Marcia Clark on what went wrong in the O. J. Simpson trial
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 июн 2016
- Marcia Clark talks with Cynthia McFadden about the O.J. Simpson trial and what went wrong, in a talk about her new book, Blood Defense. Watch the full talk here: • Marcia Clark with Cynt...
Subscribe for more videos like this: bit.ly/1GpwawV
Your support helps us keep our content free for all. Donate now: www.92y.org/donatenow?...
Facebook: / 92ndstreety
Twitter: / 92y
Tumblr: / 92y
Instagram: / 92ndstreety
Vine: vine.co/92Y
On Demand: www.92yondemand.org
This goes to show that legal cases are about more than the information presented. They are about the current social climate and biases of the jury members.
Jury wasn't biased at all. The prosecution had no physical evidence and made a ton of mistakes
Correct
@@jamesgentry13 the jury was definitely biased
@@jamesgentry13 no physical evidence. Right. There was all kinds of DNA and blood evidence. I think a lot of people felt the jury disregarded this evidence because of the social climate of the jurors and their biases...
See the Bugliosi video on RUclips in which he lays this poor prosecution.
she just became a Legend.....after sarah Paulson portrayed her so accurately.
She did not ask to become a legend or get thrown in the spotlight.
Millions of evidence and OJ get free...She is a typical stupid women.
Just because of a crazy ideology she get her job...
She even couldn`t manage her home, kids and ex husband...
She should go in jail for making money with OJ Simpsons Name by book deals...instead doing her job at that time...
She is just stupid...
seriously...i bet she fucked somone to get her job...she was to stupid and she LOST a case that even children would win.......FACT! She should take care of her children instead of playing a lawyer...
Bud Koos you are disgusting
Legend? Failing in putting a double murderer in jail for life qualifies for legend status? She was incompetent to the point of amateurish. She shouldn't be allowed anywhere near talk shows etc for failing to get a man who slaughtered the mother of his kids and an innocent lad prosecuted with evidence enough to convict 10! She has some brass neck! Totally fail at her job ,earn millions selling the story through a book and tarting herself up going on talk shows like some hero? She has no shame!!
Mark Furhmann destroyed the case. Period.
AND the prosecution did also. No doubt that the prosecution did a very bad job. Seriously, tell OJ to try on the glove. These guys were in so over their heads.
One person in that jury went not guilty before trial. He was a black panther and that was payback for Rodney King.
Furhman, Vanatter, LAPD, ineffective counsel. rush to judgement, LIES and COVER UPS destroyed this case...
He didnt!!
Of course not...He did a good job... they turned the case in something else other than the murder of 2 innocent people and the procecution was clueless....
Never underestimate the ignorance and gullibility of an American juror.
On the stand, Fuhrman was asked if he had planted evidence at the scene in this case. Fuhrman did not say 'no.' Instead, Fuhrman pleaded the fifth. How could you convict a guy when the police can't even say under oath they didn't plant evidence at the scene of the crime? This is exculpatory on its face and the reason Simpson walked.
BECAUSE, stupid-- once you say ANYTHING, they can ask you EVERYTHING; you CANNOT plead the fifth SELECTIVELY.
So they could have convicted him for ANYTHING that could POSSIBLY be used to incriminate him, about ANYTHING, EVER. You NEVER KNOW what they're going to ask, or what they judge will allow; or what will be used to PROSECUTE you.
Judge Ito SHOULD have just given Fuhrman IMMUNITY for anything not related to the case; and then DIRECTED Fuhrman to testify.
But Ito was a PISS-POOR JUDGE.
You cannot lie under oath, and i am pretty sure they asked him will “i plead the fifth” be the answer to all of these questions and mark said yes, so he technically had to say i plead to fifth to that question or it would be perjury
@@naclba exactly. a masterful job by the defence attorney.
Mark is on audio tape saying he always planted evidence on black men with white women
@@420troll4 More of a dirty trick than masterful, but the jurors were stupid enough to buy it and the prosecution never cleared the air.
She will Never Hear the End of This.
Never..
I believe that if Oj would have been a ''regular'' person and not a celebrity, he probably would have been sentenced
If he was a regular person he wouldn’t of been charged.the racist lapd cops wouldn’t of even went to his house and the real murderer GLEN ROGERS would’ve been charged.they had him & let him go even tho he was wanted for over a dozen of murders at the time.they knew & know he’s a serial killer that recently admitted to killing them about 5 years ago and he still hasn’t been charged.they excuse is he’s already deathrow.come on AMERICA 🇺🇸
The real KILLER IS GLEN ROGERS.look up a few documentaries on him on RUclips plus this one oj ex manager just put out on him ruclips.net/video/UCfXNaCeJEo/видео.html
Oh 💯!! He had great lawyers and the jury just wanted to go home and be done with this whole thing!! Karma got him somewhat and he’ll have to answer for what we all know he did…when he meets his maker
The jury could have been “done with it” just the same by delivering a guilty verdict. He was acquitted due to race. Period.
Celebrity or not - they would have still let him off. People who are stuck on race, aren't interested in the truth.
If Ron was black, OJ would’ve def been locked up.
naitethagr8 I don’t think you’re so familiar with this case. OJ had cuts all over his hands and he kept saying he didn’t know where he got them from. Stop defending a murderer.
Amen to that 👍🏻
@@KristysEdits -Timeline alone proves he's innocent.
