@darrin armstrong shapiro had NOTHING ass hole. He came with "you weren't there because you were driving to the scene." and "you don't know how many officers were searching for the weapon." and "you didn't take enough notes." he had NOTHING. This case was indeed over right here. GUILTY.
30+ years in ANY profession could hardly be classified as an ‘early retirement’. Vannatter had a reputation of “Having a reckless disregard for the truth”, according to Judge Lance Ito in an interview after the Simpson case concluded. I can’t say that Shapiro outright “destroyed” Vannatter, but he DID extract plenty of reasonable doubt through skillful questioning. Phil Vannatter as an individual, and the LAPD as a whole, had only 1 enemy in this trial and that was themselves. They had a well-earned reputation of doing whatever the hell they wanted with virtual impunity, in most cases. Whenever you have an entity that large with little-no oversight and few, if any consequences when they were caught, cases like Simpson are supposed to serve as a wake-up call and the ultimate hope is restructuring and reform. Unfortunately, like in many other instances that involve sloppy work and the cutting of corners, any corrections were quickly forgotten and it was right back to business as usual. Between the DA’s office and the LAPD, the only shakeup that really made a difference is that most of the key players either quit, or retired within 5 years of losing the Simpson case.
Shapiro's cross of Vannatter was brilliant. "Shapiro v Vannatter", "F Lee Bailey v Fuhrman" & "Cochran's Closing" are 3 examples of brilliant litigation.
I can't disagree, but everyone knows the prosecution blew this very winnable case. They decided to leave out key evidence and thought the DNA would be enough. Gil Garcetti's team blew this. Just look at closing argument; the defense interrupted constantly, the prosecution sat there like lumps on a log.
They should have shown at least some of Shapiro’s cross in the TV show, although I’m sure Travolta would not have done it justice. Tbh, I thought Shapiro actually came off as a lot more likable and natural in his cross than the other dream teamers. Bailey’s cross is legendary of course, but you can definitely tell he is in “lawyer mode” and it’s a prepared, professional endeavor. Shapiro comes across as more natural in my opinion, like someone who is honestly just trying to get to the bottom of it. It’s a good style, I think.
On another note, I just think Shapiro does not come across as this cold, powerful deal-man of an attorney like Travolta portrays. And I realize that’s what the public image of him is. Just didn’t see it. Was surprised.
Robert Shapiro's legal expertise was in making plea deals for his clients. In his legal career, Shapiro very rarely did cross examinations. This being the case, Shapiro's cross of Phil Vannater is absolutely brilliant. On another note, Phil Vannater's cocky/arrogant attitude on the stand did absolutely nothing to help the prosecution.
@@jjjj8039 the point being is him being a "plea lawyer" he still mopped the floor with Vanhatter and stood tall this day regardless if he never tried any case or a hundred, on this day he stood an held his own with Bailey and Cochran.....blame ito, blame furman, blame Kato, blame whoever bottom line the people looked like morons and in NO WAY proved OJ guilty regardless if he did it or not he was not proven guilty in this trial regardless what the media said then or now
@@williebeamen2x even Marsha Clark said Bob way over his head and didn’t have a clue...the case was won by mainly Cochran who was the strategist and a former DA assistant...he was ITo boss when both at DA office...sheck and peter also did very well...Shapiro only good thing he did was bring in peter amd Barry and Bailey who he won’t talk to again since he disagreed with Johnny and Bailey about strategy and he was wrong and proved Johnny and Bailey and peter Barry all were right!!
amanda please he is an experienced witness, you don't just blurt out the first thing that you think of. Take a second to think about the question.. that's how these expert lawyers destroy witnesses. The officer getting grilled by Bailey is a good example of this.. he answered quickly which let Bailey keep up the tempo getting the officer flustered
And he certainly did a great job of it. Van Adder says he sees a shovel and some plastic in the back of a car that has blood on the door handle and he doesn't write that in his report. What a detective, eh?
How's he supposed to take notes while raiding a possible crime scene? That's not how it works. "Hang on guys, don't move yet. I dropped by pen". Seriously? You people are dumb!
