elsewhere they had to take a longer
time to make a decision on whatthey were ordering.

Speaker 1 (31:33):
Sure, I get that, I get what he's saying.
It is kind of like Kato, you'reokay buddy, you can't blame
yourself, man.

Speaker 2 (31:45):
He's literally a dog in human form.
Sure Right, he's literally adog in human form.
Sure Right, emily, he's ayellow lab.

Speaker 3 (31:54):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (31:55):
Oh, you think so yeah .

Speaker 3 (31:57):
Not quite a golden retriever.

Speaker 1 (31:59):
Not quite a golden retriever.

Speaker 2 (32:00):
Not that smart.

Speaker 1 (32:01):
Yeah, not like that obedient.
He's got a little bit of a wildside.
He'll eat a filet of fish.

Speaker 3 (32:07):
You know He'll go off menu okay, now and then, um,
you might be wondering what ourfriend oj was up to while he was
waiting trial.
So he's in jail, right, um?
So this is what.

(32:28):
This is what he was up to.
He was the only option.

Speaker 1 (32:31):
So no bail for him, huh.

Speaker 3 (32:32):
Correct.
They denied bail.
He had to stay in jail.

Speaker 1 (32:37):
I would say the Bronco chase probably didn't
help too much with trying to getthe old bail.

Speaker 3 (32:44):
No, he was a little bit of a flight risk, since they
found a disguise and money anda passport.
Oh man Like that.

Speaker 1 (32:51):
Dude, I saw on that documentary on Netflix.
I saw that disguise.
It was absurd.

Speaker 3 (32:58):
It was like Was it like a little mustache?

Speaker 1 (33:01):
It was like a mustache.

Speaker 2 (33:04):
With the big glasses out there.

Speaker 1 (33:06):
With the big nose.
No, it wasn't, no't, but it wasbad.
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 himout.
They're not going to let himout.

Speaker 3 (33:21):
He's in jail, he's staying yeah, so he was the only
occupant in a seven cell wingthat was set aside for high
profile people.
It is LA, after all.

Speaker 1 (33:32):
You know, that's not so bad.

Speaker 3 (33:34):
What most inmates held in isolation got only one
hour per week in the crowdedvisiting room.
Oj got unlimited, unlimited butno contact visits with his
girlfriend, paula Barbieri, andothers in a private booth in a
room reserved for inmatesmeeting with their lawyers.
Oj had the exclusive use of theattorney visiting area on
weekends and was allowedvisitors on christmas.

(33:56):
The jail's 6 000 other inmatesweren't allowed christmas
visitors so paul.
So him and paul got backtogether through all this yes,
yes, they would like gettogether and like read the Bible
together and things like that.
They were they.
They were very religious.
Um OJ was allowed to sleeplater than the other inmates.

(34:18):
He was allowed to be about 14hours each week outside of his
cell to stretch his legs, ridean exercise bike provided for
his use, talk on the phone orwatch TV.
Most inmates get up to fourhours outside their cells each
week.
He could take a shower with theextra time out of his cell.

(34:38):
A sheriff's spokesman saidOther keep-away inmates shower
every other day, so he wasallowed to shower every day.
Everyone else had to showerevery other day.

Speaker 1 (34:47):
I think I would be okay with everything in prison,
except for the shower.
I wouldn't be able to deal withit.

Speaker 3 (34:54):
But showering with other people.

Speaker 1 (34:56):
Other criminals.
Oh my God, I'd be a mess.

Speaker 3 (35:01):
He was also very busy .
He kept his he's a businessmanright, so he did not give up his
business ventures.
He wrote a book while he was injail.
It was called.
I Want to Tell you my Responseto your Letters, your Messages,
your Questions.
It's described as an emotionaland factual self-portrait of
OJ's mind at this critical timeAt last, and in his own words,

(35:24):
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 (35:34):
The original Reddit by OJ Simpson.

Speaker 3 (35:37):
Did that ever get published?
It sure did get published.
It came out very close to thefirst day of the trial, if not
the first day of the trial, hisdefense team— what publisher
took that one on huh on?

Speaker 2 (35:49):
probably the same one that published Mein Kampf, but
Hitler when he was in prisonit's probably like Penguin, or
what's that?

Speaker 1 (35:57):
what's that one that you were going to work for, john
, wasn't it Penguin?

Speaker 2 (36:00):
yeah, I mean like they're like the biggest
publisher in the world.

Speaker 3 (36:03):
Maybe they did so he hires his defense team
scholastic, scholasticpublishers.
All right, sorry, emily m so hehired his defense team.
They were gonna cost him fiftythousand dollars per day so he
needed to figure out how to getsome cash flow moving because he

(36:26):
had money, but that's a awfullot of money.
So he put together.
The third day he was in jail hestarted putting together his
marketing and merchandising planto generate cash for his court
defense.
So his memorabilia dealer wouldgive him numbers.
They would cut the numbers offof 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 hewould sign them, and then they

(36:48):
would like stitch them back ontojerseys.
He would autograph footballs.
They would bring them deflatedand then he would sign them.
And then they would inflatethem and sell them.
And photos they would bringphotos in.
He would sign those.
He would date them to show thatthey were autographed while he
was behind bars.
Because that drove up theirprice.
And how much do you guys thinkhe earned in prison on

(37:13):
autographs alone?
How much, how much money do youthink he racked up?

Speaker 2 (37:17):
cool half half million I'm gonna guess.

Speaker 1 (37:22):
And how long of time?
How long the time period?

Speaker 3 (37:25):
well, he spent well, so he let's say six months.
This is leading up to the trial.
He probably did it during thetrial too, but I don't know.

Speaker 1 (37:33):
Six months, six to twelve months six to twelve
months just on autographs I'mgonna say like four grand a day
for three days a week.
I'm gonna say 120 000 threemillion dollars Weak.

Speaker 3 (37:50):
I'm going to say $120,000.
$3 million Woo Weak, and thatwas in 1994-1995.
So that was a lot of money thathe he was signing a lot, a lot.
I think they said he would justsign for 8 hours a day.
He was very motivated to signthese autographs for money.

Speaker 1 (38:08):
Really saturated the market.
I'd be mad if I bought anythinglike that because you thought
it'd be like oh wow, I got himto sign something but then it's
just like saturated.
Three million dollars worth ofthat stuff.

Speaker 2 (38:19):
That's probably like yeah, it's not that rare at that
point.

Speaker 1 (38:22):
Yeah, probably worth 100 bucks now we'll take a look
on ebay.

Speaker 2 (38:26):
I don't know, you might be surprised I wonder if
anyone uh tried going aftereveryone else who was getting
those autographs so they couldkeep the market inflated and
keep the price up.
So this guy was working, he's aworking man, he's a working man
and we're gonna start gettinginto some okay hold on oj

(38:49):
simpson 1994 signature rookies,autograph 1978 or no, I think
that's one not.

Speaker 1 (38:56):
Uh, anyway, out of 2500 jail signed august 1994,
175 dollars, no offers, that'sthanks didn't, didn't hold its
value.

Speaker 3 (39:13):
Okay, so we're going to get into some details with
the trial and you know we wentback and forth a little bit on
the best way to do that, becauseit was obviously a nine-month
trial.
We could probably do hundredsof episodes on it, maybe not
hundreds, dozens of episodes.
So what we decided that we'regoing to do is I'm going to give
you guys seven things thathappened in the trial,

(39:37):
situations not like one-offevents necessarily, but like
situations that came upthroughout the nine months, and
I would like you guys to rankthem.
There's seven of them, so oneto seven on how absurd they are.
So you will be blind rankingthem, which means as soon as I

(40:00):
give you the scenario, you haveto pick if that's number one to
seven, and we'll keep going thatway.
So once your slot is filled,it's filled.
Does that make sense?

Speaker 1 (40:10):
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 (40:20):
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 onelist is good.

Speaker 1 (40:30):
That's good.
Yeah, I like this idea.
It'll be fun.
I do want to add a little bitof more research on eBay to
compare how much an OJ Simpsonjail autograph card is worth.
I'm seeing a 2016 Leaf PopCentury, pink Star Power

(40:51):
autograph card of Kato Kaelin.
It's going for $50 on eBay, sothey're pretty close to the same
.
Okay, so we got seven things,so let me, I'll keep track of
this.

Speaker 3 (41:06):
We got seven events and Emily you're going to do
them in chronological order orwe're gonna be random, okay
because they're not all reallychronological, you'll see okay
um.
So before I give you the firstone, I was curious what kind of
the state of the world was injanuary of 1994.

(41:28):
I was a young lad of eightyears old, and so I don't really
remember too much.

Speaker 1 (41:34):
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 (41:50):
I look back and yeah, I mean I was.
I guess I was the last, butanyway, so I was in I was eight
years old, so I was in secondgrade.

Speaker 1 (42:00):
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 havebeen turning nine so you guys
were in first grade throughoutall this.

Speaker 3 (42:17):
Do you remember?
Do you remember the, I guess.
So I remember all the adults.
That was like all they weretalking about was the trial, all
the time I do do remember thatI don't remember much of the
details.

Speaker 1 (42:30):
We were watching when the chase happened.
We were watching TGIF.
I remember the chase.
Yeah, I think we figured wewere.
It was in between FamilyMatters and Full House or
something I think we had figured.

Speaker 3 (42:44):
All right, so I'm going to give you guys an
opening scene here, so you canclose your eyes and transport
yourself back to 1995.
It's January 24th 1995.
The world is buzzing.
The start of the year sawAustria, finland and Sweden
joining the European Union.

(43:05):
Newt Gingrich took on the roleof speaker of the house, mike
Schmidt.
Mike Schmidt was just inductedinto the baseball hall of fame.
The WB television networklaunched its first broadcasts
and iconic bands like LedZeppelin and Janis Joplin were
inducted into the rock and rollhall of fame.
The NHL strike had just come toan end and George W Bush was

(43:28):
sworn in as governor of Texas.
W you guys there you feeling ityeah.

Speaker 2 (43:36):
Visualizing it all Yep Visualizing it all.