@naitethagr8 They found OJ's blood at the crime scene. He also had a knife. He was also a world class athlete. It wasn't an evenly matched fight between a knife-wielding, record-holding running back and an unarmed waiter. Nicole's head was nearly cut off.
@naitethagr8 Ron Fuhrman pled the fifth because his attorney told him to do so. The defense only specifically asked that question after he made it clear that he would plead the fifth. The defense only asked the question to sow doubt about the DNA evidence. Apparently, that trick worked on you. When asked whether he thought OJ did it years later, Robert Kardashian said, "the blood evidence is the greatest thorn in my side," and reiterated the sentiment.
The physical difference between Goldman and OJ was great enough on its own. But not only did OJ maintain his physique, but he'd filmed a pilot for a show wherein he'd play a character who used a knife. Apparently, he received real knife and hand-to-hand combat training so his character would appear more authentic. Could Goldman have won a sanctioned hand-to-hand fight with OJ in broad daylight? Maybe. A shocked Goldman who saw the silhouette of a man assaulting the silhouette of his friend though, had no chance. He didn't know what he was getting himself into. OJ thought Ron Goldman was sleeping with his ex-wife, so he was additionally enraged.
I could go on and on, but I've wasted more than enough time already. If you've spent 26 years believing OJ's innocent, your mind will never be changed. It doesn't matter. The Goldmans have fucked OJ at every opportunity and they'll continue to do so until they feel they've gotten justice. (Forever.)
Mark Fuhrman pleading the 5th is what went wrong for this case. Marcia Clark was truly up against it calling Fuhrman as a witness
if she didn't call him. the defense would've called him
What went wrong was the Rodney King verdict. This was the perfect storm. If I would blame Clark it would be for jury selection. She wrongly thought minority female jurors related to her and received the message. Wrong. Also she should have accepted a mistrial when the Ito stuff surfaced. They could have possibly gotten a change of venue or at the very least a very diminished OJ defense team. He was maxed out financially from the first trial. Most of his team would have not been around for a second trial..
Calling Kato a hostile witness was stupid!!!
To say she’s the best prosecutor she’s seen is one heck of a stretch.
Well, she said it all, Furman had no reason to plant the glove and still the judge let the defense team to make their case and influence the outcome of the trial. Ito was a weak judge.
Except for the fact that Fuhrman is caught on audiotape saying he ALWAYS plants evidence on black defendants especially if they are with white women.
@@markwestjr711 Proof?
@@markwestjr711 This actually came out in court room testimony ? Just out of curiosity , which defense attorney revealed this , was it J.Cochran , F.L.BAILEY , R.Shapiro , who ? I'm just curious that's all 😯 .
the judge liked the attention...
What went wrong? You got Mark Fuhrman as your star witness.
Mark did absolutely nothing wrong in his detective work. He actually did a really good job. He was the first to get the key testimony from Kato about the knocks on the wall. He found the bloody glove at Rockingham. They never proved he planted any evidence.
What went wrong was you let OJ's defense load up the jury with racist, revenge-driven blacks, even though the murders took place in majority-white Brentwood and the jury is supposed to represent the demographics of wherever the crime was committed.
That was the biggest mistake of many by the prosecution.
First off hes guilty but just once I'd love to hear Marcia, Chris, Gill, Lange and Vannatter admit they made a lot of mistakes..
I have heard Marcia say she made mistakes. What is bothersome to me, is the group you mentioned, or at least some of them seems to throw one another under the bus. Chris got thrown under the bus for the glove incident, Gil said he never wanted Marcia on the case and Chris has said they went to court too early. It would be nice if they formed a more united front. imo.
u r right .... but i guess Sarah Paulson made het a Legend...
She was already writing books before the show started. You can sit there and say everyone involved in the case is more famous now.
They did go to court too early, but they didn't have any choice after leaking the 911 call was leaked and it causing a preliminary hearing to be ordered.
Not enough mistakes that would make OJ NOT guilty! i read Marcia's book and watched many things on this..and Marcia had enough evidence on him to win that case 20 times over..at the end of the day it was a race thing! The race card was brought out and that gave the defense a huge opportunity to win! and they did! I would not be quick to blame Marcia..OJ got away with it because he was OJ Simpson regardless of evidence...
What went wrong? The answer is simple- the prosecution didn’t present ALL of the evidence.
EXACTLY. I can tell you are one of the few commenters on this video that has done their homework either watching the case or studying it. Good job!!!!
She lost the case when she agreed to the jury makeup.
One of the jurors was interviewed after the trial, and they admitted they thought blood type and DNA were the same thing! Doomed.
A different DA decided to bring the case in downtown LA instead of west LA where the crimes were committed, that was the key mistake.
Yeah, I mean, at the time in polling, _only ~20%_ of black Americans thought OJ was guilty, so just 1 in 5, and that was across the country as a whole - I wouldn't be surprised at all if in LA it was even lower. DNA evidence was also a very new thing then. The majority of black people do think he's guilty nowadays though in polling.
It’s supposed to be a jury of his peers so we don’t want an all white jury 😂and they lost the case when it was built on lies from day 1 !
They lost the case when the put Marsha Clark as lead prosecutor on the case.
i dont understand why people say she look better now. She was beautiful in the 90s too i think
Estela Zalazar she was going through a lot of stress due to being a single mom, going through a divorce, fighting custody for her kids, had a full time job as a prosecutor, on top of all that normal human being stress she was going through a media frenzy and getting national attention from the OJ trial, all that stress can make you physically sick, but she quit her job after this, her kids got older, she wrote a book, she looks way better physically and I bet mentally to.
not that perm tho
Nice 2 mole u
You picked the wrong jury.