You don't "take notes" when you're on what potentially a tactical stake out. There's no time to "take notes". You act on instinct. It's what a detective is trained to do.
I don't see anything wrong if he admitted Yes we went to Rockingham looking for OJ as A suspect not as THE suspect. These guys didn't have the balls to say it.
The problem with admitting that is that that would mean they entered the premises of a suspect illegally and conducted a search without a warrant. That's why they have to dance around the fact that OJ was their prime suspect when they went there, and they painstakingly constructed a narrative of exigent circumstances to enter the premises out of concern.
Don Julio - most likely he do support the police at least the concept of to police to service and to protect, but un lawful policing no ¿who should ? Because that's not policing that's the same as criminal activity
Shapiro’s cross here was right up with Bailey’s methodic dismantling of Furhman. Why “American Crime Story: People Versus OJ Simpson” did not include any footage of Shapiro’s cross of Vannatter, is beyond me. It was a brilliant cross in which he made this seasonsed lead-detective look incompetent and biased. Loved the It’s not possible to determine what is or is not evidence initially, line of questioning. the fact that the two lead detectives leave the crime scene to attend to the children - which could have been done by ANY LAPD officer. By leaving the crime scene on Bundy, they left it open to contamination and or fabrication of evidence. This is beyond incompetent. The fact that they felt is was significant enough to state in their report that OJ had been involved in previous domestic incidents, is clear evidence that they zero’d in on OJ from the start.
Hence the reason , why I have changed from guilty, to innocent over the years...this crime scene was open to any and all Law Enforcement officers roaming freely through this
@@allendebono3460 They took a blanket,from Nicoles condo to cover her body.A gas receipt was found in the Bronco ,signed by Nicole.This cancelled all trace evidence connecting OJ to the crime scene.
Any good detective would follow his instincts&suspicions, whether 💯legally or not. You cannot expect to combat a criminal mind who is continuing to persevere in a life of crime or even a simple criminal act by strictly pursuing only what is procedurally permitted by the courts. The courts do not keep the public safe, the cops do. Unfortunately some cops cross that line&never come back. What is key and separates good from the bad is recognizing that line, respecting it and knowing exactly when to cross it or bend it for the greater good and in this particular case and with the gruesome nature with which the victims were handled I believe this is an exception where this culprit needs to be stopped dead in their tracks and held to the utmost accountability. And they caught him by a small fraction of which was frowned upon by this circus of a court. If you wanna catch the wolf you gotta be a wolf or think like the wolf. Otherwise we will live in a society that values the criminals rights over the lives of the innocent which is ridiculous. I think that pretty much sums up our justice system in its current shape💯
All this cross succeeded in was distracting the most serious of offenses, a intentional premeditated double murder versus a detective with 25yrz of an impeccable record of respecting the law for spitting on the sidewalk that was already covered with spit.
They always zero in on the spouse. They are always at the top of the list. Usually because they are the one‘s guilty of it. Look at the recent murder cases out there. I do feel that there was bad police work in this case, no doubt and Fuhrmann framed a guilty man.
Shapiro gave a very smart line of questioning he knew the cop would have to agree with to set up the premise that the police didn’t contain the crime scene or adhere to procedures without even asking him whether he did or not. Brilliant. This is why people pay these guys so much
@@Twp205 , you are wrong. The Juice didn't walk because jury felt LAPD was incompetent. He walked because they felt LAPD has a history of racism and perhaps planted evidence to frame Juice; and it's possible some jurors would never ever convict the beloved Heisman Trophy winner and charismatic personality. (Me, personally,=I would NEVER convict Ace Frehley.) So all of this Shapiro stuff was irrelevant and probably only annoyed the jury. (LAPD didn't attempt to look for footprints on carpet, inside the house; so they must not have looked for anyone else hard enough=Lol.)
I think the LAPD got comfortable with being sloppy until they ruin their case with arrogance, and Furman was the perfect gift to the defense. They wanted and possibly had the big fish, this became County of Los Angeles vs LAPD, thus OJ wins.