Speaker 1 (43:40):
I was thinking more you were going to go into like
oh beanie, babies were all therage.

Speaker 2 (43:44):
Or like remember your pog slammers, or something I
also know 1995 was the last timehome purchase rates were as low
as they are now.
Just hit a 30 year low in homeaffordability.

Speaker 3 (43:57):
I don't think Beanie Babies are out yet Beanie Babies
hadn't come for like three moreyears.
That's crazy.
All right, let me pull up mydocument here.
You guys ready to start doingsome ranking?
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (44:08):
Pitch us some.
All right, let me pull up mydocument here.
You guys ready to start doingsome ranking?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, all right,it's just some.
It's just some top seven.

Speaker 3 (44:14):
I'm gonna give you some top seven and I'm gonna
give you some context.
So, uh, hang on before you makejudgment and then, once I'm
done, you guys can discuss anddecide where you want to rank it
.
Okay, all right, number one.
Okay, all right, number one.
Johnny Cochran compares MikeFurman to Hitler on August 29th
1995.

(44:35):
Bold statement.

Speaker 2 (44:36):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (44:37):
In Johnny Cochran's closing argument in the OJ
Simpson trial.
It was already expected to bepowerful, but no one could have
predicted the moment when hecompared LAPD detective Mark
Furman to Adolf Hitler.
So why did Johnny Cochran goafter Mike Furman?
So Mike Furman to jog yourmemory, if you're tuning in here
without listening to the priorepisodes, he was the LAPD

(45:00):
detective who found key evidence, including one of the bloody
gloves at Simpson's house.
His testimony was crucial tothe prosecution's case, but the
defense painted him as a racistcop who may have planned an
evidence to frame Simpson.
The most damaging blow camewhen taped recordings surfaced
of Furman repeatedly usingracial slurs and making violent
racist remarks.

(45:20):
When asked under the oath if hehad ever used the N-word,
furman pled the fifth, refusingto answer.
This destroyed his credibilityand made him the defense's
biggest target.
By the time closing argumentscame around.
Cochran had one job convincedthe jury that OJ was a victim of
a corrupt, racist system.
And that's exactly what he did.

(45:42):
So these are some highlights ofthat closing argument.
Cochran tore into Furman withone of the most theatrical
closing arguments in legalhistory.
He didn't just call Furman aracist, 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 runpolice departments.
They are the worst kind ofracist.
They think they are superior toother people.

(46:03):
They are Hitler-like in theirapproach.
Yes, he compared an.

Speaker 1 (46:11):
LA cop to Adolf Hitler.
The entire courtroom wasstunned Well he said he was
Hitler-like.

Speaker 3 (46:14):
Okay, the entire courtroom was stunned.
Even some of Simpson's owndefense lawyers were reportedly
shocked at how far he went.
This made prosecutor MarshaClark livid saying that he was
turning the whole trial into apolitical sideshow.
The jury deliberated for lessthan four hours before
acquitting Simpson.
Many believe the speech was oneof the final blows that made it

(46:35):
impossible for the prosecution.

Speaker 2 (46:37):
Spoiler alert.

Speaker 1 (46:39):
We didn't get to the verdict yet.

Speaker 2 (46:41):
Well, that's really chronological, so yeah spoiler
alert, if you didn't know how itends.

Speaker 3 (46:47):
that's how it ends, so that is all this?

Speaker 1 (46:50):
lead up four episodes , the fifth episode, and you
just spoiled it like that I'msorry if some of our younger
listeners out there didn't knowdocumentaries on the guy if you
don't know by now what happenedwe'll put that in the episode

Speaker 3 (47:04):
description.
We'll put it in the episodedescription spoiler, if you
don't know what happens did Icut you off or was that pretty
much the end?
Sorry, that was the end, sothat was that's your first
scenario uh, johnny cochrancalling mark firman a race, or
comparing him to hitler did itkick off a trend that's my
fellow?

Speaker 2 (47:22):
the first start the whole.
Everyone compares everyone tohitler I was just gonna say it's
not, I could see it's funny.

Speaker 1 (47:30):
What I took from that is actually, I thought, the
same thing is like it's verymore common to hear that now
everyone.

Speaker 2 (47:37):
When they just don't like someone, they just say
always like hitler.
And that's a way to justdenigrate.
I wonder, did johnny cochrankick that off like before?

Speaker 3 (47:45):
it could also be.
This was only what 50 yearsafter the end of world war ii.
So, like you know, the world isa different place, where a lot
of uh people had fought in thewar, right, so maybe it's not
yeah, there were a lot more.
There were a lot more survivorsof the holocaust then right
like, we're like 80 years out,so there's very, very, very few

(48:06):
world war two survivors stillleft.

Speaker 1 (48:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (48:10):
Hmm.

Speaker 1 (48:11):
And what are we ranking it on?
Absurdity or like?
Just kind of like highlights, Iguess just no real ranking
system, Just kind of like what?

Speaker 3 (48:20):
craziness, outrageousness maybe outrageous
is a good word.

Speaker 1 (48:24):
That's tough.
I don't really that's.
I can't.
I can see it being a FETS topInteresting.
My question is All right, oneto seven.
I want to put this like towardsthe bottom, because I feel like
there were way crazier thingsthat happened, I'm sure, but I
don't want to put it at thebottom.
I'd put it at like five, five,five.

Speaker 2 (48:51):
All right putting that number five.
I'm writing it down firman ashitler.
You guys ready for number two?

Speaker 3 (48:54):
uh-huh, yep, all right, number two kato caylan's
testimony one kato's testimonyduring the oj simpson trial is
one of the most bizarre andmemorable parts of the case.
He was called as a prosecutionwitness, but his vague, rambling
answers and goofy personalitymade him more of a liability
than an asset.
Instead of helping to proveSimpson's guilt, he became a

(49:16):
media media spectacle, with latenight hosts and tabloids
turning him into a pop culturejoke.
So here's some highlights fromhis testimony.
Number one the infamous I don'tknow what you mean by live
response.
When asked by prosecutor marciaclark if he lived in simpson's
guest house, cato hesitated andthen said I don't know what you

(49:37):
mean by live.
The courtroom erupted inlaughter hot tub?

Speaker 1 (49:41):
I don't know like me, I don't know what you mean by
pleats I use this hot tub, ifthat's what you mean by live,
and yeah, I live there thecourtroom erupted in laughter
and clark looked frustrated.

Speaker 3 (49:54):
The response set the tone for his entire testimony
unhelpful and meandering.
Um okay, the mcdonald's runwith oj was the second part of
his testimony.
That was, uh, memorable.
He testified that around 9 30pm he and simpson drove to
mcdonald's to grab food.
He said oj was acting totallynormal, just chatting casually

(50:15):
eating his burger.
They returned to simpson'sestate where oj then left for
the airport a little over anhour later.
Kato claimed that later thatnight, while alone in the guest
house, he heard three loudthumps on the outside wall of
his room.
He thought it was earthquakelike andlike and went outside to
investigate, but didn't seeanything.
It turned out the thumps werenear the location where a bloody
glove was later found.
This was one of the only piecesof his testimony that actually

(50:37):
mattered.
Prosecutors argued the thumpscould have been OJ disposing of
evidence, specifically droppingthe bloody glove while sneaking
back onto his property.
The defense argued the soundcould have been anything and
that Cato was too scatterbrainedto be a reliable witness.
During cross-examination,defense attorney F Lee Bailey
went after Cato hard.
At one point.
Bailey sarcastically asked Catoif he knew the difference

(50:59):
between a guest and a freeloaderCato froze up and didn't
respond.
The courtroom laughed again,and this moment undermined his
credibility even further.
The defense painted Cato as aclueless, untrustworthy
freeloader who couldn't berelied on for critical details.
Cato's testimony should havebeen helpful to the prosecution,
but instead it became one ofthe strangest, most laughable

(51:20):
parts of the trial.
He was the ultimate unreliablewitness, and his goofy
personality overshadowedanything serious that he had to
say.

Speaker 1 (51:29):
I mean, how could he not know what she means by live
in the in the bungalow?
Bungalow, is that what theycall it?
it was like a guest house poolhouse yeah oh man, you think
when they asked him, like whatdoes he know the difference
between a guest or a freeloader?
You think, like the jacuzzilike whitewashed over his face,

(51:51):
like he just like saw and heardthe jets going and was like oh
my gosh, I'm a freeloader.
I don't know, I'm putting thatit can't be out of the top three
for me.
I don't think it's one, I don'tthink it's number one.
Kato's testimony.

Speaker 2 (52:09):
Yeah, I'm trying to think what else?
Well, we know what number oneis.
Well, we don't know.
Yet I know what it is, we don'tknow.
I'll put it at two.

Speaker 1 (52:20):
Let's put it at two.

Speaker 2 (52:21):
I know what number one is.

Speaker 1 (52:25):
You're not good at Setting things up Like on a In a
show.
Like you just like spoilingthings and going out.

Speaker 2 (52:34):
I won't say it.

Speaker 3 (52:35):
I won't say it all right, you guys ready for number
three?

Speaker 1 (52:39):
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 Clarkinterviewing him.
I don't you couldn't be moreunlikable.
She was just berating this guyon the stand.

Speaker 2 (53:02):
Yeah, really.

Speaker 1 (53:04):
Like oh, you're an aspiring actor.
Are you still an aspiring actor?
Did you think you were going toget roles from staying in it?
Like she's just being so meanto him right away?

Speaker 2 (53:13):
yeah it's true.
Well, they had a jury didn'tlike her and uh yeah, that's
probably contributing there.

Speaker 3 (53:21):
If you recall, from our part, when they were doing
the grand jury, they had a bitof a, a bad run-in, if you
recall.
She wanted him to testify, hewanted to have an attorney, she
didn't want him to have anattorney and he and he ended up
pleading the fifth, which you'renot allowed to do, oh yeah so
she was really mad at him.
So I think they had just like areally rough relationship and

(53:42):
that probably was coming off inthe questioning.
Even though he was her witness,it almost came off like she
hated him.