The wrong jury was picked in the Rodney king beating case and it was on tape
Exactly.
Let me guess it should have been an all white jury mostly women huh
You wanted it to be all white jury like the same all white jury for Rodney, King, and Emmett til
@@Slice2099 No one said that. You said the words 'white jury'.
Just think logically. Who wanted to kill Nicole.
Why would OJ want to kill Nicole? He had a girl friend when they died. Smh.
@@divinelove249theres 911 calls that showed him broking into Nicole’s house and threating her months before her death. Possessive men treat their wives as their belongings even after they move away, theres so many femicides just like that. You must be one of these old women who strongly supported Oj back then and made black americans look soooo stupid for the world
@@divinelove249 have you heard the 911 calls? obv not......
@@Triumph865 so…
@@Triumph865 and…that doesn’t mean he murdered them.
People: READ VINCENT BUGLIOSI’S book on this trial. He was a world renowned prosecutor (Charles Manson). Clark and Darden MASSIVELY dropped the ball. They weren’t forceful enough, they didn’t dismantle the defenses’ main argument of white cops framing him, she didn’t call OJ out as being an Uncle Tom, she didn’t have a strong closing. Why didn’t she have those “million” cops who saw one glove testify? She had TWO cops testify, ONLY, on that main point. She and Chris Darden let the defense make this a race case when it was a domestic violence and jealous psycho ex husband rage case. Awful job, Clark and Darden.
A prosecuting attorney will always barely have a chance with a brilliant defense attorney, much less a charismatic one. It doesn't mean she wasn't very good, she was a formidable opponent-- but OJ had a team of brilliant defense attorneys. Johnnie Cochran alone would be anybody's worst nightmare in a courtroom.
It was essentially trying the Glove and Fuhrman
I could just imagine what would have happened if OJ was convicted
Nah he would’ve appealed and got off due to the massive riots all over the United States tbh
She's Never Going To Hear The End of This.. Never..
While the racial climate was definitely a factor, the color that matters the most is green. The "best" lawyers cost the most. There is no justice system; if one has enough money, he can be aquitted of anything.
To everyone who thinks she looked fine back in the 90s, really? she was going through a lot of stress due to being a single mom, going through a divorce, fighting custody for her kids, had a full time job as a prosecutor, on top of all that normal human being stress she was going through a media frenzy and getting national attention from the OJ trial, all that stress can make you physically sick, but she quit her job after this, her kids got older, she wrote a book, she looks way better now then she did back in the 90s
Yes, she was going through hell in her private life during that time.
Doesn't change the fact that she did a terrible job. She was the one who advocated for having black women on the Jury coz she thought she have make good connections with them. Turns out she was as dumb as the Jury she selected.
I agree, Marsha Clark looks better than she did 30 years ago.
I heard the opposite. She was doing up Darden and living the life. She didn’t look sick.
Marsha Clark blames everyone but herself. She did an atrocious job with this trial. It was hers to lose and she lost it. Great job, Marsha.
no, the black jurors did.
She did a horrible job, she was outclassed by Johnnie Cochran, Shapiro, Dershowitz and F. Lee Bailey etc… but it didn’t matter that jury was never convicting OJ.
@@Triumph865u have to prove it to the jury, Marcia handled it wrong it’s on her not the jury.
@@eunanmcnicholl6679 no. The black jurors even said they acquitted because of the color of skin. You dumb F.
The best interview she ever gave.
Best prosecutor? Watch Vincent Bugliosi video on the breakdown of the OJ Simpson trial. She was constantly forgetting details in her speeches, failing to object F.Lee Bailey when he famously cross examined Fuhrman was amateurish at best. The evidence left out was unforgivable. She was too conscious of her image, maybe more than putting a double murderer in jail? Please watch Bugliosi break down this absolutely shocking prosecution which obviously Clarke absolves herself with blame and blames on Fuhrman ir a biased jury. She also said she'd prefer Fuhrman dead for using the N word in a projected screenplay but never addressed the man who's committed a savage double slaughter in terms anywhere near as bad? She has made a lot of money for being absolutely shit at her job.
Vincent Bugliosi was just another Monday morning quarterback like Nancy Grace and all the other pundits. I would've done this, I would've done that. I would've said this, I would've said that. That was just a bunch of baloney to make money off of OJ Simpson.
The smug host got it wrong. OJ is shoe size 12 not 11.
EVERYTHING
Putting Furhman on the stand - knowing his past history - was a huge error on the part of the State
I don't think that was the huge error but at least prepare him to answer the question about the N word. If he would have admitted to using the N word it would have went better in my opinion. But it takes a good attorney to help someone like Fuhrman know what to do. He actually asked for help and the prosecution would not even talk to him.
They were size 12 Bruno Magli shoes, not 11’s. And, the footprints were slightly pigeon toed, as is OJ.
Dr. Henry Lee said otherwise. And he was world renowned. Meaning he was one of the best in the world. His expert opinion should have weighed more than any prosecution witness.
What went wrong in O J case? The prosecutors.
Just once I would like to hear Clark talk about her incompetence cost them the trial.
An incompetence of domestic violence !
