Marcia Clark on Sheen’s ‘O.J. is innocent’ series: ‘I find it offensive’

The last episode of the surprisingly good American Crime Story: The People v. O.J. Simpson aired last night. Prior to the episode Marcia Clark, the prosecutor of the case, spoke to The Today Show‘s Savannah Guthrie. Clarke talked about her relationship with co-prosecutor Chris Darden and the upcoming Investigation Discovery series which will claim that O.J. Simpson was innocent.

Marcia, who is currently promoting her crime novel, Blood Defense, said of People vs. O.J., “It was a nightmare that I’m reliving on one level and I really didn’t know if I was going to be able to watch it.” She added that she “couldn’t resist” seeing Sarah Paulson, whom she greatly admires, playing her on the small screen. Marcia claimed she was afraid at first as to how she and the other players in the case would be portrayed, but stated that “It ended up being a really quality series.”

Marcia also discussed the rampant sexism she experienced during the trial, with headlines about her hair overshadowing the work she was doing. She confessed “The makeover part was the funniest thing to me. What are you talking about? How could I have a makeover and still look like that?” She also admitted that her desire for “wash and wear” hair, being a busy working mom, was the reason for her infamous perm. And, as in previous interviews, she addressed the rumors of romance between her and Chris Darden by saying simply that “we were the best of friends.”

When Savannah brought up the new Martin Sheen-produced Investigation Discovery series, Hard Evidence: O.J. Is Innocent, which will claim O.J.’s son with first wife Marguerite Whitley, Jason, now 45-years old, is the real killer of Ron and Nicole, Marcia got her hackles up.

“I find it offensive. It is nonsense, because there is no real logic, there’s no evidence, there’s nothing to back it up, nothing. [Accusing Jason] is to me the most hideous thing you can possibly do.” She went on to say that Jason “can’t defend himself. What is he going to do? Say, ‘It’s not me, it’s my dad.’ What a hideous thing for them to do. I can’t even tell you how awful it is. And it’s baseless.”

[From The Today Show]

Even O.J. has weighed in on this crackpot theory, telling the National Enquirer back in June, “The theory is just one of a thousand regarding the murders, and the LAPD has fully investigated this and felt it has no merit.”

Finally, when asked if she was at peace with the verdict, she confessed, “We gave it our all. I ate, breathed and slept that case. I did nothing but work that case 24/7 for 15 months – I left nothing on the table. So, I can say that there was nothing more I could do. To say I’m at peace with the verdict, no, I mean no. Justice was not served.”

Marcia’s new book, Blood Defense, hits bookstores in May, and I’m really tempted to read it. This prosecutor-turned-novelist has proven to be a smart, witty and charming woman. I’ll admit that back in the day, I worked in TV news and I got sucked into the whole “she’s got a terrible perm” thing with Marcia, and I’m glad I finally got to hear her side of the story.

Marcia Clark's "Guilt By Degree" Book Signing

Photo credit: Getty Images, Fame Flynet

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

21 Responses to “Marcia Clark on Sheen’s ‘O.J. is innocent’ series: ‘I find it offensive’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Pri says:

    It’s weird, but she resembles Kris now…

    Also, loved the TACS: OJ series, The actor who played Darden was amazing, and needs to be given all the awards, along with Paulson.

  2. lucy2 says:

    I haven’t seen the last episode yet, but I think Marcia came off well in the series. I can’t imagine the pressure and scrutiny she was under, but she stayed pretty tough.

  3. Naya says:

    OJ aside, how do we feel about the prosecutor running around telling the world that a man who was acquitted is guilty? I know the fact that OJs case complicates the story but generally speaking, if you personally tried me before a jury of my peers and I was found not guilty, I would sue your ass to hell and back if you went on a media offensive against me twenty years later.

    • Esmom says:

      I don’t think she went on a media offensive at all. She would have happily stayed out of the spotlight, I think, had this new OJ series never happened. I don’t think it’s illegal to give her opinion.

      • Naya says:

        I dont think its illegal just damaging enough that one could sue. Also disturbing to think that I could hypothetically have my name dragged through the mud by the losing prosecutor 2 decades after my acquittal.

    • Beckysuz says:

      Well he was convicted in the civil case. Which obviously didn’t send him to jail, but I would imagine would make it ok to call him guilty without it being legal slander. I think it’s just sort of accepted that he was guilty and got away with it…isn’t it?

      • Naya says:

        Which is why I prefaced with “Oj aside…”. I hope to God that people would recognise this conduct as downright despicable in a case that inspires less blind emotion. Because honestly the thought of prosecutors making the kinds of public statements she has made after an acquitted person has spent years trying to overcome that past is downright scary.

      • BearcatLawyer says:

        You cannot be “convicted” in a civil case. Convictions are for criminal cases.

        OJ was found liable for Nicole and Ron’s deaths in civil court. But unlike in criminal court where the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof in civil cases is preponderance of the evidence. In effect, the plaintiffs’ lawyers had to show that it was more likely than not that OJ killed Nicole and Ron.

        It is legally incorrect and potentially slanderous/libellous to say OJ was guilty of murder solely because he was found liable in civil court. It is, however, perfectly ok for someone to say that s/he believes OJ should have been found guilty of murdering Nicole and Ron despite the acquittal in the criminal case or believes that the criminal jury wrongly acquitted him. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion; they just cannot lead people to believe that their opinions are facts.

    • Fee says:

      How many prosecutors who have lost cases that were guilty have always remained to this day that said person got away with it? Many. She’s not going around promoting it, they ask she answers. Let’s not be shocked either, the man killed 2 people.

    • Boxy Lady says:

      Plus, didn’t OJ put out a book called If I Did It? After that, what kind of lawsuit could he successfully launch?

    • Kelly says:

      Not guilty isn’t the same thing as innocent.

    • lisa says:

      i think every prosecutor of every lost case feels the same way unless there is new evidence. plus, i dont think she is “running around” ranting about it.

    • lisa says:

      what are the grounds for your lawsuit? that someone who thought you were guilty enough to charge with a crime, still thinks that way?

    • KOri says:

      I think legally one can say he’s guilty because he was found guilty in the civil case–a jury decision, just one that doesn’t carry a criminal penalty.

  4. KBeth says:

    Call me naive but I find it astonishing that anyone thinks OJ is innocent.

  5. NL says:

    Wow. She’s fantastic.

  6. Y vvetteW says:

    I am very tired of any & all who exploit/exploited these murders for money & fame. I guess the only person who did a job quietly with no angle for personal gain is Judge Ito.

  7. Calli says:

    KBeth: THANK YOU. Yes, OJ is guilty. Always was, and always will be.