Speaker 1 (53:50):
Typical prosecutor, yeah I know that's just.
You gotta play.
You gotta play the room, marciaall right.

Speaker 3 (53:56):
Number three judge ito's wife becomes a scandal.
So the trial's already a mediacircus.
But things got even messierwhen a potential conflict of
interest involving Judge Ito'swife, captain Margaret York,
threatened to derail the case.
At one point it even lookedlike Judge Ito might have to
remove himself from the trial,which would have caused a

(54:18):
mistrial which would have been adisaster for how long the case
had been already dragging on.

Speaker 1 (54:24):
So who was his wife.
Wait, what happened?
I missed that.
Why was he going to takehimself off of the trial?

Speaker 3 (54:32):
Because his wife threatened to derail the case.

Speaker 2 (54:35):
Now, we're going to get into the details.

Speaker 3 (54:38):
Okay, so his wife her name was Margaret York.
She was a high-ranking LAPDofficer, specifically a police
captain.
She was the highest-rankingfemale officer in LAPD officer,
specifically a police captain.
She was the highest rankingfemale officer in LAPD history
at the time.
More importantly, she had beenMark Furman's superior officer
at one point in his career.
This connection became aproblem because Mark Furman was

(54:59):
the prosecution's key witnessand his credibility was already
under attack due to his historyof racism and perjury.
If Ito's wife had worked withFurmanman, then the defense
could argue that ito might bebiased in favor of the lapd,
which was exactly what happened.
During the trial, the defenseteam found out that judge ito's
wife had been a formersupervisor of mark firman,
johnny cochran, and the defenseteam pounced on this immediately

(55:21):
, arguing that this was aserious conflict of interest.
They filed a motion saying thatito should step down from the
case because his wife might haveinside knowledge about firman
or might have negative opinionsthat could influence the judge's
decisions.
The defense wanted to call Yorkto the witness stand, meaning
Judge Ito would be in theposition of watching his own
wife testify in his courtroom.
If Judge Ito had been forced tostep down, it could have led to

(55:43):
a complete reset of the trial.
This was a murder trial that hadalready seen celebrity drama,
racial tension and mediatheatrics, and now the judge's
wife was suddenly involved in ascandal.
It felt too ridiculous to betrue.
If Judge Ito had been forced tostep down, the case could have
been delayed for months or evencollapsed completely.
What should have been astraightforward murder case
turned into a reality TV show,with even the judge's personal

(56:05):
life making headlines.
It also made people lose faithin the justice system because,
instead of focusing on themurders, everyone was getting
caught up in drama, distractionsand media hype.
Judge Ito kept his job, butafter the OJ trial, his
reputation never fully recovered.
So that is your number three.

Speaker 1 (56:26):
I'm putting that at seven.
Why don't you take a look atyour phone?

Speaker 2 (56:29):
real quick.
I saw, I looked at it.
What'd you think?

Speaker 1 (56:32):
very unflattering picture of edo and his wife.
His wife is not necessarily thebest looking person I've seen
in my life, but I don't get thedrama like.
So she was a police officer, Idon't know.

Speaker 3 (56:50):
I think if you put yourself back in the time of the
trial, everyone's been watchingthis trial for nine months and
then all of a sudden it comes tolight that now the judge might
have to step down and it was allgoing to have to start over
again.

Speaker 1 (57:01):
But how did it get to that point?

Speaker 3 (57:06):
I guess it's so bizarre.

Speaker 2 (57:08):
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 orjust the?
I don't know, Just.

Speaker 3 (57:20):
I guess they didn't know the controversy that was
going to come out about MarkFurman and then maybe the direct
link of her him reporting toher Wasn't like.
I mean, there was no Google, somaybe it wasn't as clear, and
then, when the defense figuredit out, they tried to get the
whole trial thrown out becauseof that.

Speaker 2 (57:36):
So him saying a few racial slurs.
It was the biggest deal aboutFurman, right, yeah, I think so.
It was the biggest thing, that,oh my gosh, we're going to
derail this whole case becauseshe was his boss and he's a
racist.

Speaker 3 (57:50):
And she could be telling Judge Ito that you
should protect Furman, so don'tlet evidence against him come
into the case.

Speaker 1 (57:58):
She could have been painting his.
It's just more side of I guessit added to the whole the people
versus the police.

Speaker 3 (58:07):
Yeah, maybe it's a conspiracy, like, maybe it's a
conspiracy.
It's not really a fair trial ifthe judge's wife yeah is on the
side of the police like howcould?
That be.
And then just imagine, like,after all this drama, turning on
the news and them saying, likewell, now the judge might have
to step down.
That that would have been like,oh my God this is even

(58:29):
happening.

Speaker 1 (58:32):
I just don't.
Oh yeah, four, four, all right.
I mean yeah, all right.
Number one, stop Um.

(58:58):
I just it's not number one.
Stop um.
I just yeah, all right, I stilljust don't yeah.
I mean whatever, what speak?

Speaker 3 (59:01):
I don't know what I was gonna say you can give
feedback on your ranking becauseyou know at the end of this you
can't say that, can't blameJohn if it's the wrong number,
if you didn't give your input noforce.

Speaker 1 (59:12):
Fine, you made a good point about like thinking in
the times with being a cop andstuff.

Speaker 3 (59:16):
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 (59:27):
seems like really eaten affair situation.
A little callback to lastepisode.

Speaker 2 (59:31):
I was getting involved.

Speaker 3 (59:34):
That's true, all right.
So then your fourth scenario isthe juror drama.
So there was a lot of jurordrama.

Speaker 1 (59:46):
This is going to be a hot ticket, I think.

Speaker 3 (59:49):
The OJ Simpson trial jury went through some of the
most insane drama in legalhistory, so much so that by the
end the case felt like acourtroom proceeding and less
like a courtroom proceeding andmore like a reality TV show.
The jury wasn't justdeliberating a case, they were
practically prisoners, beingwatched, controlled and
manipulated while completely cutoff from the outside world for
nearly nine months.
The stress was so intense that10 jurors were dismissed and at

(01:00:12):
one point the entire jury almostrevolted.
So here's some of the thingsthat happened with the jury.
So we talked a little bit aboutjury selection.
So, before the trial evenstarted, jury selection was a
war between the prosecution andthe defense.
The defense knew that racewould be a major factor, so they
fought hard for a jury with asmany black jurors as possible,
believing they would be lesslikely to trust the lapd,

(01:00:33):
especially after the rodney kingriots.
The final jury waspredominantly black nine black
jurors, two hispanic and onewhite juror mostly female and
had negative opinions of thelapd.
Marcia clark, the leadprosecutor, later admitted that
she knew this was a disaster fora case, but she had little
control over it.

Speaker 1 (01:00:50):
How.
Well, I guess I'm just sayingbecause, racism aside, it's like
you're supposed to get yourjurors, are supposed to be a
representation of your peers andthat's obviously Representative
of at least LA County.

Speaker 3 (01:01:07):
Well, I think they were representative of the
county.
Is LA County a majority?

Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
black, you think 90%.

Speaker 3 (01:01:12):
I bet I think they were representative.
They were representative of LACounty, but not of Brentwood,
not of OJ's life.

Speaker 1 (01:01:20):
Yeah, no, yeah, but.

Speaker 2 (01:01:23):
I just Googled.
In 1990, the racial makeup ofLA austin's 30 to 35 latino and
non-hispanic whites werebecoming a minority.
Well that's.

Speaker 1 (01:01:37):
I just don't think it was well okay, I mean it is
what it is.
I mean that's, that's crazy andlike how could they not have
anything to do with it?

Speaker 3 (01:01:44):
they just like give up the fight I think the way it
happens is like each juror comesup and you say yay or nay, so
you don't know who the next onesare going to be, and I think
like our ranking system kind of.
And then you also object ondifferent things and I think
they were just doing a betterjob at like objecting on the
ones that the prosecution wanted, and then by the time they got

(01:02:06):
to the end it was like you don'treally know how it's going to
end up.
And then, like she saw like itwas like not going their way.

Speaker 1 (01:02:13):
But you can't go back and say like well, hey, that's
not fair, let's start over againit's like when you do a fantasy
football draft, john, and youend up with like four wide
receivers with the same bye weekand you're like whoops.

Speaker 3 (01:02:27):
I guess that's what it was like just like you think
like okay, well, we'll startwith one black person, then
maybe the next one won't be, butthen it's like the next one is.
The next one is you're likeuh-oh, but then like the ones
maybe that are coming, like youcan't convince them to take the
ones that you want.

Speaker 2 (01:02:43):
So according to the 1990 census here we go.
African Americans made up 11percent of la county 57 were
white.
So if we're just talking aboutrace, just the makeup of what
the court would be, you'd expectsix or seven white people on
the court.

Speaker 1 (01:03:02):
That's what I just don't get.
I mean, you know, how is itthat skew?

Speaker 2 (01:03:04):
I mean if they people knew.
I mean, obviously marshallclark knew that grace was going
to be a thing and I think anyonewith Marshall Clark knew that
Grace was going to be a thing,and I think anyone with a brain
probably thought it was going tobe a thing before the trial
started.
That's weird.

Speaker 3 (01:03:16):
Anyway the defense was just really good.
That dream team.
They were really good atpushing through, I guess.

Speaker 1 (01:03:21):
Clearly.

Speaker 2 (01:03:22):
And like the prosecution was hard.
It sounds like that's a why didit take nine months?

Speaker 1 (01:03:26):
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 (01:03:30):
This trial should have been three weeks long.
Based on what we're coming outthe gates with, that's crazy,
all right.

Speaker 3 (01:03:36):
So the next thing about the jury we're going to
talk about their sequestration.
They were locked down for ninemonths.

Speaker 1 (01:03:42):
They were cut off.
Could you imagine being lockeddown with a bunch of straighters
for nine months?
God.