Domestic violence is circumstantial, not hard evidence of a fact
Speculation, by the media
What O J Simpson was doing
Not what Nicole Brown, was doing or had done !
There is no idea of victim blaming . Only for the sake of being a victim
It's circumstantial
The case has just been presented on television with the trial of oj Simpson.
How did Marcia get hotter with age?
Three guesses, and the first two don't count.....
I think a major contributor was that she was under a lot of stress and pressure.
The jury had made up its mind before the trial began. A juror admitted it was all about Rodney king.
In a way america deserves Oj acuittal due to its racist officers
LA + Fuhrman + Race Card (toss in a little prosecutorial incompetence) = O.J. on the street.
It was a joke. Regardless if the glove didn’t fit, or what Fuhrman said, the crime scene had OJs DNA there = guilty. It goes to show you what happens when people think with their hearts and not their senses.
It's no fun when the rabbit has the gun
It's still about the Police planting evidence. Mark Furman plead the fifth concerning planting the glove. No need for that at all unless true. His history and actions killed it.
Fuhrman had been caught in a lie by that point and had likely been advised to plead the fifth no matter what the question was. At that time, his job wasn't to help the prosecution, his job was to protect Mark Fuhrman. The defense clearly had it out for him and he just wanted to make sure that no matter what, he wouldn't be caught in another trap. Him pleading the fifth when being asked whether he planted evidence in the OJ case obviously looks terrible and pretty much comes across as an admission if you're a juror in that moment, but it doesn't prove that he did plant the glove or evidence in general. If there had been any instance of him breaking proper procedure on the night of the murders, maybe something he didn't even remember, and somehow that defense counsel got ahold of that, they could've probably turned that into another example of perjury on his part had he denied all allegations.
What did she think Furman testimony would do?
The best book ever written about the OJ murder case, is the one by ex prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi. And he underlines some extraordinary mistakes made by Clark and Darden. I would also like to listen from these people to admit their mistakes for once.
Right. She only get her job because she fucks her boss. She is just to stupid. I have no other explanation!
It is just a stupid ideology that a women get that job. Especialy that woman...
@@budkoos3087 I don't know about that, but it's simply astonishing to me that she thinks their biggest lost case with so much evidence is because of their losing another case with even more evidence (a video!!) and she doesn't even bother to admit incompetence...
Bugliosi was great...
I agree! Clark NEVER gives any reasonable response to any questions regarding the mistakes she (and Darden) made during the trial. She never gets asked why she did not bring into evidence the Bronco chase and the 30+ minute police interview Simpson gave the cops where he is blatantly lying through his teeth.
Not even close. The best books on the OJ case are:
1) Legacy of Deception by Stephen Singular
and
2) OJ is Innocent and I Can Prove It By William Dear
When asked under oath if he had ever planted or fabricated evidence in this case, a lead detective takes the fifth. How in the world does this not create reasonable doubt?
That didnt matter. The jury was cherry pickin. All of that evidence could not lead there to be a reasonable doubt whatsoever, not for one second. The jurors were biased against the police..end of story.
Because he exercised his 5th amendment right, its the same as if he said nothing or wasn't on the stand
@@dogguy8603 no it means he did something illegal. Tampering/planting evidence. That’s the only conclusion would be arrived from that.
@@hah4798 no legally speaking all he did is exercise your 5th amendment rights, as should eveyone when being questioned, its no proof that he planted evedence
@John Cena when? When did he say that
She looks so much like the actress Sara Gilbert who plays Darlene Conner on the TV show Roseanne
She looks like that person who lost the OJ Simpson case. Hmm what was her name.
Apart from the errors made by the prosecution e.g. omitting the getaway during which Simpson virtually confessed („I’m the only one who deserves to get hurt !“), and allowing Simpson to try on the blood-shrunken gloves while wearing latex gloves, the main factor for Simpson‘s acquittal was the jury selection. They were simple-minded citizens, and as such they were incapable of discerning between Johnny Cochran‘s deception (..if it doesn’t fit,..) and the facts that the mountain of compelling evidence showed. Either you believe that Simpson is guilty, or you believe that the police planted Simpson‘s blood and that of his victims at the murder scene, on his car, inside his car, on the gloves found at Bundy and at Rockingham, on his socks in his house, and in the runway to his house, and in his house, and that the shoe prints of his rare and expensive size 11 Bruno Magli shoes were not made by him, that is, that the murderer borrowed Simpson’s shoes (and his blood!) for the murders. Facit : there is only ONE conclusion that can be drawn from all of the evidence : Simpson is a double murderer who bought his freedom by employing a team of highly skilled liars. The trial was an insult to the American people and to the meaning of the word justice : indeed it showed clearly that there is no justice, and that you can even get away with murder if you can afford it. The civil trial came up with the correct verdict !
All of what you wrote is perfectly sound - but “simple-minded citizens” does not account for the fact that the obvious is denied on a daily basis in the political arena (Left and Right). Millions of those people are simple-minded (and maybe some of the Simpson jury as well) - but motive has a way of numbing minds in a way that simple-mindedness and stupidity can’t.
@@rickmemmer5625 Yes, Rick - you are absolutely right about that ! The Greeks, who were the first to make official use of democracy “power to the people”, stipulated that in order to be allowed to vote, you had to prove that you were politically informed, and not just capable of putting a cross on a piece of paper..
