Did you watch The People v. O.J. Simpson: American Crime Story? You may have not but many players in the 1994 murder trial did, including prosecutor Marcia Clark, who weighed in on the FX series on Wednesday’s episode of The View. The 62-year-old attorney, who served as the district attorney’s lead prosecutor in the case, said watching the show was like “reliving a nightmare,” adding, “Every bit of it is awful and hard for me.”
She has nothing but kudos for show creator Ryan Murphy, praising him for his “guts and vision” and for “getting the big stuff so right.” She was glad that the series not only addressed issues of race but also sexism, saying, “The S word never happened and no one wanted to talk about it even when I did the lecture tour. Women would stand up to me and say, ‘I didn’t feel any sexism in the workplace.’ Good for you. And he did that, and I think that took guts and vision, and so it’s an amazing job.”
Of course, Marcia was asked what she felt about the actress paying her on screen, American Horror Story alum Sarah Paulson. She gushed, “I’ve been a big fan of hers for a million years, so when I heard she was playing with me I was like, okay. It doesn’t get any better than that. And she’s amazing. What a beautiful, nuanced, subtle performance. She’s just phenomenal. Really, if nothing else, watch for her performance.” Oh, and for the record, Marcia felt compelled to apologize to Sarah for having to sport her awful early 90s perm.
Marcia left the ladies and the audience with this thought, “Let’s not forget that two innocent people were murdered. Whatever you think of Simpson’s guilt, their killer was never brought to justice. That painful reality, we should not forget.” You can check out the whole segment from The View below:
In other ACS news, O.J.’s infamous house guest Kato Kaelin (played almost as a comic relief by the wonderful Billy Magnussen) shared his thoughts on the series with USA Today (like he has anything else to do.) Aside from the “ridiculous blond wig” worn by Billy, he thought the show was good, although it contained many inaccuracies about his whereabouts while the events of the case unfolded. He added that although he thought the inclusion of actual news footage was inspired, he said, “I’m afraid a whole new generation will be watching this as a documentary rather than a drama.” Does he see it as a new Making a Murderer? It does seem that O.J. is getting an unofficial retrial of sorts with this series, doesn’t it?
Check out photos of Sarah and fellow cast members Cuba Gooding Jr., Courtney B. Vance, David Schwimmer, Selma Blair, Connie Britton and John Travolta (whose eyebrows deserve an Emmy nomination) from last Wednesday’s L.A. premiere in the gallery below.
Photo Credit: FX, Fame Flynet
Now, 20 years later, I can truly appreciate what incredible pressure Marcia Clark was under. Not only was she prosecuting a murder, but under immense public scrutiny that would crush many other people, and up against a cadre of some of LA’s highest profile defense attorneys (obviously she wasn’t the only one prosecuting this case, of course). She wasn’t just be criticized about how she did her job, but also how she dressed and how she wore her hair. I am so impressed with how she handled herself.
+1
I agree. She wrote a book about it after the trial and it was really good. She was also under immense stress because she was going through a divorce and custody fight over her two little boys at the exact same time. Her ex-husband used her long hours working to argue she was being an unfit parent.
To bear up under the constant white hot spotlight of scrutiny for a broadcasted trial that lasted for SO MANY MONTHS is unfathomable to me.
Yes, it was a complete and utter circus every step of the way and she handled herself with a strength that probably not many people possess.
I watched the pilot and I’m still thinking about it, and the case all over again. Still so timely in so many ways.
Could you imagine everyone making fun of your hair like that? She got an awesome makeover, but could you imagine how hard it was to read those comments and to see that all over late night TV?
I’m glad Marcia talked about the victims . With the sensational show and Kris Jenner sucking the oxygen out of the topic, the victims of this horrific tragedy should never be forgotten.
Quick question. If they had the O.J trial today, with all the evidence. Do you think he would be getting a guilty verdict? I felt like DNA was just introduced during the trial and people were still a little sketchy on it.
I was 14 years old at the time and I understood the DNA evidence. The not guilty verdict had nothing to do with not understanding the evidence.
A celebrity with money. A dream team of defense lawyers. Questions about how the police handled evidence. Mark Fuhrman’s testimony. In today’s climate OJ would walk again.
no. the defense introduced way too much reasonable doubt, and they so thoroughly discredited Mark Fuhrman, and it did appear that the LAPD did plant, or at least, manipulated the evidence.