Speaker 3 (01:03:48):
They were cut off from the news, media and even
their own families.
This was supposed to keep themfrom being influenced by media
coverage, but it ended upturning them into prisoners.
They were kept in a hotel buttheir lives were heavily
restricted no newspapers,limited TV, only pre-approved
movies.
No unsupervised phone calls, nocontact with family and friends
.
They were allowed onesupervised trip per week, like

(01:04:09):
to a movie or the mall, butalways accompanied by deputies.
Jurors became depressed and somehad emotional breakdowns.
Many gained weight due tostress eating.
Some refused to talk to eachother due to rising tensions.
Several later described it as anightmare worse than being in
jail.
In June, by the time the trialreached month six, the jury had
had enough.

(01:04:29):
The jurors started writingsecret notes to Judge Ito
complaining about how they werebeing treated.
Some refused to leave theirhotel room, saying they were
mentally exhausted.
At one point, several jurorsdemanded to be removed from the
trial because they couldn't takeit anymore, and two jurors were
sneaking out for fried chicken.
They got caught and then JudgeIto had to put stricter
restrictions on them.

Speaker 2 (01:04:50):
Put the bit on your nose.
I think I know which one itwasn't.

Speaker 3 (01:04:57):
One juror protested by wearing all black and
refusing to talk to anyone foran entire day.
She was later dismissed.

Speaker 1 (01:05:10):
That's how there was a water um, um um, you know, all
this talk about, like the OJtrial or OJ and and all this
stuff, like there should be waymore coverage about this, this
jury that probably that musthave been a nightmare, holy
smokes.
You can't even talk to yourfamily.

Speaker 3 (01:05:32):
The trial broke records for the number of jurors
dismissed 10 jurors weredismissed over the time of the
trial, 10 out of the original 12.

Speaker 1 (01:05:42):
So when you get dismissed, so you have
alternates, I guess.
So these people who replacedthe dismissals have been
sequestered also.

Speaker 3 (01:05:51):
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 todelivery.
Okay, so here are some of thereasons why some of those 12
jurors had been removed by thejudge.

(01:06:13):
Are you ready?

Speaker 1 (01:06:17):
I was just going to say that you probably don't
deliberate because probably bythe time closing statements are
there, if you have a jury that'sgoing in, you probably get the
bounce before the verdict.
You think.

Speaker 3 (01:06:29):
I don't know what if something happened during
deliberations.

Speaker 1 (01:06:34):
Isn't that when you get a hung jury?
Anyway, go ahead, I don't wantto interrupt.

Speaker 3 (01:06:40):
So one of the jurors was dismissed because they
worked for Hertz.
As we remember, oj was thespokesperson for Hertz at that
time.
One was in an abusiverelationship with their
boyfriend during the trial, sothey saw that as a conflict.
One had the same doctor as OJwho was going to be testifying,
so they got dismissed.

(01:07:00):
One made a bet.
One made a bet OJ would befound innocent or 49ers caps and
was weirdly obsessed with OJthings at the Rockingham visit,
so they got dismissed like superfan.

Speaker 1 (01:07:15):
That's funny.

Speaker 3 (01:07:21):
One was dismissed for not paying attention.
One was asked to leave and thenlater posed for Playboy.
One was accused to be planningto write a book.

Speaker 1 (01:07:37):
John's Googling the Playboy.
One immediately, just to giveeveryone an update.

Speaker 3 (01:07:43):
One was a bully and was intimidating other jurors,
and one said another juror washarassing them.
So the jury was constantlychanging, which made things even
more chaotic.

Speaker 1 (01:07:53):
Call that a motley crew.

Speaker 3 (01:07:56):
One of the most bizarre moments in the entire
trial came when a juror namedJeanette Harris was dismissed
and, instead of quietly leaving,she started dancing in the
courtroom.
She waved at OJ, did a littleshimmy and walked out smiling.
The media went wild saying thiswas a sign the jurors were on
OJ's side.
Judge Ito was reportedlyfurious, realizing he had
completely lost control of thejury.

(01:08:16):
After nine months of trial,over 100 witnesses and thousands
of pages of evidence, the juryonly took four hours to reach a
verdict.
For comparison, the ScottPeterson jury deliberated for
over a week how could they havefixed that?

Speaker 1 (01:08:31):
I feel like if they would have been able to do
something like in between theclosing statements and the
deliberation, like they said,something like we'll let you,
we'll take you, you and yourfamily, out to disney world,
disney world disneyland, but thefamily.

Speaker 3 (01:08:49):
The families have all been watching the trial on TV,
so they didn't want them to beinfluenced by any outside people
.

Speaker 1 (01:08:56):
What if they said hey , if you guys last a week, if
you deliberate for at least aweek, we will take you to
Disneyland for a week.

Speaker 3 (01:09:10):
After nine months they probably would have been
like no way I want to go home.

Speaker 2 (01:09:13):
I don't understand.
Wait, can I just say somethingI don't know?
Can you the jury you'resupposed to be?
What's the big deal if they'reinfluenced by their peers
outside?

Speaker 1 (01:09:25):
They're the jury.
I think Emily M has alreadysaid that they don't do this
anymore.

Speaker 2 (01:09:30):
What you can't, you're not sequestered.

Speaker 3 (01:09:32):
They don't really sequester anymore.
I think it's considered.
I mean, they were in.
They were basically in jail foralmost as long as OJ was in
jail.

Speaker 2 (01:09:39):
It's.
I mean like, shouldn't they getlike other people in their ear?
And then, when all 12 of youget together again, it's like
well, my dad said this and mybrother thought this about this.

Speaker 3 (01:09:48):
No, it's because they're getting.

Speaker 2 (01:09:49):
Everyone's watching it on TV.

Speaker 3 (01:09:50):
No, because so they're getting tabloid
headlines.

Speaker 1 (01:09:55):
I think that's the problem Books being written.

Speaker 3 (01:09:57):
They're getting opinions and rumors and things
that aren't even true.
So if the jury starts makingdecisions off of a rumor that
the news was pushing's not fairto anybody.

Speaker 2 (01:10:09):
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'strue.

Speaker 1 (01:10:18):
That makes a good point to be able to get facts
you are 12 adults.

Speaker 2 (01:10:21):
You went through the american education system all of
you should have criticalthinking skills enough to
decipher tabloids lawyers,judges.

Speaker 3 (01:10:30):
Oh, I hope that you know I mean have you been on?
Facebook, with all of thepeople thinking that AI images
are real, I mean it is the thingbetween your ears.

Speaker 1 (01:10:39):
No, Emily, I agree with you, but that represents a
portion of the country.

Speaker 2 (01:10:44):
Yeah, we want a cross-section of your peers, you
would never get a verdict.

Speaker 3 (01:10:48):
You would never get a verdict that's the whole point
of having a judge making thosedecisions, like is this
something the jury can learnabout?
Is this something they can'tlearn about?
Because the judge is there tomake sure that their the jury,
is not being misled by the, theevidence or the.
You know I get it.

Speaker 2 (01:11:07):
Hunting fathers, I get it really.

Speaker 1 (01:11:09):
I mean about well, they sure, I don't think they
would know, understand, uh, thatthere's something called a
facebook.

Speaker 2 (01:11:16):
I think they would expect the newspapers, no the
newspaper.
They would expect thenewspapers to be one side or the
other, black and white, andyou're, they want to hear both
sides but it's not.

Speaker 3 (01:11:26):
But juries are supposed to be impartial and
they're supposed to go into openminds, yeah I get that.

Speaker 2 (01:11:32):
That's just lying to ourselves as a society, then
that's they're human beings.
You're you're allowed to beimpressionable.
You're a human being not not inthe level that they would have
been with o and j with oj.

Speaker 1 (01:11:43):
That's not just like well, I think, I think what you
would.
Maybe what john's getting at iswhy can't we?
Have more an opinion like thatI think you're supposed to when
you're in a jury and maybethat's why they don't sequester
anymore is that you're.
You sign something saying thisis like you sign when you sign

(01:12:05):
up for a jury.
I'm like this is me.
I'm getting no influence fromanybody else, I'm just using the
facts that I learned in thecase yeah, but everyone around
the country was watching it, soeveryone out.

Speaker 2 (01:12:18):
You have just as much facts as everyone else.

Speaker 3 (01:12:20):
That's outside yeah, but a million people weren't
picked to be the jury.
They were picked for a specificreason and they bring their
personal experiences into theirdecision making, but I don't
think that they should be.
You know, you're watching jayleno making fun of judge ito and
saying he's a clown, and nowyou're a jury and you're
supposed to be like I mean, youcan't, you can't taint them that

(01:12:43):
way, because then it's not fairto OJ or the prosecution at
that point.

Speaker 1 (01:12:53):
They missed out on a lot of laughs.

Speaker 3 (01:12:54):
I bet this jury huh, it sounds awful Like truly
miserable, and I don't blamethem for only deliberating for
four hours.
They probably all theirdecision made in like four
months.

Speaker 1 (01:13:05):
They also had nine months to think about it or
however long the trial went on.

Speaker 2 (01:13:09):
I also feel like that continues to treat them a
little childish.
It's like, well, they're goingto be influenced, obviously, by
late night talk shows.
It's like, well, how stupid arethese pete?

Speaker 1 (01:13:16):
I mean, I wonder if that they're comedy shows, but
that's the thing everyone is in.
You would be influenced and youwould be getting influenced by
those bozos you listen to onyoutube I was influenced by my
suit today like seven differenttimes.

Speaker 2 (01:13:31):
Yeah, but that's fine , but that's why you're not
making the decision as oneperson.
It's not, I'm the jury, singleone person on jury.
And then I go out and I can be.

Speaker 1 (01:13:43):
You have to get a unanimous decision, though, okay
okay.

Speaker 3 (01:13:46):
So let's say I, I just think it's weird, I hated
nicole.
I want oj to be found notguilty.
So I go on the news and I startthis rumor that I actually
heard that nicole um had a gunand she pointed it at oj and he
was acting in self-defense, andI know I heard nicole left an
upper decker in OJ's toilet.

(01:14:08):
Yeah, I heard Kato left thejets on, so OJ was totally
justified in this behavior.
So someone comes out and is sothey're not under oath, they're
on a news station.

Speaker 2 (01:14:20):
You know how much OJ's electric bill was.

Speaker 3 (01:14:23):
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'mnot under oath saying that on a
news station.