Criminalist Collin Yamauchi testified from May 24-31,1995. testified he spilled OJ's reference blood on himself, didn't change his gloves and OJ blood got on the swatches of evidence then handled all the subsequent evidence was the first scientist to handle and, including the Rockingham glove and the sock from Simpson's bedroom, Barry Sheck established these grave errors that is why the jury found OJ not guilty
We need to QUIT giving the actions of racists "Passive Terms"....What they did wasn't "Sloppy" it was criminal negligence - committed by criminals. If someone leaves a child in the car in 90 degree heat, and the child dies, nobody calls it "Sloppy Babysitting"
Lapd never had a case not guilty da only suspect oj why wasn't keto a suspect everything falls right into Furman hands da glove bronco Furman told keto 2 give him a reason 2 go n da back
I love how Shapiro interacts with the jury during his cross. He's looking over and making sure they're following along with his points. Excellent, excellent cross.
Why would one detective carry the blood of the suspect and victims around? That would be enough to throw the whole case out today. Maybe he did it but there was enough reasonable doubt that’s for sure.
Why would secured vials of blood in a Police Officer's hold be considered tainted and suspect? Those cops were obviously OJ fans and closet misogynists. Why else did they ignore Nicole on 8 separate occasions? Allowing her and Ron to be ultimately stabbed and murdered by this man? Because obviously - Hey! HE WAS THE JUICE! AND NOBODY MESSES WITH THE JUICE!
Here is THE question you ought to ask yourself: if they were all a bunch of liars trying to frame OJ.......why would they admit to that in the first place? Why not just say you booked it at parker?
Had Bailey crossed VanAtter, this case would have been lost much earlier. VanAtter has no idea what he is doing. Shapiro did ok, but Bailey would have essentially ended the trial.
It's entertainment for the uninitiated....but the fact is: all the recovered evidence points to his client. All the tap dancing in the world doesn't change that.
@@09rja The defense destroyed the "evidence" pointing to Simpson's guilt. Did you miss the trial and the verdict? And evidence that should have existed , collected and presented during the trial i.e. "the shoes and the murder weapon" were never introduced. The murders are almost 1/4 century old and still no murder weapon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Bola Oladapo I have to ask myself "how stupid is the average American"? The answer to that question is frightening. Who is talking about a landfill or grains of sand on a beach. Here is the actual scenario Inspector Closeau as presented by the Los Angeles DA's office. Murders occured at around 10:35 pm and OJ Simpson was getting into his limo at 10:54 pm. So within a 19 minute spread which includes getting back to Rockingham to meet his limo driver where is the murder weapon? If this question doesn't free you from your brainwashed state of mind then heaven help you. And it's 25 years later and they still have no murder weapon. You dont have a lot of options when you've decided to kill two people with a knife 19 minutes before your limo is to arrive at your home. Do you understand now genius?
Jack Johnson if he O.J. Simpson had the crime pre planned 19 minutes is a lot of time to get ready of a murder weapon and also O.J. Simpson only lived 5 minutes from the crime scene driving at a speed limit of 35 mph and remember 1 person claim they saw a white bronco speedy that night going well of 35 miles mph, O.J. Simpson could've got rid of the murder weapon along the way
they were dumb nonsensical questions designed to deceive. and shapiro clearly wanted to upset vannatter with mind games. there are moments in this clip where shapiro demonstrates clear psychopathic traits
@dick hole enterprises he wasn't exposing anything, he was trying to annoy him. it's his job i guess, but that type of stuff shouldn't have been allowed
The reason for sending 4 detectives to make 1 notification is sketch, to say the very least. Regardless of what Vanatter swore to under oath while on the hot seat, O.J. Simpson was right at the top of his list of suspects the minute Detective Mark Fuhrman informed Vanatter of O.J.'s history in relation to Nicole Brown Simpson, Vanatter could hedge, deny or play dumb all he wanted... the simple fact is that he suspected O.J. from the moment Fuhrman put the bug in his ear.