The defence ran rings around the prosecutors and so the result wasn’t a surprise.
If the same happened today, with the same cast of characters, running the same trial events, the result would still be the same.
DNA or not, the prosecution went into the trial holding a lot of good cards.
And the defence managed to cast doubt on every single one.
And since a verdict has to be ‘without doubt’, OJ walked.
I quibble, a verdict has to be ‘without REASONABLE doubt’. Just casting doubt on evidence doesn’t rise to that level.
Tourmaline: …but of course! đŸ™‚ didn’t realise i’d left out the ‘reasonable’ bit.
Too many people misinterpret “reasonable doubt”. It doesn’t mean not an iota or shred of doubt can exist. It means “reasonable”. Reasonable means “sound, fair, sensible, practical, etc.” It does not mean “none” which is what so many people seem to think. You can have some doubt and still come to a guilty verdict and be a good juror and correct in your conclusion. If youree doubt is beyond rationale – that would constitue a not guilty verdict.
@LAK–:)
@JenniferJustice—I love your post, it reminds me of a jury instruction guide statement read to jurors before they deliberate! I do agree that this concept is oft misunderstood.
Of course the defense tried to discredit the evidence. That’s their job. There was no “reasonable” doubt in this case. The jury wanted to let him off, and they did. Because he was OJ. There’s no excuse for what they did. It was a travesty of justice and they should be ashamed.
He had the absolute best defense money could buy, who had no scruples at all. Celebrity justice is hard enough, but with lawyers like Shapiro, Dershowitz, Bailey… those are guys who have no problem skirting rules. My question would be, would the trial have progressed differently in the age of the internet, when information is so easily accessible?
My two cents is the outcome may have been different now popular understanding of forensics and DNA has grown by leaps and bounds over the past 20 years. The CSI effect, etc.
But I look at how many people think the Making a Murderer guy was framed, and conspiracy theories, and I’m not sure sure the outcome would be different.
One thing, as a lawyer, it was absolutely horrific that the criminal trial jurors were empaneled and sequestered for so long. It was just short of 9 months! (January-October 1995). I place much of the blame on Judge Ito for not moving the trial along faster. I really can’t blame the jurors for being massively fed up and outraged for what they were put through.
Back in 1995, there were many people who believed OJ was innocent and this trial got total news coverage, I don’t remember how long soap operas were pre-empted but they were for a long time and some folks attribute the OJ trial as one of the reasons soap viewership dropped.
I think if that dream team of lawyers was still alive (namely Cochran, I know Robert Kardashian is dead but I don’t know how much he had a part of the defense) and this happened in 2015, even with a better understanding and advanced techniques in DNA evidence, I think OJ still walks. All the defense has to do is create reasonable doubt which is what they did well back in 1995.
@ Bridget – if this crime had happened today, someone in that neighborhood would have whipped out their phone and recorded the murderer as he drove away…or in fact may have recorded the murders taking place. The amount of screaming you would hear from someone getting their head almost decapitated, I don’t understand how not one person looked out their damn window to see what was going on. The whole story is crazy. I can’t even understand how those two children slept so peacefully inside and didn’t hear a thing or wake up? It’s all so bizarre.
There is no denying that entire trial was a sh!tshow, despite the prosecution’s very best efforts. Everyone and everything was under such intense scrutiny in ’95, but could you imagine if TMZ was involved? I’ve always thought that the defense was aided by the tabloid scrutiny, and I wonder if that would have held up under present day conditions. The microscope has only gotten more powerful with the advent of the Internet.
I actually just read an article about a forensic anthropologist in Scotland where they discussed the validity of DNA evidence, footprints, fingerprints, etc. In Scotland, it is now common knowledge that the techniques America uses, such as DNA evidence, have been largely discredited. There is too much room for error and contamination, as well as the fact that fingerprints and even retinal scans can be faked or planted.
Anyhow, my point, I suppose, is that those defense attorneys did create enough reasonable doubt that the outcome would have turned out the same today, even with all the advances in forensic science. And OJ is where he belongs today anyway, in prison, because he was so arrogant to think that he got away with it once, he could get away with it again.
@ JoJo – OJ is getting out of prison this year.