Speaker 2 (01:14:38):
But evidence in a case could also be a blindfold.
That also can be.
People put blinders on too.
If certain evidence isn'tallowed in, who's making that?
Call the judge?

Speaker 3 (01:14:47):
The judge.
Well, that's why you have tohave trust in the justice system
.
You have to have trust in thejustice system.
They're held to a differentstandard than, like, a e-news
reporter would be.

Speaker 1 (01:14:59):
Maybe we need, maybe the real story is we need to
hold everyone to a higherstandard.

Speaker 2 (01:15:05):
Or bring everyone to a lower standard.
I think, it is here soon Mightbe a little bit easier.
Stop fooling ourselves.
No, I just think it's crazythat everyone here might get
jury duty and you bring them inand we deem them unfit for
whatever reason.

Speaker 1 (01:15:21):
Whatever the reason is, I'll tell you what anyone
takes one look at you you'regetting sent back, so you're
getting sent home this guy.
This is too much.

Speaker 3 (01:15:29):
He's an Italian sympathizer.
That's what I heard.

Speaker 2 (01:15:33):
Is he an anarchist?
Does he know, giuseppe, hmm?

Speaker 1 (01:15:39):
I just think.
I kind of get what you'regetting at, John, but there's
kind of a middle ground that youneed to meet.
You can't be completely I meanthis sequestering.
I think the real loss here andagain.
This is another thing thatmaybe it was the judge's fault
or whatever you can't let.
If you're going to sequester ajury, you can't let the trial go
on.
For how long was it?

Speaker 3 (01:15:59):
nine months nine months, that's insanity, that's
five days a week.

Speaker 1 (01:16:03):
Nine months for five days a week that's any.

Speaker 3 (01:16:07):
I mean, that's like an inhumane situation for those
people.
That is horrible.
Well, I want tyranny.

Speaker 2 (01:16:11):
In my definition, I think again our founding fathers
.
That's tyranny Putting the juryon trial themselves for nine
months.

Speaker 1 (01:16:18):
Well, I think that's what she was saying they had
their rights.

Speaker 3 (01:16:21):
Yeah, they had their rights taken away and they
didn't even commit a crime.

Speaker 2 (01:16:24):
By the justice system that John's getting heated over
here.

Speaker 1 (01:16:28):
I wonder if that's like the attack that the defense
made, like knowing that, Likelet's drag this on for as long
as we can so they don't thinkit's I'm sure there was probably
a tactic to.

Speaker 3 (01:16:38):
I mean, I think they purposely made the DNA evidence
like super confusing so thatthey couldn't follow.
They knew they wouldn'tunderstand it.
It was new, it it was new andthey were just sitting through
days and days and days of theseboring science.
Like you know they, they werepurposely dragging it out none
of that.

Speaker 1 (01:16:53):
My new show really mattered.
Well, I feel like that goes tothe judge.
The judge needs to be the oneto put that like.
Like guys, why don't you gohome and come back with a little
bit more of a succinct?

Speaker 2 (01:17:04):
this guy.
This guy's a winner's likesuper fan.
These aren't.
These aren't biologists.
We didn't bring 12 biologistsin here, well that's up to the
attorneys.

Speaker 1 (01:17:13):
Like why don't you go home?
Like why don't you go part of afair trial.

Speaker 3 (01:17:19):
Part of a fair trial is both sides have to know that
they did their best to get theinformation out there.
You can't just say like cuttingyou off and then sorry if it
made you lose.

Speaker 2 (01:17:30):
And newspaper investigators can't find the
information.

Speaker 1 (01:17:34):
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 (01:17:43):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (01:17:44):
I don't think this was a fair trial.

Speaker 3 (01:17:46):
We'll have to get a prosecutor on the pod to debate
this.
I can hook you guys up with aprosecutor.

Speaker 2 (01:17:51):
No more.
So the defense team.
I mean, they're the onesthat'll pull out all the stops.

Speaker 1 (01:17:56):
They're the ones you've got to pay the big bucks
to Well, yeah, well, what dothey say?
Know your enemy?

Speaker 2 (01:18:02):
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 tellme you killed the person.
Right now You're going to threefor the jury Number three.

Speaker 3 (01:18:12):
Let's rank here.
So you have this was numberfour, right?

Speaker 1 (01:18:17):
so there's three more that I did, like the guy
showing up to the house likewhoa, look at that hat.
Oh jay, that's pretty cool.
That's definitely how I wouldbe let's give it all right.

Speaker 2 (01:18:31):
Fine, I'll give it a three you don't seem too happy.

Speaker 1 (01:18:36):
So we got one, three, six and seven.

Speaker 2 (01:18:40):
Open.
We're deciding if theirtreatment, their overall
treatment during the trial.
That's where we're ranking this.

Speaker 1 (01:18:49):
Just like the story of the jury.

Speaker 2 (01:18:50):
Oh, oh, oh, like the whole, we're going to have to
sit with this, wherever we putit.
Yeah three, I guess I gotpretty agitated.

Speaker 1 (01:19:03):
That was freaking heated.
I don't want to go four or one,I mean no, it's not.
John is coming in predeterminedI can't wait until what you
think is one isn't even on thislist.
That could happen.

Speaker 3 (01:19:23):
All right, number five wait until what you think
is one isn't even on this list.

Speaker 2 (01:19:24):
That could happen.
All right number five, oj trieson the glove all right.

Speaker 1 (01:19:32):
Who doesn't know this ?

Speaker 3 (01:19:33):
the moment oj simpson tried on the bloody gloves in
front of the jury was one of themost dramatic, shocking and,
ultimately, disastrous decisionsin the entire trial.
This wasn't just a legalmisstep.
It was a Hollywood stylecourtroom moment that ended up
turning the tide in OJ's favor.

Speaker 1 (01:19:47):
It was cartoonish how he tried to put those gloves on
.

Speaker 3 (01:19:50):
Have you ever seen?

Speaker 2 (01:19:51):
it.

Speaker 3 (01:19:54):
All right.
So for those not familiar, whatwhat gloves are we talking
about?
Where did they come from?

Speaker 1 (01:20:00):
uh, one came from nicole's house and one came from
oj's house right so they weretwo identical.

Speaker 3 (01:20:05):
They were two identical leather gloves.
One was found at the murderscene next to nicole brown and
ron goldman.
The other glove was found atoj'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 lightgloves, size XL, and DNA testing
showed they had blood fromNicole, ron and OJ on them.

(01:20:27):
This was a huge piece ofevidence linking OJ directly to
the crime.
The prosecution believed it wasa slam dunk.
Why else would one glove be atthe scene and the other at OJ's
house?
By June of 95, the trial wasdragging on and the prosecution
was under pressure to deliver apowerful moment that would make
the evidence undeniable.
That's when prosecutorChristopher Darden made a huge
gamble.

(01:20:47):
He decided OJ should try on thegloves in front of the jury.
His thinking was simple If OJput on the gloves and they fit
perfectly, it would visuallyprove that he was the killer.
A live demonstration would beso powerful the jury couldn't
ignore it.
Darden thought he was about toend the case right there.
When OJ was asked to try on thegloves, he dramatically
struggled to get them on.
He pulled, twisted, tugged atthe gloves but they seemed too

(01:21:09):
small.
He grimaced and shook his headas if saying see, this is
ridiculous.
He held up his hands for thejury, fingers spread apart,
making it look like the gloveswere way too tight.
Finally, he said they're toosmall.
The jury watched this wholeperformance in silence.
Darden's face dropped.
He knew he had made a fatalmistake.
There were several reasons whythe gloves didn't fit, none of
which proved OJ was innocent.

(01:21:30):
The gloves had shrunk.
They were leather and had beensoaked in blood Over time.
Leather shrinks when exposed tomoisture.
The gloves have been sitting inan evidence locker for months,
likely drying out and stiffening.
To preserve the evidence, ojwas 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 OJdeliberately made a show of it.

(01:21:53):
He spread his fingers wide andheld them stiff so the gloves
wouldn't slip on.
Privately, prosecutors lateradmitted that they thought OJ
had stopped taking his arthritismedication, which caused his
hands to swell slightly.
Johnny Cochran seized on thismistake immediately.
During closing arguments hedelivered the now famous line If
it doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Speaker 1 (01:22:12):
You must acquit.

Speaker 3 (01:22:15):
The phrase became legendary, replayed on TV and
talked about for decades.
Cochran argued that this wasproof that OJ was being framed.
Why would the killer's glovesnot even fit him and the jury
bought it.
This was one of the biggestblunders in legal history.
Before this, the prosecutionhad a strong case with DNA
evidence, motive and eyewitnessaccounts.
But this one visual momentovershadowed all of that.

(01:22:35):
The jury completely disregardedthe DNA evidence and focused on
the glove stunt.
All of that.
The jury completely disregardedthe DNA evidence and focused on
the glove stunt.
Even Marsha Clark, leadprosecutor, admitted later.
I never thought the case wouldbe decided on a pair of gloves.
Judge Lance Ito himself latersaid that the prosecution's
biggest mistake was letting OJtry on the gloves.
It's possible that OJ and hisdefense team set this up.
Oj likely knew the gloveswouldn't fit well.

(01:22:57):
Cochran may have secretlyencouraged Darden to push for
the glove test, knowing it wouldbackfire.
The prosecution walked right tothe trap.
Even years later, christopherDarden still blames himself for
that mistake, just a few monthsafter the glove incident.
Who else is?

Speaker 1 (01:23:10):
he going to blame?

Speaker 3 (01:23:11):
I hope.
Just a few months after theglove incident, the jury took
less than four hours to acquitOJ.
The glove stunt had doneexactly what the defense needed.
It planted reasonable doubt.
Even if the DNA evidence wasstrong, jurors couldn't unsee OJ
struggling with those gloves.
One juror later admitted themoment OJ tried on those gloves.
I knew I couldn't convict him.
This moment is still one of themost infamous legal blunders of

(01:23:37):
all time.
It showed how one theatricalmoment could override mountains
of forensic evidence.
It of all time.
It showed how one theatricalmoment could override mountains
of forensic evidence.
It proved that a murder trialcould be one with drama, not
facts.
It helped OJ walk free despiteoverwhelming evidence of his
guilt.

