Jack Nicholson on the O.J. Case
Jack Nicholson was at the Criminal Courts Building in downtown Los Angeles for jury duty today. (Yup — everyone has to do it!) A couple of my colleagues ran into him at lunchtime and walked with him for about a block as he was returning to his car. They introduced themselves as Deputy District Attorneys.
“Your office really screwed up the O.J. case,” Jack told them.
Ah, the O.J. case. Everyone still associates our office with that case.
As it happens, I have more insight than the average person into what really happened with the O.J. case, for several reasons. I intended to tell some of those stories tonight, but I’ve been too busy. Perhaps sometime soon. Consider it a teaser.
I can tell you that my understanding of what happened in O.J. is different than Jack’s. Here’s what Jack told my colleagues:
“There’s one question that your office didn’t ask,” Nicholson said. He opined that this one question — had it been asked — would have been the question that would have gotten us the conviction. What question is that? I’ll turn it over to Jack. “The victims’ blood was at the crime scene,” he said. “O.J.’s blood was at the crime scene. What your office forgot to ask was: who else’s blood was at the crime scene?”
I love Jack Nicholson’s acting. “The Shining” is my second favorite movie of all time. I love the scene in “Five Easy Pieces” where he loses it over the sandwich. Jack Nicholson knows acting.
I don’t think he knows much about prosecuting the O.J. case.
P.S. Your obvious, snarky response is: neither did the O.J. prosecutors. Again: we’ll discuss that some other time.
When I do, I’ll tell you what Marcia Clark said to her colleagues during jury selection. I’ll tell you what I think the real issue in the case was — and what the real issue might have been for a different jury. It’ll be fun. Some other time — soon.
Patterico:
What do you think of Vincent Bugliosi’s critique, the gist of which was that the mistake Clark and Darden made was to overcomplicate the case, that they should have kept their own DNA expert wit testimony down to a day or so or even skipped it entirely — only bringing it up if the defense tried to make a big deal out of a lack of evidence.
I think Bugliosi is suggesting that the jurors understand blood type — the blood at the scene was his blood type, and the blood in his car and such was the victim’s blood type, and OJ had a cut on the same side as the blood trail — but they were utterly lost by the months of intricate biochemical testimony.
Dafydd
Dafydd (f8a7be) — 9/16/2005 @ 1:21 amI think he’s right. That’s one of many things that could have been done better. The *explanation* of DNA evidence could have been done in 15-30 minutes. But I’m not sure that any of it would have made a difference.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 9/16/2005 @ 1:30 amHeyyyyyyyyyyyy, you can’t do that! Bastardo. Come on, dish. Do you have any idea what a tease like that does to those of us without a life who watched every minute of testimony?
CraigC (b6a973) — 9/16/2005 @ 8:27 amWasn’t the case lost when the prosecution opted for PC reasons to try the case in a jurisdiction that meant the jury would be mostly black instead of the jurisdiction which yielded the mostly white jury that heard the civil case? A mistake compounded by Clark’s decision to prefer black women as jurors to black men.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 9/16/2005 @ 9:04 amThree Strikes and You’re Outed:
The Los Angeles DA opted to allow a crime committed in the Santa Monica jurisdiction be tried in downtown LA.
He allowed cameras in the courtroom and turned a slam dunk case into a Hollywood soap opera.
He put a twit like Monica Clark in charge of the prosecution. (Please Judge, up my alimony, I’m on TV everyday and really, really, need new outfits to go with my new hairdo, and besides, now that I’m snuggling up to my co-prosecutor it will really drive my ex crazy if he has to spring for my spiffy new threads.)
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 9/16/2005 @ 10:15 amOh, what a great teaser. I’d like to hear what you have to say about this one. I’ve read two books on the subject, one on the criminal case from Vince Bugliosi, the other on the civil case from Dan Petrocelli. From both, esp. from Bugliosi’s writing, I left with a definite impression that it was Clark’s case to lose. Ito was just a court jester (or village idiot?) in the whole proceeding.
Brian (73b44b) — 9/16/2005 @ 11:17 amPatterico: Oh yes, please…soon, soon, soon!
Ann (e83170) — 9/16/2005 @ 1:18 pmCraig and Ann are absolutely right.
Dude, if you ever feel the need to make serious money and don’t have a problem with putting your skills to dubious use, Hollywood’s next door, and I’m sure they would pay you handsomely to do cliffhangers and teasers.
Fredrik Nyman (d08b7e) — 9/16/2005 @ 9:48 pmJeez . . . now I feel it’s certain to disappoint. But you’ll keep reading, won’t you?
Maybe I’ll split up the various observations into different posts.
Patterico (4e4b70) — 9/16/2005 @ 9:55 pm1. I agree with the above comments about the jurisdiction. OJ should not have been tried in Downtown Los Angeles.
Choosing Down town LA was a political decision, not a legal decision. (ouch)
2. Having ugly black females (some unmarried) try a black successful, wealthy, handsome (somewhat) sportsman and actor is insane. These women love OJ and in their subconscious mind desired him.
David (fed249) — 9/16/2005 @ 11:35 pmTwo things:
I believe there was criticism of Darden asking OJ to put the gloves on without knowing what would happen, and then had to try to bail himself out. While watching this, my wife said, “You can’t put gloves on over latex gloves” (because of friction against the latex). We immediately experimented (having some at home in my “Doctor’s Bag”), and confirmed she was right. I don’t think that fact was ever thought of in the trial.
As far as jury selection (re David’s comment), I was told by an “integrated” couple that there is a general resentment among black women against black men who marry “outside the race”. I take no position, just reporting what I was told by an African American man and his “non-black Hispanic wife. (Again, terminology per US census bureau, I think).
I think as soon as the issue of tampered evidence was thrown in a hung jury was almost guaranteed. There was going to be at least one person who was going to claim it was a racist frame-up.
I would like to know how many people today still believe he didn’t do it.
MD in Philly (b3202e) — 9/18/2005 @ 8:31 pm