@Jojo
That is very true. I am studying forensic anthropology myself, and I have learned that:
a) forensic evidence is far from infallible
b) that the majority of criminal cases won’t have usable forensic evidence and
c) the general public (ie jurors) have very little understanding of a and b.
These days juries think that forensic technology is more reliable and advanced than it really is (the CSI effect) and thus when it is lacking they believe that means the case is weak when really almost all cases rely mostly on circumstantial evidence and a lack of forensic evidence is largely irrelevant.
It’s a pretty big problem. I see people comment on cases online all the time saying ‘well there’s no DNA or fingerprints so X must be innocent’. The capabilities of forensic detection are grossly overestimated by many people.
I really liked the show. I was afraid the whole thing would end up being like Wes Bentley’s part in Hotel (which was the worst part). Great performances all around. I hope Murphy can keep this up because he’s the master of starting great and then dropping it hardcore in the middle. Even with the anthology series format, it keeps happening to him.
My understanding is that Murphy isn’t all that involved so hopefully we can count on it staying strong.
Yeah, I’m worried about the same – I thought the first episode was very good, if a little over the top at some points, but Ryan Murphy has a HORRIBLE track record when it comes to maintaining quality, or even a story, past a few episodes.
It may help that it’s based on true events though, so the story is already sort of written for him.
I think I’m one of the very few people that did my best to ignore that trial when it was going on. I mean I saw the Bronco chase and a few tidbits but that’s about it. that being said I might check out this mini series eventually it seems to have a decent cast.
Yay! I’m so glad to see this article. I was afraid you weren’t going to cover it. I’m definitely watching. It was eerie watching it play out onscreen when I remember so well all of the news coverage. The Rodney King stuff at the beginning really resonates with what’s going on now–times haven’t changed all that much. I feel like I have a different perspective now seeing the movie. I was in college at the time and so naive about the world.
Courtney B. Vance is a revelation. If I didn’t know Johnnie Cochran was deceased, I’d have thought he was playing himself.
I watched it and the thing that stands out to me the most is Schwimmer’s awful Bob Kardashian wig. It is so un-natural and awful. David plays his well, looks like him a bit, probably could have used his own hair and it would have looked a LOT better.
Sorry that wig is an elephant in the room for me.
Also-she’s glad he got a lot of the big stuff right but of course what is being reported is that he got the wrong Kardashian sister when it came to which bedroom OJ tried to kill himself in. Nice.
Sarah Paulson is wearing one of the few decent Stella MaCartney designs from recent years.
I couldn’t watch it. I tried. Not one person even resembled the person they were portraying. Not even Sarah had the right Marcia wig. Robert K was little, David is big. OJ was big, Cuba not so much. Maybe they all acted so well that they’ll be emmy contenders, in fact, I’m sure of it.
I liked the first episode. Just wish they didn’t have to mention PMK and her daughters. It’s like come on, they had nothing to do with the trial. We don’t need them in it !
I thought the premiere was so-so. I liked how they tied in the climate of LA at the time, reminding viewers of the 1992 riots post Rodney King trial. Some of the actors were good (Courtney B Vance, Sarah Paulson), some were bad (Gooding Jr, whoever is playing Kato, Travolta) and the rest did not have big enough parts for me to judge. I have a hard time not seeing Ross Gellar when I see David Schwimmer.
I will keep watching though. And kudos to Marcia Clark for reminding the public that two innocent people were murdered and whether or not you think OJ did it, their killer could be out there. Sometimes I feel like Nicole and Ron are afterthoughts in the story.
Travolta was horrible. He’s a producer on the show so he pretty much cast himself I bet.
Travolta was acting badly but for the type of character he was playing I thought it was brilliant. He’s a lawyer of the worst kind. Everything about him has to be fake and ugh-inducing.
Courtney B Vance needs to be in more things, I always like him when he pops up. Travolta’s performance and look is so weird it’s fascinating.
“Sometimes I feel like Nicole and Ron are afterthoughts in the story.” So true. I can’t imagine the constant pain their families are in, and watching the first episode made me really sad for Nicole and OJ’s children. I hope they’ve found some happiness in their lives, but all of this must be so hard to deal with.