Speaker 1 (01:23:48):
I have something to say.
I have a pair of gloves in mywork truck right now that I went
to the hardware store to buythis specific glove.
It's a leather, they're likeyellow leather gloves.
I went to buy extra large tobuy this specific glove.
It's a leather, it was theiryellow leather gloves.
I went to buy extra large, theyonly had large and I said, well
, they only have large.
I guess that's what I'm buying.
Sure, they're small, but Istill use them.
That would have been my youknow Thought process in the

(01:24:11):
journey.

Speaker 2 (01:24:11):
Yeah, they're tight but they're going to get the job
done.
You can still have their on hishands.
They're not child.
Child size gloves.

Speaker 1 (01:24:21):
Like they're extra large gloves.
I don't, like I don't.
I've never seen a double extralarge glove.
I've never seen that size existRight.

Speaker 3 (01:24:30):
And I'm sure his hands, his hands must be giant
right.

Speaker 1 (01:24:33):
His hands are probably big, but he, I mean,
how big is he?
He was like six, three, I think.

Speaker 2 (01:24:38):
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, theydidn't have my size but I bought
them anyway, or whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:24:56):
But there was a way it was a lose-lose situation.
There was no way that was goingto accomplish anything.
It was a stupid move.

Speaker 2 (01:25:03):
Why did they do it at the beginning of the trial?
Why didn't they yeah, why didthey waste everyone's time for
nine months?
I mean the jury specifically.

Speaker 1 (01:25:13):
You think anyone was like up in, like kind of like
him, hauling around like I don'tknow.
Guilty, not guilty, guilty, notguilty, and then um cochran's,
just like if the glove must, ifthe glove doesn't fit, you must
acquit, and they're like oh Iforgot about that.
That's right is that true, isthat right.

(01:25:34):
He's a lawyer.

Speaker 2 (01:25:35):
Well, I'm just like dizzy after nine months of
sitting in a hotel room everyday in and day out.
I haven't spoken to my familyin nine months.
I'm going to believe this guy.
His words have been in my headevery day.
It's a joke, the whole show.

Speaker 1 (01:25:51):
Him putting the gloves on like he's sticking his
tongue out like it doesn't fit.

Speaker 2 (01:25:56):
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 inthe pants.
I was trying today.

Speaker 1 (01:26:02):
That was all.
That's number one.
It's number one, I mean it'slike, but it's also like.

Speaker 2 (01:26:09):
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 bloodcirculate.
Right, you won't get as muchblood circulation to your hands.
It's stupid.

Speaker 1 (01:26:24):
That's what I'm saying, if I was in the jury.

Speaker 2 (01:26:26):
I'd just be like you're not proving anything to
me, I know.
That's the make or break of thetrial.
It's just stupid.
Yeah, I know it's kind of blownout of proportion, and if I was
there in the jury I'd be likeyou.
Ladies are crazy.

Speaker 1 (01:26:39):
I would have been like try harder.
Like put your hands.

Speaker 2 (01:26:45):
No, see that guard behind you.
Now put your hands around hisneck and see if you're still
able to strangle.
Well, he didn't strangle them.
Well, he did something.

Speaker 1 (01:26:57):
Well, did he clasp his hands he acted like he
couldn't even get them on.

Speaker 2 (01:27:03):
The whole time he was showing them he only kept them
out like this, fully spread.
He didn't actually clasp thembecause he had a knife.

Speaker 3 (01:27:10):
I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (01:27:11):
I don't think so.
I feel like they kind of let.
It was so bad.
What they should have done ishave somebody else try to put
them on him, like here stickyour hand out and then here hold
this knife.

Speaker 3 (01:27:23):
Or they should have gotten a pair.
They should have gotten a pairof.
They should have ordered asecond pair of non-bloody ones
and had him try those on Likethe exact same brand and size.

Speaker 2 (01:27:37):
No, his defense team would have been all over that
one.

Speaker 3 (01:27:40):
How do we know?

Speaker 2 (01:27:41):
it's the same one.
How do we know?

Speaker 3 (01:27:43):
There's variations.

Speaker 2 (01:27:45):
Someone could have doctored it up, and the jury's
still.

Speaker 1 (01:27:50):
They probably could have hired somebody to create an
exact replica.
There are other ways to do it.
Really stupid move.

Speaker 2 (01:27:57):
Love manufacturer on trial, bring him in, fly him in
soon.
When he said darden.

Speaker 1 (01:28:03):
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 sogood, and he looks over at the
jury.

Speaker 3 (01:28:13):
He's like imagine being marcia clark in that
situation and your co-counseldoes something like that and
ruins the whole all that work inone little stupid stunt that's
nonsense if it took them ninemonths.

Speaker 1 (01:28:29):
This was a slam dunk case.

Speaker 2 (01:28:33):
She knew when they picked the jury.
It was an uphill battle.
Just by looks alone that thejew that they already know it
was a hard dump street, as theysay.

Speaker 1 (01:28:43):
I mean, I mean geez, for her to just be like, oh yep,
you shouldn't made him to theglove.
It's like, well, what about theother?
Uh, eight months and 30 days.
What about the other?
You know, 300 hours in thecourtroom, crazy.

Speaker 2 (01:29:00):
I mean.

Speaker 1 (01:29:00):
Crazy.

Speaker 2 (01:29:01):
Well, let's talk about.

Speaker 3 (01:29:02):
Marsha.

Speaker 1 (01:29:08):
She's number six on my list Marsha Clark.

Speaker 3 (01:29:09):
We only have six and seven left, I believe.

Speaker 1 (01:29:13):
Marsha Clark drama is number six.

Speaker 2 (01:29:14):
I think we're going to regret putting Kato's
testimony at two.
I won't Never regret Kato.

Speaker 3 (01:29:19):
Marsha Clark wasn't just the lead prosecutor in the
OJ Simpson trial, she was alsoone of the most scrutinized
public figures in the entirecase.
She had a solid legalreputation before the trial, but
once the cameras turned on, shewas suddenly being judged not
just for her legal skills, buther personal life, her
appearance, her attitude andeven her hairstyle.
What should have been a battleof evidence and law became a war
against sexism, public opinionand nonstop tabloid drama.

Speaker 1 (01:29:43):
So I agree with that.
That's not really that fair.

Speaker 3 (01:29:46):
The first the first thing.
Before the OJ trial evenstarted, Clark's personal life
was already in chaos.
She was going through a messydivorce with her second husband,
Gordon Clark.
On top of that, she wasfighting for custody of her two
young sons.
Then, in the middle of juryselection, her ex-husband went
to court to demand full custody,arguing that her demanding
trial schedule made her an unfitmother.
She was already working insanehours preparing for one of the

(01:30:07):
biggest trials in history.
Now she had to fight for herchildren.
At the same time, the media gota hold of her custody battle and
turned it into a huge publicspectacle.
She later said in interviewsthis was one of the most painful
parts of the trial.
She was staying up all nightworking barely, seeing her kids
and then being told she mightlose them.
She was being torn apart bothin court and in her personal
life before the trial had evenreally begun.
Once the cameras startedrolling, the tabloids and TV

(01:30:31):
news had a field day mockingMarsha Clark, but not for her
legal skills.
They focused on her looks.
The press constantly criticizedher hairstyle, causing it
frumpy and unflattering.
She was mocked for her suits,with one journalist saying she
dressed like a librarian fromthe 1970s.

Speaker 1 (01:30:46):
Ooh burn.

Speaker 3 (01:30:47):
This is the tabloids.

Speaker 1 (01:30:48):
You want these jurors listening to John.

Speaker 3 (01:30:52):
One newspaper literally ran a headline that
said the Shrill Shrew.
After weeks of brutal mediaattacks, clark got a makeover.
She straightened her curly hairand showed up to court looking
more polished and sleek oh, youdon't do that instead of
praising her, the press mockedher even more, saying she was
trying to be sexy and calling ita desperate move.

(01:31:12):
Yeah, you can't do that johnnycochran and the defense team
weren't getting this, this kindof scrutiny.
Clark was trying to convict aman for double homicide and all
anyone could talk about was herhair.
It became a nationalconversation, with TV hosts and
comedians taking cheap shots ather every single day.
She later said in an interviewI was a prosecutor, not a
reality TV star, but suddenly itfelt like I was on a game show

(01:31:34):
where the audience gets to voteon your outfit.
The defense team constantlymocked her, interrupted her and
tried to intimidate her.
In one of the most sexistmoments of the trial, f Lee
Bailey called her little misstough guy, a belittling comment
that showed how little respectthe defense had for her.
She fired back, refusing to bebullied, but it was clear the
defense was treating herdifferently than they treated
male prosecutors.

(01:31:55):
Some jurors said they thoughtClark was cold, condescending
and too aggressive.
Marcia tried to relate to them,but it didn't work.
One juror even told a reportershe came off like she thought
she was better than us.
This was a huge problem becauseClark needed the jury to trust
her.
Instead, many of them tuned herout.
Christopher Darden was Clark'sco-prosecutor and at first they

(01:32:16):
worked well together, but duringthe 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 lostfaith in Darden.
She blamed him for the mistakethat may have cost them the case
.
They barely spoke to each otherin the final days of the trial.
Darden later said in interviewsthat he felt abandoned by Clark

(01:32:38):
, while Clark said she feltbetrayed by Darden's mistake.
When the jury delivered the notguilty verdict, clark was
devastated.
She had put everything into hercase her career, her personal
life, her credibility.
She quit being a prosecutor andleft the legal world entirely.
She was offered TV deals, bookdeals and even movie offers.
She wrote a bestselling bookabout the trial and later became
a legal commentator.

(01:32:58):
She has since said the oj trialwas the best and worst thing
that ever happened to me mythought with that is I.

