It features a lot of information about the trial that I didn’t know about. I can’t recommend it enough. I think it’s better than OJ: Made in America and especially The People v. OJ Simpson.
OJ25 is the best docuseries about the OJ Simpson trial
|by Anonymous||reply 12||October 21, 2021 11:43 PM|
It has a 8.5/10 rating on IMDB.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||August 24, 2021 10:09 PM|
Thank you for recommending your own YouTube channel to us, 0P.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||August 24, 2021 10:36 PM|
R2 It’s not my channel. I found out about this docuseries on Reddit.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||August 25, 2021 1:36 AM|
I'm on episode 10 and it's really good. It follows the trial week by week. I've seen the Made in America doc and the American Crime Story series, but this has way more detail.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||August 25, 2021 7:43 PM|
R4 Yeah this series is way more in depth. Too bad it’s not streaming anywhere. I honestly think The People v. OJ is trash compared to OJ25.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||August 25, 2021 8:28 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 6||September 2, 2021 6:31 PM|
Brett Ross Cantor (November 5, 1967 – July 30, 1993) was an American record label executive, concert promoter and nightclub owner. He was born in New York to Rhonda and Paul Cantor, who managed acts such as B. J. Thomas and Dionne Warwick. In the early 1970s, he and his family moved to the Los Angeles area. In the early 1990s, he served as an A&R executive for the Chrysalis Music Group.
After signing Rage Against the Machine, Cantor left Chrysalis to work briefly as an agent and then a promoter, putting together some of the largest concert and dance events in the city at that time. He also entered the nightclub business, taking a 10% stake in Dragonfly, a club known at the time for its 1970s and hip hop theme nights. At that time he was involved romantically with actress Rose McGowan.
Cantor was found dead in his Hollywood home on July 30, 1993; he had been stabbed repeatedly in the upper body. No suspect has ever been identified and the investigation remains open. His death was the subject of renewed interest a year later, when, during preliminary motions in the trial of O. J. Simpson for the killings of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman, Judge Lance Ito ruled that defense lawyers could have access to the investigatory file in the Cantor case. The defense had argued that the similarity of the three killings suggested the same person or persons had committed them. It has also been argued in books on the case that Cantor knew both Goldman and Nicole, and thus they may have been killed over mutual involvement in possibly illegal business activities.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||September 17, 2021 6:07 PM|
Michael Nigg (April 28, 1969 – September 8, 1995) was an aspiring actor who worked as a waiter at a Beverly Hills restaurant. He was shot and killed during an apparent robbery attempt in Hollywood. The Los Angeles Police Department later arrested three suspects but soon released them for lack of evidence. No other suspects have ever been identified, and the killing remains unsolved.
The case attracted some media coverage at the time, because Nigg had formerly worked at the Mezzaluna restaurant in Brentwood, where he had been a friend of Ronald Goldman's. Almost 15 months earlier, Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson had been found slain at her home near the restaurant, after he had gone there to return her mother's eyeglasses, which had been left behind at Mezzaluna. Simpson's ex-husband, former football star O. J. Simpson, had been charged with the murders, and his highly publicized trial had reached closing arguments.
Simpson, who has consistently professed his innocence in the Brown and Goldman killings, was acquitted of the murder charges almost a month after Nigg's death.[a] Alternative theories of the murders, supposedly shared by Simpson, have suggested they were related to drug trafficking in the Los Angeles area, and that Nigg's was as well; Nigg apparently lived very well for a waiter, and there were some allegations he, too, had been involved in the drug trade while working at the Mezzaluna branch in Colorado before. Nigg and Goldman, it has also been noted, were not the only waiters at Mezzaluna to be the victims of criminal activity during the mid-1990s.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||September 17, 2021 6:08 PM|
I guess maybe black people cheering was less about O.J. and more about the politics of the LAPD at the time, police brutality. A lot of their catharsis was bigger than O.J. I can understand that. But at the end of the day, two people were murdered.
I think most people thought we based our decision on race. Race never came up in the topic of our deliberation, or even how the LAPD treated black people.
Like, regarding Fuhrman, none of his comments really …
The thing with Fuhrman was once his credibility was shot, you really could discount anything he said. He was definitely a liar — he lied on the stand — and when he came back to the court, he took the fifth on everything. Why would you trust anything he said? He was the detective that found all this evidence: the blood on the Bronco, on the back fence, on the glove … all of that created reasonable doubt.
Was there a moment in particular during the trial that really swayed your decision towards reasonable doubt?
Yeah, when they started talking about the blood evidence. There was, like, a milliliter of blood they couldn’t account for. And they found blood on the back fence of Nicole’s condo, and that particular blood also had the additive in there. That additive is only found in [a test tube of blood], so why would the blood sample on that back fence contain that additive unless somebody took the blood from the test tube and placed it there?
Do you think O.J. was framed?