@word, I thought I read (and maybe someone could correct me) that Travolta was reluctant to do this at first and I think making him a producer helped convince him. I’m not 100% sure of that though.
@Josefina, you make a good point. I think if he dropped the mimi-cry, he would rock the role, I could see some flashes of good stuff with him (the scene where he dismisses Robert Kardashian from the room and tells OJ he asks all of his clients the same question and the funeral scene where he is telling the photographers to stop and gives up were good scenes for him).
@lucy2, the scene where the daughter leaves the message on the answering machine begging her mother to call her and saying how scared they were…it broke my heart.
Re Nicole and Ron being after-throughts. So true, especially Ron Goldman. It’s like he didn’t exist and wasn’t also murdered. But I guess the movie is suppose to be about O.J. – not his victims.
I read that Nicole’s sister was/is very upset about this movie as she sees it sensationalizing the tragedy and O.J. himself. I don’t think the movie does that. If anythinig, it points to his all-but admitted guilt and stays true to the actual events and O.J.’s actions after the murders which clearly showed guilt. I thought for sure this series would play it up as a “mystery” like did he or didn’t he? I dont’ see that at all. I see a guilty man who got away with murder. I hope Nicole and Ron’s families come away from this feeling vindicated and knowing the public sees O.J. for what he is. It’s also a reminder of what happened lest people forget or younger generations tending to believe in O.J.’s innocence because they werent’ around when it happened or were too young to know. It has opened my eyes because back when it happened, I didn’t realize what and affect the race riots two years prior had on that trial, that state, the whole country. It wasn’t until I watched the movie that I understood what horrible timing it was in relation to racial tensions already running amok.
P.S. The way Kato Kaelin’s character is portrayed must really embarrass him now. Cops: “Are you on something?” Kaelin: “I’m not really a person. I just live here.” Priceless!
I watched the first episode and overall liked it. There were some great moments. The creepy parts of the crime scene and the detectives going over the gate at Rockingham and seeing the blood on the Bronco. Courtney B. Vance is remarkable as Cochran. For Schwimmer, the only thing I’ve seen him act is Ross Gellar and he came off to me as Ross Gellar in a skunk wig.
Cuba Gooding Jr. does not have the physical or vocal presence of OJ but he had some strong moments. Showing OJ vacillate between smiling magnaminous celebrity and unhinged raving lunatic.
Worst parts for me, were Selma Blair as Kris Jenner (she was doing her line readings like Vivian in Legally Blonde), the gratuitous call-outs to the Kardashian girls, and it looks like Connie Britton’s Faye Resnick is going to be a total caricature (albeit entertaining).
Yeah the part at the funeral where Kris Jenner yells out “Kourtney, Khloe !”. I mean really? What was the point of that? The kids in the episode were seen running around and giggling. Kourtney would have been about 15…mature enough to know better. I don’t even understand why Kris and her kids are a part of the show. They had nothing to do with the trial. It’s just to get ratings.
I wouldn’t have recognized Marcia Clark from a still photo in a million years. I can imagine what nightmare the trial was for her so I can imagine her strong emotions watching this.
I’m really glad she mentioned the victims. It’s more than OJ managed to do most of the time.
I thought the pilot was good but not amazing or anything. It had a Lifetime movie feel to it for me, especially anytime Travolta was onscreen, but I think I’ll continue to watch because it is interesting reanalyzing the whole thing again with a couple decades’ worth of distance.
I followed that case from beginning to end. I don’t beleive the verdict had anything to do with reasonable doubt or his having this great dream team of defense lawyers. It was all about the jury. His lawyers manipulated the jury pool to ensure they had people who were more concerned with supporting a black male “role model” than they were concerned with justice. I worry the same thing will happen with Bill Cosby. I heard a female African American attorney panelist on that Dr. Drew show say she understands why African Americans want to support their own people no matter what, but in supporting Bill Cosby simply for being a successful black man in the industry, they are in essence, saying the black female bodies he violated are of no importance. I think some people are subconsciously defending their culture rather than the indiviudal at issue. it happened with O.J. and it might very well happen with Cosby.
Because if there’s something that needs to be glamourised even more on American TV, it’s murderers and the Kardashians. Nope, not gonna watch this.
Right, because there are absolutely no British series that glamorize murder. I can only think of about seven or eight right off the top of my head. Give me a freaking break.