Lots of people comment about this trial but 26 yrs ago lots were children or not even born so for your information Denise brown was notified on the morning of June 13 1994 by tom lange she blurted out he killed her WHO KILLED HER OJ SIMPSON her ex husband from then on they had a motive for the homicide
@@fritterfoof5146 Denise Brown is a viper alcoholic who is after money just like Faye Resnick and is using this murder and its media infamy to make bank she was jealous of her sister and literally was the black sheep of her family OJ did everything for Nicole's family except her why because Nicole said OJ don't help my sister until she gets her act together right after the murders she said her sister had NOT been the victim of domestic abuse.
@@fritterfoof5146 Philip Vanatter, regardless of what he's stated publicly, had O.J. as his prime suspect just prior to heading to Rockingham. He wanted to get inside O.J.'s house and start building a case. Judge Ito didn't talk much about "The Simpson Matter" as he called it, upon the conclusion of the case, except to say that Philip Vanatter "Had a reckless regard for the truth". Ito had been a Superior Court Judge since '89, so it's unclear if he based his opinion about Vanatter's testimony during the Simpson murder trial, or if was formed from testimony in previous cases that Ito presided over that Vanatter was involved in. Vanatter was the senior detective in the Vanatter and Lang show. Vanatter was the no-nonsense leader and Lang was the deliberator, who served to reign in Vanatter when he was about to cross the line and the cleaner when he went too far. In sheer business terms, Vanatter was the pitch man and Lang was there to take the order and send it out... or in Godfather terms, Lang was Tom Hagen to Vanatter''s Sonny Corleone.
exactly! four detectives left a bloody crime scene instead of leaving two behind to do a wellness check on OJ and testilied that the ex-husband wasn't the prime suspect. the fact that they never took pictures and videotape of the inside of his ex-wife's house or went to the waiter's apartment and did the same indicate that he was the only suspect.
"That's "Exactly what it was, money well spent. Had OJ Simpson not had the money to defend himself he's doing life in prison. There would have been no investigation as to how the evidence was collected nor a DNA expert to challenge the procedure in how these tests were performed in these laboratory in LA. There would be no investigation into what these law enforcement officers did right up to the second that they were on the crime scene. The video footage in this case speaks for itself,police officers walking through the blood evidence and lying about it . Caught moving clothing around in OJs bedroom only to plant a sock with EDTA in OJs blood. None of this stuff comes up if OJ wasn't financially stable. I'm not even going to mention Mark Fuhrman's culpability in this case. All caught, because his money was well spent and invested. (Money is like knowledge it's for protection)
@@sdssteward most people believed that OJ Simpson was guilty, but really, if he was guilty? Why were the police planting evidence. Why did the criminalist Dennis Fung changes the initials on blood evidence collected at both crime scenes after receiving OJs blood sample from Vannatter, inside OJs house he lied and said he gave him the blood evidence as he was leaving, but he was already inside OJs house when he handed OJs blood sample to Dennis Fung. Why would detective Lang,Philips Vannatter not take notes and then Mark Fuhrman stopped taking notes once they were notified they were off the case at around 3:00 and for 75 minutes they just stayed in the street doing nothing? You believe that right? Now all this time they claimed Fuhrman and Phillips that they didn't know who the victims were at Nicole Brown Simpson resident, but he lies again that he had no immediate knowledge. He was told at 1:00 who one of the murdered victim was Nicole Brown Simpson. Upon entering her house he didn't notice all the pictures. You probably believe that too! Under cross examination every single detective fell apart their testimony was very weak and their lies were exposed. Instead of Ms Clark and Darden defending Nicole and Ron. They proved to be worthless prosecutors who ended up trying to defend the police actions. At one point judge Ito had to tell Ms Clark, that Mark Fuhrman has a lawyer and it wasn't proper of her trying to speak for him concerning his fundraising money, for his own law fees, of which he lied about not knowing what was being done on his behalf. But when did he see the memo he replied, "Yes but he didn't read all of it. Another lie. Vannatter sat there smirking until the questions could no longer be ignored. Why did you take OJs blood sample from downtown to the crime scene? Twenty miles away? I could go on but what sense would it make trying to show a person who isn't willing to accept the fact that they planted evidence. So all that DNA expert witnesses ended up being explained by Ms Clark in the closing arguments was just terrible, instead of having one of the experts who were involved in this case do the closing as did the defense team did. Ms Clark chose to put on a domestic violence case against OJ Simpson. Maybe you can explain how that EDTA was found only in OJs blood evidence. If the prosecution team wanted to make their case they should have tested every single drop of blood for EDTA, but they didn't only two drops of blood was in question the rear gate at Bundy a month later and OJs socks two months later. And forget about the Bronco blood evidence collected months later that wasn't there the day Dennis Fung inspected the Bronco. It's the evidence that was collected and by who did the investigation they lied, but that's been the practice in law enforcement for centuries in America or at least in LA. But this time it wasn't some poor guy who was being defended by a public defender. Yes OJs money was a major factor. Like all rich white men he was able to afford the best lawyer's money could buy..