I don’t know if he was necessarily framed. I think O.J. may know something about what happened, but I just don’t think he did it. I think it was more than one person, just because of the way she was killed. I don’t know how he could have just left that bloody scene — because it was bloody — and got back into his Bronco and not have it filled with blood. And then go back home and go in the front door, up the stairs to his bedroom … That carpet was snow white in his house. He should have blood all over him or bruises because Ron Goldman was definitely fighting for his life. He had defensive cuts on his shoes and on his hands.
O.J. only had that little cut on his finger. If [Goldman] was kicking to death, you would think that the killer would have gotten some bruises on his body. They showed us photos of O.J. with just his underwear just two days after, and he had no bruises or anything on his body.
You know, I have my personal opinion about what I think might have happened. In my gut, I can definitely see a scenario in which O.J. did commit these murders. However, what I’m concerned about was the show’s portrayal as the jurors as somewhat … bumbling. You did say there were jurors who weren’t very sophisticated, but the show sort of portrays the jurors as not taking anything seriously.
I agree with that. It was a poor portrayal of the jurors. Some of them were bumbling idiots, but all of us worked and did take it seriously. Unfortunately, a lot of those [jurors] who have come out to speak just substantiate that portrayal that was shown [in the finale].
There’s going to be another O.J. documentary coming out next month on ESPN, and I did speak with the director for that. He really was trying to get me to participate in the project and was trying to assure me that it wasn’t going to be like anything else. I told him I appreciated it, but I just am kind of fed up with the whole thing. I don’t regret doing it, because I felt that I was chosen in some way to do this. But I don’t want to keep putting myself out there for criticism and ridicule. People have such deep-rooted feelings about this case. I don’t think that a lot of people would ever change their minds, even if someone just came out of the woodwork and said they were the actual killer. [People would] still say, “No no, O.J. did it.”
|by Anonymous||reply 9||September 17, 2021 6:26 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 10||September 18, 2021 6:10 PM|
1. Why, on the monitor, did the blood show up on the sock almost two months after a careful search for evidence? And why, as demonstrated by Dr. Lee and Professor McDonald, was the blood applied when there was no foot in it?
Think that's a fair question in this case? Let's see if she can answer that question.
Question number 2: Why was Mark Fuhrman, a detective who'd been pushed off the case, the person who went, by himself, to the Bronco over the fence to interrogate Kato, to discover the glove in the thump thump thump area?
Number 3: Why was the glove still moist when Fuhrman found it if Mr. Simpson had dropped it seven hours earlier? As agent Bodziak told you, McDonald has told you, blood dries very rapidly.
4. If Mark Fuhrman would speak so openly about his intense genocidal racism to a relative stranger such as Kathleen Bell, how many of his co-workers, the other detectives in this case, were also aware that he lied when he denied using the N-word, yet failed to come forward? Part of Barry Scheck's fourth C of continuing cover-up.
5. Why did the prosecution not call a single police officer to rebut police photographer Rokhar's testimony by Detective Fuhrman was pointing at the glove before, before, Fuhrman went to Rockingham? That is around 4:30 in the morning.
6. If the glove had been dropped on the walkway at Rockingham 10 minutes after the murder, why is there no blood or fiber on that south walkway or on the leaves the glove was resting on? Why is there no blood in 150 feet of narrow walkway around the stucco wall abutting it? And you've been back there.
Number 7: For what purpose was Vannatter carrying Mr. Simpson's blood in his pocket for three hours and a distance of 25 miles instead of booking it down the hall at Parker Center?
Number 8: Why did Deputy District Attorney Hank Goldberg, in a desperate effort to cover up for the missing 1.5 milliliters of Mr. Simpson's blood, secretly go out to the home of police nurse Thano Peratis without notice to the defense and get him to contradict his previous sworn testimony at both the grand jury and the preliminary hearing? Peratis was never sworn. We were never given notice.
9. Why, if, according to Ms. Clark, he walked into his own house wearing the murder clothes and shoes, is there not any soil or so much as a smear or drop of blood associated with the victims on the floor, the white carpeting, the doorknobs, the light switches, and his bedding?
10. If Mr. Simpson had just killed Mr. Goldman in a bloody battle involving more than two dozen knife wounds where Mr. Goldman remained standing and struggling for several minutes, how come there is less than seven-tenths of one drop of blood consistent with Mr. Goldman found in the Bronco?
Number 11: Why, following a bitter struggle alleged with Mr. Goldman, were there no bruises or marks on O. J. Simpson's body? And you'll have those photographs back in the jury room.
Number 12: Why do blood stains with the most DNA not show up until weeks after the murders? Those on the socks, those on the back gate. Those on -- those are the two major areas.
Number 13: Why did Mark Fuhrman lie to us? Why did Phil Vannatter lie to us?
And finally 15: Given Professor McDonald's testimony that the gloves would not have shrunk no matter how much blood was smeared on them and given that they never shrank from June 21, 1994, until now, despite having been repeatedly frozen and thawed, how come the gloves just don't fit?
I'm going to leave those questions for Ms. Clark and we'll see what she chooses to do with and about them. That'll be her choice.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||September 18, 2021 6:50 PM|
|by Anonymous||reply 12||October 21, 2021 11:43 PM|