@@Chad_Max Of course not all of the jurors were simpletons, but based on some of the interviews that I saw, I would indeed put some of them into that category. Let’s face the facts based on the evidence : anybody who believes in Simpson’s innocence is a complete idiot. The prosecution made some huge errors, and the defense were successful in turning the focus of the trial from murder to racism. Chris Darden, although he has a charming personality was particularly weak : he allowed the glove test on gloves that had been soaked in blood and dried with Simpson wearing latex gloves. Furthermore, I remember him saying to the jury that their task is “not easy” ! Based on the huge amount of compelling evidence it was probably the easiest task that jurors were ever faced with, and by making such a statement (“not easy”) Darden was basically saying to the jurors that there was reasonable doubt to deal with in this trial, which of course was pure bull****.
You’re strawmanning the counter argument. The only pieces of evidence the defense claimed to be planted was the glove, socks, and blood in the bronco. Their goal was to create doubt in the validity of the evidence, showing evidence of cross contamination of the DNA results, specifically with OJs reference sample of DNA. Showing the terrible work by the criminalists and how poorly managed and handled the forensic evidence was. They showed that the footprint was NOT caused by a Bruno magli shoe, and didn’t match Ron’s boot, so who’s was it? They showed finger print results of a bloody finger print that didn’t match OJ or the two victims. The placed doubt in the timeline, stating the Murders probably took place nearly and hour and a half after the Prosecution said. The got Fuhrman to lie under oath, and then basically say “I don’t really want to say whether or not I planted evidence.” It’s clear why OJ walked, because the prosecution couldn’t establish anything. Couldn’t establish DNA, couldn’t establish a timeline, nothing. Prosecution failed, utterly, on every level.
@@TLO129 “The only pieces of evidence the defense claimed to be planted was the glove, socks, and blood in the bronco.” That statement really caused me to laugh ! How could anyone plant Simpson’s, Nicole’s and Ron’s blood in Simpson’s locked car ? Apart from the car being locked, where could they have taken the blood of all three persons blood from ??? How bizarre can this whole thing get ??? Of course the defense wanted to instill doubt in the minds of the jurors - that is their job, and their tactics. Of course the prosecution was successful in establishing that Simpson’s DNA was all over the crime scene, his car, his house, his runway, his socks : that was even admitted by Robert Kardashian, one of his attorneys and a friend of Simpson’s, after the trial, which he described as “the blood evidence”. Robert Kardashian’s shocked face when the verdict was read went around the world, and it spoke volumes ! I think that both you and I know that Simpson murdered two innocent people and got away with it for various reasons : errors by the prosecution, deception by the defense, Fuhrmann’s racism, and clever jury selection (e.g. no scientists, or other people capable of analytical thinking..). The whole trial was the farce of the century ! It is truly beyond the realms of my understanding how anyone who has looked closely at the evidence can believe for one second that Simpson is innocent.
To the black jurors, thanks for letting a double murderer get off.......unreal.
An attorney friend of mine who was in practice for close to 50 years before he retired made a comment regarding the OJ Simpson trial.
He said that the lawyers for the state were just outlawyered and just outworked. That's all it boiled down to.
Sheldons mom!
Frog Green 😂😂
Marcia Clark’s incompetence, that’s what went wrong.
Black american dumbness is what went wrong, jurors had already made them mind prior to the trial
Douglas, that's an empty comment
@@cloroc the DNA evidence alone was enough to put Simpson away.
The tv series made her more likable than she was to the public. And Darden seemed to be there only because of his race. Johnny showed that Darden was in over his head.
If you look at the response you can see she still is not blaming herself for all the mistakes she took, moving the trial to downtown was the biggest one, underestimating the defense maybe the second
1. Marcia Clark had no say where the trial would take place. The Los Angeles Superior Court decided that. 2. Marcia Clark never underestimated the defense. She knew who she was up against.
@@joeb5080and still she put that nazi police officer on the stand
Bad cops and the prosecution did a Lousey job
20% cops 80% prosecution. The Fung situation was the worst part. Fuhrman actually did good police work. Lying about the N word was his issue but the prosecution could have headed that off but they failed.
Those cops busted their butts on that case. The trial was about spousal abuse not race. The jury was predisposed to aquit. And the judge and prosecutors let Simpson's lawyers bully and turn it into a 3 ring circus. They dd everything they could to promote everything the case was NOT about.
She looks great!
There could have been a tape of OJ king those two poor souls and they would have voted to aquit.
Agreed, just like the tape they actually did have of Rodney King getting horrifically beaten and the jury were all determined to acquit there too. Don't hate the players, hate the game. Something is very broken all around. 😢
what went wrong was that Vincent Bugliosi wasnt prosecuting the case.
Ross Cutlery, another Witness who should have been called, had the D.A. done their research, should have been called. Ross Cutlery was the man who sold and professionally sharpened the knife 41 days prior to the murders.
A special master brought the knife to court.
She actually said Clark was the best prosecutor she's ever seen in a court room? HUH?????? Garcetti's entire team blew a very winnable case, and Marcia is basically the face of that team. Unreal.
mixer14316 she had done trials before the Simpson case. Very successfully
@@sashah5691 maybe so but she was piss poor in this one! Not showing the jury the 32 minute police interview and bronco evidence was beyond incompetent in the extreme.
And what she didn't mention Mark Fuhrman went to a screen writer and exposed himself of being a racist cop when a tape surface
I remember Marcia so heated that she was furious at the press covering the case. They were hounding her and making her out to be defending the police department. That trial has reshaped this lady’s life for the duration.
