Post Show Recaps

People Vs. OJ Update | Most Shows Recapped Ep 23

Listen to the Podcast

Subscribe: Most Shows Recapped Podcast in iTunes | Most Shows Recapped Podcast RSS Feed

Rob Cesternino (@RobCesternino) and Antonio Mazzaro (@acmazzaro) check back in with the FX Series, “The People vs. OJ Simpson” after discussing the show 5 weeks ago.  Find out what Rob and Antonio have thought about the show and the parts of it that have worked best.

Next week’s Most Shows Recapped will see the return of Josh Wigler to discuss Hap and Leonard.

  • TrentC

    Haven’t listened to the podcast yet (I’ve got to change my habits). Wanted to check in to see if you guys were still following this. I took a couple of days and read Jeffrey Toobin’s book -The Run of His Life: The People V. O.J. Simpson. I found it quite interesting. It appeared that the TV show used exact lines and incidents directly from the book.

    Briefly, Toobin was a lawyer and then became a writer. He wrote an article during the early phases of the trial for The New Yorker, exposing Fuhrman and the race nastiness. He cites inside sources and apparently had access to a lot of documentation and people involved with the trial.

    I’m enjoying this TV series and the recaps, thanks.

  • redbluegreen

    Great podcast, but you missed the important part about Robert Morse as Dominick Dunne. Dunne’s daughter–actress Dominique Dunne–was murdered by her ex-boyfriend.

    That’s why Judge Ito sat Dunne with the Goldman family (according to the show) because he could empathize with a family who lost a child to murder.

  • sunny

    Thanks for the podcast, ive been loving this show. I knew it was a big deal in the pop culture sphere but didnt realize the extent of the circus at the time.

  • TrentC

    And of course Antonio Matlock has already read Toobin’s book before my ringing endorsement of it below ..D’OH!

    Enjoyed the podcast guys, agreeing with a lot of points. One thing Toobin’s book focuses on is the atmosphere of racial bias involving the LAPD in general and how potential jury members were reacting to Marsha Clark. In a nutshell the prosecution did have a prominent jury expert/tester and he warned them in no uncertain terms that Clark would resonate very poorly with any black female jurors. She felt the opposite. And when the defense team decided to use race as a tactic, it was brilliant considering the jury and LA environment at the time.

    As Antonio mentioned there have been quite a few correlations with Toobin’s book. Ito’s fear of making a firm decision for either side without having a trial within a trial, Ito’s desire for celebrity, Marsha and the Tampax incident, Cochran dropping the N word to Darden in court, Shapiro’s desire to schmooze and go out for dinner at high profile restaurants rather than litigate, Darden’s good moves and bad moves throughout the trial.

    Some small things bother me with both the TV series and the book. When we’re shown a conversation between OJ, Cochran and Kardashian alone in a room, how can we know that the conversation even took place considering two of the three participants are dead? Overall though, I’m impressed with the accuracy of the TV series.

    I watched the trial live as it happened and was old enough to understand most of the evidence. Toobin’s book really outlines the physical evidence against OJ. The TV series is playing out almost exactly as the live trial did. At first you can’t believe they’re prosecuting him, then you feel sorry for him, then you suspect him, then you get a sick feeling that he may have committed the crimes.

    Thanks for the podcast

  • TrentC

    I just finished the book Outrage : The Five reasons OJ Simpson Got Away With Murder.

    Man, the author Bela Lugosi was fired up throughout the book and didn’t hold back. I didn’t mind the arrogance or the demeaning tone directed at every lawyer mentioned in the book. What I didn’t care for was the – “EVEN A CHILD KNOWS WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE NEXT!” and then he goes on to explain a complex process of filing motions or other court procedures. He does that often throughout the book. What’s apparent and glaring to him, may not be so straightforward to the readership. Most of us haven’t had over 40 years of trial experience.

    Mr Bugliosi has an excellent prosecution record and is heralded as one of he best trial lawyers of the 20th century. He makes some excellent points and methodically explains what the prosecution did wrong. From the obvious issues like not introducing certain types of evidence, to more subtle things like how Darden and Clark spoke to the jury.

    It’s a good book and also tough to read at times because of the author’s WE ALL SHOULD KNOW BETTER writing style.