Speaker 1 (01:33:06):
there's obviously a difference in you know how.
That's definitely a societaldifference from today until like
to back in the early 90s, whenthere was a little bit more of
objectification of women, ormaybe not objective.
What am I thinking of?
Holding them at a differentstandard?
Obviously sexism, I guess youwould call it.

(01:33:28):
But lawyers, I don't knowwhat's the joke.
What do you call a bus full oflawyers going over a cliff A
good start?
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:33:41):
Do you?

Speaker 1 (01:33:41):
think she.
What's the joke?
What do you call a bus full oflawyers going over a cliff A
good start?
I don't know what they sayLawyers are like.

Speaker 2 (01:33:47):
Especially defense lawyers.
Of course they're going to doeverything they can do to put a
doubt in their mind.

Speaker 1 (01:33:52):
That's a shame.
I guess she got put into asituation where she normally
wouldn't have been in of beingunder this much public eye.
But when you are a prosecutoryou are a public figure, I guess
, in theory, right, are theyelected?

Speaker 3 (01:34:11):
Not nationally Not nationally.

Speaker 1 (01:34:14):
No, I'm not saying that, but you are a little bit
of a public figure somewhat, butnot like this.
The district attorney iselected.
But you are a little bit of apublic figure somewhat, but not
like this the district attorneyis 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 (01:34:38):
Yeah, that would have been a tough spot in the 90s to
be the lead prosecutor, I'msure, out the gate, you know,
sitting across the table fromfive other power defense
attorneys, male defenseattorneys I think someone should
have asked like, hey, what'sgoing on?
You're like, oh, I'm goingthrough a divorce, I'm fighting
for my kids, but you know, I'mjust going to run out here and
be on television.

(01:34:58):
It's like when she steppedaside, I mean, I understand, so
maybe it's trial of her careercould have been she didn't know.

Speaker 3 (01:35:06):
She didn't know it was going to be on tv.
She got picked because the daythat they found the blood going
into rockingham the detectivecalled her and asked her opinion
on if he could get a searchwarrant or not.
So since she was involved fromthe beginning, she got the case.
Judge ito decided in those sixmonths to let cameras in the
courtroom and that had neverreally been done before.

(01:35:27):
That was the really the startof this like public fascination
with watching courtrooms.
So she was not expecting thatand maybe if they would have, if
she could have looked in thefuture and seen that, maybe she
would have said no, but it wastoo late they should have made
everyone the exception, shouldhave been all right, we're gonna
be, it's gonna be on television, but everyone has to wear a
richard nixon mask I actuallythink that I'm surprised that

(01:35:51):
they didn't.

Speaker 1 (01:35:53):
um, I guess maybe it wouldn't have necessarily have
mattered for the outcome of thetrial, but you would think that
they would have consulted with apublic relations person to go
over their look and theirdemeanor in court and that kind
of stuff You'd think that theselawyers would get trained that

(01:36:14):
way.

Speaker 3 (01:36:15):
This was so new I mean, this was even pre-reality
TV I don't think lawyers werereally used to being in the
front and center at all no, butI'm not even saying for that
like.

Speaker 1 (01:36:25):
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, maybeyou know, join in on his, just
appear likable, yeah, just yeah.
But it's not fair to judgesomebody like that and it
definitely shouldn't have had anoutcome to the, to the trial,
but it did and that goesprobably goes back to jury

(01:36:47):
selection yeah no that stuff issix, seven, seven.

Speaker 2 (01:36:59):
I'm putting on seven.

Speaker 1 (01:37:01):
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 ithigher.

Speaker 2 (01:37:07):
Let's put it at six, what would you have?
Can we ask that, emily, what?

Speaker 1 (01:37:11):
would he have put in.
We'll do it at the end when wego through it.
Marcia Clark.

Speaker 3 (01:37:15):
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 numberseven, seven and last.
All right, the Faye ResnickDrug Theory.
One of the wildest and mostoverlooked defense strategies in
the OJ Simpson trial was theColumbian Drug Hit Theory, which

(01:37:38):
suggests that Nicole BrownSimpson and Ron Goldman weren't
killed by OJ but by drug dealerslooking for payment from
Nicole's friend, faye Resnick.
This theory was sensational.

Speaker 1 (01:37:47):
Faye Resnick is the reality TV star right.

Speaker 3 (01:37:50):
Yes.

Speaker 1 (01:37:51):
What's she on Ria Housewives of Beverly Hills.

Speaker 3 (01:37:54):
Yes, okay, this theory was sensational,
ridiculous and completelyunsupported by evidence, but it
still made headlines and Okay atparties and restaurants in

(01:38:15):
Brentwood.
But what made Faye infamous wasthe fact she was in drug rehab
at the time of the murders.
Just days before Nicole'smurder, faye had checked into
rehab for cocaine addiction.
Some people in Nicole's circlebelieved Faye owed money to drug
dealers.
Defense seized on this,suggesting Nicole was murdered
as payback for Faye's unpaiddrug debts.
The theory was Colombian hitmencame looking for Faye.

(01:38:38):
They couldn't find her, so theykilled nicole and ron instead.
And there was zero evidence tosupport this.
Johnny cochran and effley baileyneeded to create alternative
explanations for the murders.
The key points that the defensepushed were nicole was friends
with a known cocaine user.
Fay fay owed money to drugdealers.
Maybe those drug dealers wentto nico Nicole's house looking
for Faye and killed her instead.

(01:38:59):
The flaws were Nicole had noknown drug involvement, ron
Goldman wasn't involved in drugsand there was no actual
evidence of a drug cartelconnection ever even presented.
Even the judge wouldn't allowthe defense to bring it up in
court, but it still became partof the media narrative.
Just four months after Nicole'smurder, faye Resnick released a
tell-all book Nicole BrownSimpson the Private Diary of a

(01:39:21):
Life Interrupted.
Faye painted herself asNicole's best friend Four months
.
Yep.
During the trial Wow or no?
Before the trial, faye paintedherself as Nicole's best friend
and revealed intimate detailsabout Nicole's relationships and
personal struggles.
She heavily implied that Nicolefeared OJ and she knew he was
dangerous.
She also included details abouttheir alleged drug use, party

(01:39:45):
lifestyle and sex lives.
Nicole had just been brutallymurdered and Faye was profiting
off her death.
Many of Nicole's real friendsslammed the book, saying it was
full of exaggerations and lies.
Even OJ's defense team used itagainst the prosecution, saying
it proved nicole was connectedto drugs, fueling the colombian
hitman theory.
Faye defended herself, saying Iwrote the book to tell nicole's

(01:40:06):
story and expose the abuse shesuffered suffered at the hands
of oj.

Speaker 1 (01:40:10):
That's number seven you think nicole brown simpson
would be on real housewives ofbeverly hills?
Do you seem like a socialite?

Speaker 3 (01:40:19):
There's probably a good chance or she would be on
the Kardashians or something.
She was really good friendswith Kris Jenner.

Speaker 2 (01:40:26):
But then the Kardashians wouldn't be a show
if the OJ thing didn't happen.

Speaker 3 (01:40:31):
You think I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:40:33):
Yeah, it wasn't the whole thing because Kardashian
was famous no, but people wereinterested in them because
people knew in them, becausepeople knew of them, because of
his robert kardashian no, no, Ithink it was.

Speaker 1 (01:40:45):
I think it was paris hilton hung out with kim
kardashian.

Speaker 3 (01:40:48):
Yeah, kim kardashian was on the hills.

Speaker 2 (01:40:53):
She was a closet organizer for heidi really the
thing with her dad was nothingto do with it.
His relation to OJ.

Speaker 1 (01:41:02):
Not as much.
No, I don't think.

Speaker 3 (01:41:04):
Just that they were very well connected in the
entertainment industry.
I don't think people knew, Idon't think Rob Kardashian was
like a household name to peopleour age.

Speaker 2 (01:41:18):
I just wasn't sure if that was the jumping off point
anyway, um fey, fey, fey, fey.

Speaker 1 (01:41:24):
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 atnumber seven, easily.
I don't know, it would havebeen interesting for them to
bring this up in trial because Iwould have been like, okay, if
that happened then how did OJ'sblood get on the gloves and how

(01:41:50):
did Nicole's blood get into OJ'swhite Bronco?

Speaker 3 (01:41:56):
it does bring up an interesting debate of like well,
if the defense is saying thatOJ didn't murder Nicole even
though there's like all this,like domestic violence issues
then like who did?
No one else was trying tomurder 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 (01:42:17):
None of that matters.
You know, Edo's sitting upthere.
He's just thinking to himselfthis is going to get so much
airplay.
Oh, this cocaine drug dealer'scoming in, that's great, but it
never made it.

Speaker 1 (01:42:29):
He didn't let him talk about it.
Oh, it didn't get that far.

Speaker 2 (01:42:32):
Did you listen?
What's the big deal?
What's her problem?

Speaker 1 (01:42:40):
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 themedia.

Speaker 3 (01:42:43):
He brought it to Judge Ito and Judge Ito said no,
because there was no evidenceabout it.
But this is another reason whythe jury had to be sequestered,
because then they didn't hearabout it there you go, john
aliens arrived and killed NicoleBrown Simpson.

Speaker 2 (01:42:58):
Oh gotta keep her sequestered.
We don't want you.
Aliens arrived and killedNicole Brown Simpson.
Oh gotta keep your sequestered.
We don't want you thinking thatthat's a seven, that's easy.

Speaker 3 (01:43:05):
Seven.

Speaker 2 (01:43:06):
I don't even know who this lady is, but Lisa
Vanderpump called her FayeRancid, so I'm with my girl,
lisa, on that one.
She sounds like she soundswhack.

Speaker 3 (01:43:18):
Well, and then Marcuscus allen's wife and faye
were went to a dinner togetheron one of the episodes and that
was a very uncomfortableinteraction, because remember
marcus and nicole were havingthe affair and then like but he
was married to katherine at thetime, why?

Speaker 2 (01:43:38):
Why wasn't Marcus Allen put on trial?
He fled the country.

Speaker 1 (01:43:43):
The whole time.
I think so, didn't he.

Speaker 3 (01:43:46):
They deposed him for the civil trial.
There's definitely testimonyfrom him, but he didn't testify
for the murder trial.