Clarke knew that it was circumstantial evidence
We don't have an eyewitness, a weapon bloody clothing or a timeline
Marcia Clark naively thought black female jurors would empathize with white beautiful Nicole, when it was more likely that black women would be envious of Nicole.
😂😂😂. Envious because she is blonde? 😂😂😂😂
@@wilfriddallo8591they were probably envious because Nicole could grow hair on her head and not her chest and chin. 🦍
People who claim racism doesn't exist have never read RUclips comments. 😂
@@aloeverga3939 , your parents are very proud of you .
O.J.: "Johnny, I don't like my chances. There was a "Blood Trial." from "The Crime Scene" all the way to my Residence.
I wrote a Suicide Note.
The Interrogation is going to destroy me.
What about the Slow Speed Chase shown on NATIONAL TELEVISION.
The items taken from the Bronco.
The dog not reacting.
My cut that would explain my blood at the crime scene and then there is the 85 minute gap in to my whereabouts on the night of the murders.
The stolen set of house and car keys.
I have no alibi.
There was Allen Park's 63 minute wait, and the fact that Dale Saint John, knows I am never late for a limo pick up.
Dale Saint John is going to get called, I know he is, I mean it is just common sense, towards any moronic Prosecutor. Somebody saw me Jay Walk on the night of the murders.
An architect saw me dispose the Duffel Bag in Chi-Town.
Kardasian's wife is going to destroy me.
Then there is Paula, which proves motive.
Ross Cutlery the man who sold and even sharpened the weapon 41 days prior to the murders.
We can't argue a Frame Up, I'm friends with the L.A.P.D. the main centerpiece of this Frame Up Theory, even let me off the hook during an assault and battery charge and never even so much as filed out a Police Report.
My hair was even on one of the victims, and 9 of my hairs including hair from the victims were on my ugly ass knit cap.
I was stupid enough to wear expensive and rare size 12 Bruno Magli shoes, matching the bloody shoe prints at the crime scene, not to mention even rarer Isotoner Aries Light gloves on the night of the murders, and I believe that I left one of the gloves, at the crime scene of all places.
I mean in almost all cases a conviction would happen with just 1 drop of the suspects blood at the crime scene or 1 hair at the crime scene right? I'M DONE FOR."
Johnny: "Don't worry about a thing Juice. Marcia Clark, is the lead District Attorney."
O.J.: "Oh thank God."
Perfect post! And for anyone to go through that wvidence and conclude Simpson is innocent they need to either have a serious problem with reality or be dumb in the utmost extreme or both!.
Everything you wrote is incorrect.
No it isn’t! It blows apart your fucking stupid conspiracy theories DimDim! You not fed up of looking like a twat on these boards. You really need to get out and get laid instead of spending your life commenting on every O.J. video there is on RUclips claiming he’s innocent when it’s quite clear to anyone including retards that he did it! Fucking loser
@@Jim.Jim.32 Oh realy, could you please disprove me.
@@bothan101 it would take me several hours to explain everything. Give me your strongest evidence of OJs guilt, one or two things. In fact Ill put up money that whatever you say will be disproved with FACTS.
Marcia looks 1000x healthier now
Marcia blew it not using Jill Shively as a witness. JILL SAW OJ LEAVING SCENE, HE ALMOST HIT HER CAR WITH HIS BRONCO, SPEEDING BACK HOME WITH THE LIGHTS OFF, AND IT FIT THE TIMELINE
"Maria Clark on what went wrong ... besides her face ..." omg. Even when I had my wing tips re-covered, the shoesmith didn't stretch the leather back THAT much.
I watched this whole trial and she was good.
ruclips.net/video/Zg8su9gCwDw/видео.html
Yeah a real class act
Nope not even close.
The DA should never have moved the trial from Beverly Hills to Downtown Los Angeles!!!
What went wrong is that they underestimated the defense basement on LAPD corruption besides everything wrong with the legal jury based system…
Although I still defend the jury to this day, because their work is to think that the accused is innocent… the prosecutors has the prove them that the accused is guilty, not otherwise as many think
Everything that Marcia Clark is saying throughout this interview, not only NEVER HAPPENED in the Criminal Trial, but did in the Civil Trial, but in addition A LOT of what Clark is saying is what Vincent Bugliosi was aware of, but the Prosecution never knew throughout the trial.
O.J. guilty
She was out of her league with a team of seasoned legal eagles! She was also distracted by her acrimonious divorce and child custody battle. This attorney never had a chance
What went wrong is that OJ never did it. His son did. Of she cared more about justice than she does her ego she’d open the case and give the families of the victims some closure.
Truth is, there was nothing that could have been done. Certain members of the jury just weren't going to vote guilty no matter what. Those members should be in jail if you ask me.
I agree. Some jurors have since admitted that their minds were made up from the beginning.
you're talking abt the jurors from the Rodney King trial, right?
"Best prosecutor"? Jesus Christ, this woman is the representation of incompetence.
I know right. She is a horrible lawyer.
Having the trial in downtown LA instead of Brentwood so Garcetti could get his face in front of cameras was unforgivable.
She overestimated the intelligence of the jury!
The glove, the wool hat socks, & Bronco
are circumstantial.
The knife
The bloody clothing
& an eyewitness
Is a murder trial!
2500 victims, of domestic violence
One ends in murder.
It became the protective right of the victims, to not know anything about them .