@@kennethcharles1386 in short. The problem with all of these questions you're asking is that they are all based under the assumption that I follow the common narrative by the prosecution. You even used the words "most people". I'm not most people. I don't hold to the prosecution's narrative OR timetable. My views on this case represent the views of about 0000000000000000.2% of those who believe OJ was guilty. You're barking up the wrong tree with these questions. They are irrelevant to the narrative I personally believe. Again, get "Ron's Revenge" by Chris Todd. I actually know the author personally. I've even seen direct text messages from witnesses in the case whome he has researched. You can't grasp.....what I know and have seen. And admittedly, my findings have been very recent. My views aren't even the same as they were a month ago. I have been LIVING in some very HOT information that has rocked my world over just the last several weeks. I can't even sleep because of it. Trust me. These murders didn't go down how you think. The prosecution was wrong. The defense was wrong. Heck, even OJ said in his 2006 "hypothetical" confession (hypothetical by butt) that "the whole world got it wrong". You need this book. Get it!
@@kennethcharles1386 before you start the book, I recommend you watch the video "OJ Simpson - The Lost Confession "Hypothetical". It will lay the ground work for what you will read in Chris Todd's book. It will also give you a glimpse of OJ's accomplice. Take note...OJ basically CONFESSED in this video. It's on TH-cam. Go watch it right now. Then get the book.
Shapiro brilliant? No. I see an attorney trying to badger a Cop into admitting what ANY rational person should expect. Dead woman in her home- spouse is usually under scrutiny immediately. We’ll known, abusive ex-husband- should be under extra scrutiny. Crime scene has footprints and blood drops leading thru exit. Ex-husband’s car has blood on it, blood drops leading to front door of residence. HELLO!! The Detectives the defense are trying to make look incompetent actually knew EXACTLY what to do. Yeah, they can’t admit it, but THEY WERE RIGHT! All we are seeing here is word salad back and forth, quite honestly for way too long. It’s no wonder the trial dragged on so long.
Shapiro proved here that he was more than a plea deal lawyer for the rich and famous. he was less brutal than bailey but still effective and devastating. imagibe being a witness and see this. after that fung and fuhrman. I would doubt the results of the investigation
vannatter had a zen like control over his emotions. it looked like he was going to break a few times and each time shapiro pushed even harder, but he just wouldn't give in. shapiro was probably steaming inside
@@tolstoyed Shapiro believed that V. was the one planting the glove nor Fuhrman. he was so zen he took the blood of OJ to the crime scene which was stupid at least if not in purpose
Ofc he’s a liar. All cops are liars. Most humans are liars. It’s a misconception w humans to think when a person becomes a cop he suddenly is perfect and honorable. It’s laughable.
Yawn. U are one foolish human. Who did it if Simpson did not? There was no robbery. No evidence of anyone but Simpson. NO ONE. Bruno Magli shoes, size 12, only sold in NYC, with prints at the crime scene. Guilty AF.
There were hardly any “objections” during this cross examination? The defence constantly interfered and interrupted proceedings whilst the state were certainly distant during this detectives oath. Very odd.x
shapiro had NOTHING ass hole. He came with "you weren't there because you were driving to the scene." and "you don't know how many officers were searching for the weapon." and "you didn't take enough notes." he had NOTHING. This case was indeed over right here. GUILTY.