Speaker 2 (01:43:56):
We don't think you're as good at running back as OJ
Simpson murder trial.

Speaker 1 (01:44:02):
We don't think you're as good at running back as oj
simpson, so I wonder who thoughtdreamt that story up?

Speaker 3 (01:44:05):
I think it was the defense team it was yeah, I
don't know probably the defenseteam.
Oj knew he did it, so heprobably wasn't very good at
coming up with other stories.
Well, we don't know if he didit, so he probably wasn't very
good at coming up with otherstories.

Speaker 1 (01:44:20):
Well, we don't know if he did it.

Speaker 2 (01:44:21):
Excuse me, what was the verdict?

Speaker 1 (01:44:23):
What was the verdict again, emily?

Speaker 2 (01:44:25):
Yeah, Well, then he wrote his book, then he wrote
his book, If I.
Did it and did that weirdinterview and just told the
whole story.

Speaker 1 (01:44:36):
But If was really teeny tiny.
Everything was on the up and upbaby.

Speaker 3 (01:44:40):
If If real tiny and then big, I did it.

Speaker 1 (01:44:46):
Well, that's what the Golemans made him do, but like
why, yeah?
And then Ron was just in thewrong place at the wrong time.
Yeah, I mean I'm happy withthat as seven, I think.
I mean you could say that aboutanybody, I feel like
everybody's everybody,everybody's two, three people

(01:45:07):
removed from some kind of drugsituation, especially especially
in la, yeah I think it wasmaybe more scandalous at the
time to talk about that publicly.
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:45:24):
All right.
Well then, what is your finalranking?
Let's hear it and see if you'rehappy with it.

Speaker 2 (01:45:29):
See, if I remember Number one, are we starting from
seven?

Speaker 1 (01:45:33):
We'll go from number one.

Speaker 2 (01:45:36):
You want to go?
Okay, number one.

Speaker 1 (01:45:38):
Oh no, Go from number seven.

Speaker 2 (01:45:40):
Number seven faye resnick, her nonsense number six
marcia clark, and her trialsand tribulations outside of
court, in and outside of courtjudgment.
The judgment judgment yeah,five was.
Was the jury.
No Three was the jury yeah,five was.

Speaker 1 (01:46:04):
Furman as Hitler Furman as Hitler.
Mark Furman as Hitler.
That was a lifetime man I know.
Well, it does feel like alifetime ago, yeah.
Four, judge Ito's wife being acop, yeah With, like Furman's,
like Mark firman's co-worker.
Three was the jury uh-huh.

Speaker 2 (01:46:27):
Two was kato, gotta love kato, and one was the glove
yep, that's it.

Speaker 1 (01:46:36):
it's an okay list Furman as Hitler.

Speaker 3 (01:46:40):
I can't believe they got that much rage.

Speaker 1 (01:46:41):
I think Furman as Hitler would probably go up a
little bit.

Speaker 2 (01:46:45):
You think it should go closer to one.

Speaker 1 (01:46:46):
Like up.
Yeah, like I would maybe swapFurman as Hitler and Jadgeta's
wife.
Other than that, I think it's apretty good list.
What do you think, Emily?

Speaker 3 (01:47:00):
I thought you guys did pretty good.
I liked the Colombian drugtheory Personally, I thought
that was fun.

Speaker 1 (01:47:04):
It's tasty.
It's tasty, but I'm not reallysure how we're ranking these, so
I'm not really sure this isbased on.

Speaker 3 (01:47:12):
It's just kind of a list, I guess it's just like, if
I think about it beingoutrageous, it's definitely an
outrageous theory, but if itmade its way into the court, you
made a good point that itdidn't really end up affected
public opinion but not the trialitself.

Speaker 2 (01:47:28):
So I guess again if it affected public opinion and
the jury could see that publicopinion, then I'd say OK, but
they didn't.

Speaker 3 (01:47:36):
John just wants like all the fake news getting to
juries so they can just believewhatever they want to believe.

Speaker 2 (01:47:41):
You're supposed to use your brain.

Speaker 3 (01:47:44):
People can't do that.
We've learned that we have notevolved to use our brain.

Speaker 1 (01:47:48):
That is part of the problem.
So they don't have juriesanymore.
I'm not against that.
Stop having juries.
It doesn't seem to really workout that well.
You're supposed to be judged bya jury of your peers.
And if everyone's an idiot,then that's what comes with it,
that's what comes with theterritory.

Speaker 2 (01:48:05):
That's true.

Speaker 3 (01:48:07):
What if they could be like I'm an idiot.

Speaker 2 (01:48:11):
Other idiots can judge me.

Speaker 1 (01:48:12):
Maybe if your life depended on people reading about
stuff on Twitter and Facebookor whatever, people will be more
interested in being like yeah,maybe we shouldn't have this
stuff.

Speaker 2 (01:48:22):
Yeah, if you know what the consequences are.

Speaker 3 (01:48:25):
But it's just the reality.
You have to accept the reality.

Speaker 2 (01:48:28):
That we have idiots and you can't try to delude
yourself by having smart peopleon juries.
Yeah, I think the judge willget there and put idiots in
there.

Speaker 3 (01:48:38):
You choose if you want a jury trial or a judge
trial.

Speaker 2 (01:48:42):
Oh, do you.

Speaker 3 (01:48:43):
Yes, you get to make that decision.

Speaker 2 (01:48:44):
There you go, John.

Speaker 3 (01:48:45):
So some people think it's like OJ probably would have
definitely been found guilty ifit was just a judge right,
because the judge would haveunderstood all the evidence.
So they thought they had abetter chance if they could make
enough people doubt it in ajury trial they should just be
like yeah, okay, do you want ajury trial or a judge trial?

Speaker 1 (01:49:03):
if anybody says jury trial, they'd be like are you
guilty, put her in jail like intoday's world, I would say
that's probably the case.

Speaker 3 (01:49:16):
No, oh boy, that's funny oj asked for it to be a
speedy.
You have a right to a speedytrial.

Speaker 1 (01:49:24):
He requested that because I feel like they, if it
took longer in between, you'dhave more time to prepare
yourself, so you'd have a moresuccinct defense.

Speaker 3 (01:49:41):
And then the jurors would have been sequestered for
nine months.
I think that was definitelypart of it and I think because
they were still figuring out howto do DNA evidence, I think
that took a lot longer than itdoes now.

Speaker 1 (01:49:51):
It's a very good approach by the OJ team.
They just got outworked, but atthe same time it's the way they
knew how to use the system.
So some of the things were outof the control of the
prosecution.
So, emily M, do you think thatwas a good idea or a bad idea
for it to be televised the trial?

Speaker 3 (01:50:12):
Well, that's a good question.
I probably think it was a badidea.
I think it probably offered waytoo many distractions and
really lost sight of the peoplewho were killed and justice for
them, because, you know, I thinkit would have been a media
circus regardless, but havingthat 24-7 view of it, I think,

(01:50:33):
just amplified it so much.

Speaker 2 (01:50:36):
Should have been on the just radio.

Speaker 3 (01:50:42):
Yeah, that could have maybe helped.
Or just had court reporters goin and give summaries every day.
I mean there's other ways toshare the information at any, I
guess.

Speaker 1 (01:50:49):
I guess some people just sat there like you listen.
You could have listened to thewhole trial on tv right it was
on court tv 20 like live.

Speaker 3 (01:50:59):
That was the first time they'd ever done that, so,
yeah, you could just sit I'msure people did oh, people that
were like homebound I'm surethey did, and then I'm sure it
was all the news was talkingabout.
So you probably got all thehighlights every night.
I'm sure it was like you wereprobably so sick of hearing
about it by the end.
Do we think this was a goodformat to go over the trial?

(01:51:20):
I think we covered probably themost interesting parts yeah, I
mean, what else we're gonna do?

Speaker 1 (01:51:24):
go over dna.
We'll be talking for ninemonths.
We'll have to sequester our.

Speaker 2 (01:51:29):
We'll have to sequester our listeners we've
been doing this podcast longerthan that trial.
Can you believe that I mean?

Speaker 3 (01:51:35):
well, thanks for having me back.

Speaker 1 (01:51:36):
This was fun oh yeah, thanks, emily m.
I don't know, is that the endof the oj saga fans?
Let us know if you want to hear.
I mean, we got the aftermaththat we could talk about we have
aftermath.

Speaker 3 (01:51:49):
We have his time in florida, we have his second
stint in jail, when he did aarmed robbery to get his own
memorabilia back.

Speaker 2 (01:52:00):
That's probably even crazier.

Speaker 1 (01:52:05):
I think we need to dig into the JFK files.

Speaker 3 (01:52:11):
I am a big JFK conspiracy theorist.
I have to say I'm not normallya conspiracy theorist but I am
for that one.

Speaker 1 (01:52:17):
Have they been released yet?

Speaker 3 (01:52:20):
No, he gave them 15 days to come up with a plan to
release them.
So maybe once they get releasedwe could go over some of that
together.

Speaker 1 (01:52:34):
All right, emily M thanks for taking the time.

Speaker 3 (01:52:38):
Thanks for having me, guys.

Speaker 1 (01:52:39):
Glad to have you back .

Speaker 3 (01:52:40):
I'm going to edit this down a little bit, like in
half.

Speaker 1 (01:52:44):
Yeah, that might be a tough one.
John didn't put timestampstogether, so that's part of the
issue.

Speaker 2 (01:52:51):
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 andstay curious, especially when
you're working with a tailor.

Speaker 1 (01:53:06):
You don't know what, just stay curious, you blow it
trying to be funny.

Speaker 3 (01:53:27):
I can't hear that through my headphones, just so
you know.

Speaker 1 (01:53:32):
I got hairy legs.
Come on, man, and we saybye-bye.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Special Edition: The Simpson Saga Pt. 5: Laughter, Lawsuits, and Legendary Trials

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Crime Junkie

24/7 News: The Latest

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

Special Edition: The Simpson Saga Pt. 5: Laughter, Lawsuits, and Legendary Trials

Crime Junkie