A criminal legal mind knows, that it only points to a possible suspect .
Without a motive
The motive is in knowing about the
victim[s]
Marcia Clark was an absolutely horrible prosecutor who was sanctioned many times and didnt even show up to court. And she picked the jurors
At the end of the day this woman was simply out played, out smarted by a presenter (Cochrane).
Correct, Jhonny worked her.
Oh yeah right, "IF DA GLOVES DON'T FIT!"
THIS IS NOT FUCKING CINDERELLA!
Use a POLICE-DOG to match him, not a fucking GLASS SLIPPER-FITTING!
Unless OJ changed the smell of his hands in a few months, I'm PRETTY sure any trained tracking- dog could the glove's owners out of crowd 100 times out of 100.
Hell, I've even done it with UNTRAINED dogs: they know a particular person's smell when they sniff it, and can scent-match to their items of clothing.
For example someone lost a ring in a park-woods, and of course it was hopeless; but I just had my Lab sniff her hand, and told him to search the approximate area; and it took about five seconds before he had the ring in his mouth.
Imagine what a POLICE DOG could do.
She was outplayed by a bottom feeder attorney and a judge infatuated with fame and allowing celebs to join in for private social meetings in his chambers. Between Ito and Cochran, they fucked up the victims getting justice.
@@taraniso Simpsons legal team turned it from a trial about OJ, which they knew they'd never win, into a trial about LAPD and its attitude to towards African Americans, which was definitely winnable. Clark and Darden were smug, incompetent and didn't connect with the jury.
I love you Marcia❤️ you are a hero in my eyes. And you tried to prove the truth, but nobody believed you…
Other than Darden, I’m the other man that had your back💯💯💯
The Furhman tapes was the final nail in that coffin. The defense rode that horse across the finish line.
Nothing went wrong, the prosecutor team and the whole Lapd were incompetent and weak and they were crushed by Johnny and his team !
She is the reason why the prosecution lost
It was actually because Judge Ito allowed the trial to be televised, because of the jury selection, because Ito allowed the defense to walk all over him, because they took the death penalty off the table, because Ito had a wife who was Fuhrman’s boss and didn’t disclose it on the Conflict of Interest paper she signed, etc, etc, etc.
@@ipsurvivor Bullshit. They lost due to an over confident, Ill prepared, incompetent prosecution team. Clarke's summation speeches would make a first year law student blush! Forgetting important details in front of the jury or just out right getting details wrong is unforgivable and points to a lack of preparation. The jury needed spoon feeding and Clarke either didn't realise the fact or was too lazy to by just relying upon the evidence to win the trial. The way she just sat there when Bailey was setting Fuhrman up and not objecting was plain amateurish!! Watch Vincent Bugliosi video on YT breaking down the prosecutions effort in this case is very good.
If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit! 🧤😃
She’s a great human
Marsha Clark stunk
“Best prosecutor I’d ever seen in the courtroom.” Then you haven’t seen very many. She was average. Not incompetent, not great. Just average. She wasn’t good enough to overcome Ito’s stupid rulings.
I would say she was incompetent in this case for sure.
@@jeffallanday No. she definitely wasn’t “incompetent.”
She lost the case. Period. She did a horrible job at every aspect. She treated her own witnesses like shit and labeled them hostel. She failed to present damning evidence. She was in over her head and too proud to admit it because she was a strong independent werman.
She was just so outclassed by the great Bailey and them
The great Bailey? That joker made it big on the Boston Strangler case and it was a huge lie. The Boston Strangler was never caught.
What went wrong??? You and Derden took the case. Thats what went wrong.
So weird that she never got that thing on her lip removed. That would take ten minutes in a dermatologist office.
Why did she say any of this in the closing argument? Or even stress it in the trial. The way the trial played out, there was reasonable doubt. Literally, a cop perjured himself on record (!!!) saying he planted evidence "to put n*&@*$#) in jail. It seamed completely reasonable that it was fabricated. She is a good person, but a poor attorney for the courtroom. She was so biased by her virtue that she couldn't convince others of what she saw as the obvious truth.
YOU went wrong in the Simpson Trial Marcia. YOU.
Been telling my friends for years the only reason he got off is because he’s black & it happened in California & after the Rodney King incident & black people relationship with the police it was a no winner even though we all know he did it
What went wrong was Clark, Darden and Judge Ito. In way over their heads and they got schooled by defense counsel.
A million cops were not on the scene before him
Why do African-Americans believe DNA when it exonerates one of them but deny it when it points to one of them?Draw your own conclusion.
Why do white people think the justice system is fair when they acquit clearly, video taped racist cops committing crimes against people of color. Draw your own conclusions. Peace and love from the Book Man of QB!! Go get'em!!🏃🏃♀️
Probably the dumbest jury ever to hear a case. And they STILL stand by their decision. Shame on all of them.
@Greenfields 12 Nicole's blood was in OJ's car and on his sock in his home. The prosecution was fine. The jury was flat out stupid. They bought the ridiculous theory that the police planted evidence out of racism. They were brain dead. Johnny Cochrin and Co., were shameless.
@Greenfields 12 Nicole's blood was in OJ's car and on his sock in his home. The prosecution was fine. The jury was flat out stupid. They bought the ridiculous theory that the police planted evidence out of racism. They were brain dead. Johnny Cochrin and Co., were shameless.