Brutally boring. Brutal mental gymnastics. Brutal nonsense. All his (in fact, the entire defense) questions are bent around "could have....might have....unseen evidence destroyed" and so on. It's inconceivable that every last bit of evidence pointing towards the "real" killers was somehow wiped out by the police. And the fact he is asking these questions shows there WAS a legit attempt to investigate this. How does that co-exist with this big conspiracy? Wouldn't the non-conspirators (in spite of their incompetence) turn in the conspirators?
@@lynndragoman2454 Long time no see professor. Getting the semester started out right (in the meantime)? lol So how many cases have you been a attorney in? How many have you testified in? I'm willing to bet I've spent more time in a court room than you have.
1:42 Hasn't even asked the question yet ) ( 18:12 Glib about the severity of his job ) ( 23:11 10 minute walk through then ran to OJ's ) ( 29:43 Was told by a different boss, not even over him to make the notification ) ( 37:08 Nonsense reason for going ) ( 47:17 The real reason they went ) ( 48:35 Answer seems rehearsed ) ( 1:12:28 Tells him to zip it ) ( 1:31:54 The answer is the same )
50:5054:001:00:13 Great point, at Bundy he stood around….now he’s off alone investigating1:06:15 55:05 Why didn't they just have the watch commander ask the kids.
@amanda please - and what makes Shapiro's cross examination all the more excellent is that cross is not his area of expertise. Shapiro was/is known for making plea deals for his clients. I also admired the way Robert Shapiro remain every bit a gentleman while being the screws to you. He's brilliant. Vannater not so much!
Vannater knows he's a slouch and Shapiro knows Vannater is a slouch. Vannater is trying to not let it be known to everyone, but Shapiro very effectively lets us all know. Darden and Ito helped Vannater legally look better.
Chris Darden asked every insignificant question he wanted the defense kept getting overruled now every question Robert Shapiro asked Darden objects it's substained
Chris Darden is a POS and he also has profited of the frame job done by Mark Furhman against OJ while getting the whole LAPD to follow his racist motive
Jury didn't think so !!! They thought the LAPD cops and criminalists were crooked, pathologist was useless , the evidence was tainted(and/ or planted), the prosecution expert witnesses were biased, and the time-line was a joke.
Maybe they were there to try and find the truth. They had just witnessed the bodies of two young innocent-looking people SLAUGHTERED suddenly with candles and New Age Music playing softly in a pristine condo with two kids asleep upstairs. YES! They should have procured a warrant for Rockingham but other than that, I think they were just looking for the truth and keeping the Bundy victim's images in their minds as any human being would!
Kinky they lied to get their evidence. Cops can’t do what they want to get people they think are guilty. Jury’s decide guilt. They lied about why they hopped the fence, they lied about how they collected evidence-They lied about using the “N” word, they lied about how many cc’s of Mr. Simpson’s blood they took, OJ never took the stand and never lied under oath-why where all those cops lying-the reason people lied-to hide something else
DEBBIE SLOCK - No they wasn't there to help O.J. Simpson they were there to plant evidence and to arrest Simpson they made their mind up that he Simpson did it, in their rush to judge and also racial bias hatred by at least 1 of the 4 detectives Mark Fuhrman
Defense tried to make it seem like the ice cream was important and that detectives screwed up by not collecting it as evidence. The only thing the ice cream did was prove that Nicole and the kids went to Ben and Jerry’s after eating at Mezzaluna. Defense did a genius job creating reasonable doubt and assuming the jurors would be stupid enough to fall for it. They were right!
The outcome of this trial is right at the foot of Gil Garcetti and his team's botched prosecutorial job. This was incredibly winnable, and the inept job they did, and the fact that they inexplicably left out, purposely, key evidence because they thought it wouldn't be needed is 100% their fault. They allowed this much more experienced and seasoned defense team to bully them in front of this "star struck" judge and a double murderer walked free, inspire of a MOUNTAIN of evidence. It'll forever be the LA county DA's fault.