@Greenfields 12 And you can't appreciate that an L.A. jury would never convict a black man when the case became about race? I was in L.A. at the time. As soon as they presented Furman as a racist, I knew O.J. would win. The prosecution would never be able to take the narrative back - even if they showed video of OJ committing the crime. One thing I never understood was the importance of the glove fitting. A killer could have worn someone else's gloves to commit the crime.
@Greenfields 12 Ok, so I agree about the glove. But it STILL gets back to the stupid (in my opinion) jury. You or I would know that OJ was faking that "try on." And we also know that the glove didn't have to fit for someone to use it to hide fingerprints. Not to mention the fact that OJs DNA WAS ON THE GLOVE! Hello?? And Furman's decade old racist comments doesn't mean he could plant Nicole's blood on O.J.s sock and place it in O.J.s bedroom... and then plant O'J.s blood in Nicole's house. The idea of it was/is ludicrous and implausible. There was just too much concrete evidence for a jury with half-a-brain to let him walk. I don't know how they can sleep at night. The Ford Bronco police chase alone, was pretty much an admission of guilt.
@Greenfields 12 Maybe the prosecution made some mistakes, but reason I blame the jury, is that they fell for the defenses' ridiculous nonsense, and ignored the actual evidence. Any reasonable person would have seen through Cochrin's race-baiting clown show, and looked at the facts. I was in LA at the time. The area where that jury pool was selected was very anti cop. One juror flashed a "power" fist at O.J. before the verdict was read. The prosecution never had a chance. I truly believe that if they had actual video of OJ doing it, they would STILL have unanimously voted not guilty. As for hindsight - I've seen some of these jurors interviewed, and they maintain their position to the day! Not the sharpest crayons in the box.
the best prosecutor she's ever seen? she hadn't seen a lot of prosecutors then.
Considering she own 80 percent of her cases..Why is that not successful?
nebchic I didn't say she wasn't successful. But she certainly isn't the best prosecutor I've ever seen. Not by a long shot.
So what are you basing a good Prosecutor on? She tried with this case. Not her fault the jury had no common sense. It is also based on an opinion of what people think is a good Prosecutor.
Oh, yes it is. She didn't prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt. I think, as much as I hate OJ Simpson, the jury came out with the appropriate verdict. Darden and her both ruined that case because the defense was much more competent than both of them. She was not prepared to handle this case.
Um no. lol. You need to do some research. I have seen video of Jurors saying this is payback. It was payback from the very beginning and they admitted that. They were not going to convict him no matter what. It was from the very beginning. But by all means, if you think you could do a better job of Prosecuting, go to Law School, take the bar exam and become a Lawyer.
Um shes not the best attorney... or wasnt at that time... far from it. However she is way more personable now. Much easier to watch her.
It went to trail after only 6 months after the murders . could that have something to do with it?.
When your lead detective is asked . . . . Sir, did you plant, manufacture or alter any evidence in the OJ Simpson trial . . . and his response is . . . "I respectfully decline to answer under my right against self-incrimination" . . . you deserve to lose the case.
Seems pretty simple to me.
That was a set-up from the word go. What most people don't understand about taking "the 5th" is that once you take it you can't go back and forth. If you take it and then answer ANY question you have to answer ALL of them. Prior to that question he had been asked other questions that he took the 5th on. They could have just as easily asked him if he killed Kennedy and he would have had to take the 5th. They could have asked if he wore women's clothes on Saturday night and he would have had to take the 5th. Total set-up.
Wrong!
Nice try to create an excuse for bad police behavior but people with common sense are not going to buy it.
That's what's known as a red herring or a smoke screen.
Did Furman come to the witness stand and say absolutely nothing? No, he didn't. Which means that there became a point where he knew that his obvious lies & criminal behavior in the Simpson case was becoming exposed . . . placing his cowardly ass in legal jeopardy.
He was perfectly willing to twstify when he thought he could frame Simpson with no consequence. Only when the walls were about to close in on him did he clam up.
Think for yourselves.
@@gmnewbold1416 i think if you deal every day with so many bad black people...everyone would became a so called "rassist". "Rassist" is in reality a word for "reality". It was a big mistake to let all the africans come to america. It became a horrible country.
I think they need the black people only as stupid soldiers...and so the media act like they fight for their rights...in reality they just use the black people...black and white...if it doesn`t fit...send them home back to africid...:-)...And yes, i am a racist :-). Why not? Or must i like everyone?
@@budkoos3087
So tell me, what does one become when they deal with so many BAD white people every day?
You know those people . . . who despite benefiting from white privilege in the criminal justice system (certainly compared to blacks of equal economic status) . . . still fill our prisons to overflowing capacity?
@@budkoos3087
Barack Obama's father Barack Obama Sr. was as black as they come . . . His Kansas-born mother was the whitest of white girls.
Their child, Barack Obama II, graduated from both Columbia University and Harvard and became President of the United States. And without question, he is one of the most intelligent we've ever had.
Then when those white Kansas-born genes were 'watered-down" in next generation . . . you know the children of Barack and Michelle (she of whom graduated from Princeton and Harvard) . . . the results was a child so dumb [NOT] that . . . like her grandfather and her father and her mother . . . she too went on to Harvard.
You know I would think people like you would have more pride than to type/ say something so stupid and easily proven as wrong as your William Schockley inspired theories on the intelligence of mixed race children.
What makes you think you are qualified to comment on intellect, smarts, IQ or any topic associated with brain power?