The level of intelligence by these detectives involved was unbelievable no training in new police technology these were high school students who became law enforcement officers who delt with low level criminals, poor, and defended by public defenders. Now their being interrogated by defense attorneys who have to use basic language for them to understand. Look at how many times Vannatter says I don't understand a simple question. Their own arrogant attitude towards being questioned about their involvement was a disaster for the prosecution. "They spent more time trying to explain the police behavior.
Winnable? How.? The cops ACCUSED Mark Fuhrman of planting the glove. At least 5 neighbors all saw either white or Hispanic males at Nicole's home around 10pm. One Neighbor even saw her being attacked and even had a sketch made. The cops and prosecution all believed their main suspect got rid of everything, bloody clothes, cleaned up, got rid of the murder weapons - ALL IN 5 MINUTES - WHILE BEING IN THE DARK. The prosecution and detectives repeatedly got caught lying. WHAT PART OF all that - do you believe was fucking winnable?
35:40 vanutter is set up with queztioning...He was so concerned about the kids but forgot OJ was the dad or might be the dad and that would be part of the reason he was going to OJ's house...
OJ had one of those private security firms to check on his house. The detectives were outside his house trying to reach him on the intercom as one of the firm's cars was driving by. The security guy stopped when he saw the police at Oj's gate . He told him who was living in the house and gave them Oj's phone number . The security firm, Westec, is mentioned at 1:33:20
All these procedures can be picked on and overanalyzed if you have millions to throw away on scumbag attorneys out to make a name for themselves. 99/100 would have made a deal to avoid the death penalty on this case. This trial is one of the great travesties in American History..
Hard to disagree with your analysis. The rich and famous, CAN get away with murder. Look at Trump- murdering 40 innocent people over chocolate cake at Mara Lago.
Caught up in confusion,Dt Vanatter is completely a white wash his ignorance is only short of the 27 years that he has been involved in law enforcement without any former training, his lawlessness and disregard for proper procedures; very little notes, sloppy detective work in a crime of this magnitude ; all four leading detectives leave one crime scene to advise OJ that his ex wife has been murdered. Total incompetent detectives. Did they really think that they are smarter than lawyers who practice law at this level especially when their getting paid substantially in this case with a rich client. Vanatter, Lang ,Philips and Fuhrman, where dealing with this case as if OJ had a public defender who works for the State. They would have never been questioned like this about their job by a State appointed lawyer. Just unbelievable how incompetent these detective are arrogant and corrupt practices have been exposed. If the video hadn't caught Vanatter in the blood transfer of OJs blood. That never gets mentioned in this case. Shapiro has just proved reasonable doubt with this detective. He can't be trusted. Vanatter just got busted framing OJ Simpson with Mark Fuhrman. The evidence of something is wrong goes right to the core of police corruption in the LA Police Department. You know its bs when you've been in law enforcement 27 years and you can't find the address of a suspect who is as famous as OJ five minutes away from the crime scene.
Shapiro may not have been a legal heavyweight by any stretch of the imagination but he demonstrated that he knows his way around the courtroom. He showed good court-room prescence , he knew what he wanted to elicit on cross-examination, he asked intelligent questions and sat down. With respect to his cross-examination of Vannatter, Vannatter should have admitted that he viewed Simpson as "a" suspect not "the" suspect but instead told Shapiro on cross that in his mind that night, Simpson was no more of a suspect than he, Robert Shapiro, was. Although that may be possible but not believable. the jury however did not believe Vannatter.
I watched every y minute of trial and Johnny the former assistant DA amd he was former boss of judge Ito he knew LA and court better then anyone....Shapiro looked he Ana amateur with court procedures both in pr trial and trial
@@jjjj8039 Shapiro is not a trial attorney. But he prove useful because he's the 1 who assembled the lawyer team who ultimately got OJ acquitted. Shapiro has a different kind of legal acumen. He had connections, knew how to assemble a team, but wasn't a good trial attorney mainly because that wasn't his area of expertise. But he got paid big bucks in his career as a lawyer for a reason.
@@Ken-iu2zp agree he put great team together mainly due to fact he knew he Lacks trial expertise since he never tried a murder case his entire career. but other then that Johnny won the case along with Barry and Peter. But biggest luck for defends was that Van matter and fuhrman planted evidence....this gave jury a reasonable basis for acquittal.
The detectives should have just admitted they instantly thought O.J. was at least "person of interest #1" based on their experience, which turned out to be the right conclusion.
You know, I get that cross examination is inherently somewhat confrontational...as it SHOULD BE. However, is it a written rule that part of the cross has to include an immediate raising of the voice to a near shouting level and, basically, insulting every witness that takes the stand? It sure appears to be for this defense team. It's completely unnecessary. I think it's low brow behavior.
Jody Carrithers you need to watch the Jodi Arias trial. Martinez the prosecutor literally screams at times. It’s beyond confrontational, it’s borderline abusive. And as much as I’m on his side, it’s unbelievable. Makes great viewing. It’s sure to put off anyone thinking of a life of crime in maricopa county, Arizona! Lol.
If they were accusing you of murder Jody, would you want your defense attorney to be very polite with the cop you say planted evidence on you? Try to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
@@LyonsArcade ummm, well, if I were GUILTY with millions of dollars to buy my way out of conviction I guess I'd expect unscrupulous behavior to be displayed by my defense team. I would NEVER put myself in a brutal murderers shoes (Bruno Mali's in this case). Sorry.
I don’t see how anyone’s saying Shapiro did so great or detective vannatter was a bad witness .. if anything Shapiro was getting frustrated and he answered the questions as best as possible with the line of questioning..
A car has blood on the door handle and you claim (later) that you saw a shovel and a sheet of plastic in the back but you don't write about the shovel and plastic in your report? I'm taking note of that if I'm on the jury.
Love Shapiro asking 'is there something funny?'. That shut him up, real quick. Vannatter that is. Or as i like to call him... Grown up 'Detective Butters' from Southpark.
Nobody would have been shocked or upset if they admitted that Orenthal was a suspect. All this victim, hostage, Orenthal bleeding to death is not believable. How tf do you not take notes? I see why Orenthal was acquitted. Sloppy sloppy sloppy
Lori Massacci More like “ego driven” than crooked... I’d even go so far as shady. Detectives, like Vanatter, have a certain knack about making a case fit the direction of their theory. Too much legal latitude, creative thinking and a department Captain with a broken bullshit meter is what sent Fuhrman over Simpson’s gate. There was “0” legal justification to breach Simpson’s property. Shame on Judge Ito for allowing that evidence to ever be presented before the jury
Rachel Shamariah - *Almost* noone does, no... and also it will upset anyone that does to see too much of this... It would be nice though if many could agree with each other under one sample of the same ignorant comment instead of the "i'm in this camp" said as though it wasn't what they already came to conclude, so that one could ask questions like : "Does anyone know why the camera kept zooming in on Shapiro's Pin?" He seemed to be bothered by it too. Looked like it threw him off at one point...
Shapiro actually won the case for the defense by introducing extraneous details which impressed the jury. He was allowed wide latitude to ask any question, no matter how irrelevant. The judge was irresponsible. The judge was mentally asleep most of the trial.
Marcia Clark had me at her opening statement. If she had crafted the voir-dire more wisely, if she had presented just a few key witnesses and then rested her case, like a 2 month trial say, the people may have just won the case. The jurors were furious and rightly so and so they voted against themselves and all of us, "Not guilty."
When you start looking for water in a empty cup... lol its over
😂😂😂😂😂
Lol!!!
Right!!!
@darrin armstrong shapiro had NOTHING ass hole. He came with "you weren't there because you were driving to the scene." and "you don't know how many officers were searching for the weapon." and "you didn't take enough notes." he had NOTHING. This case was indeed over right here. GUILTY.
@@brandonvandelden7972 was he found guilty or not guilty? Lmao
If I was on the jury, I would have found him not guilty as well. It is what it is.
guilty
if i was on the jury guilty
HE DESTROYED VANNATTER AND GAVE HIM AN EARLY RETIREMENT.
30+ years in ANY profession could hardly be classified as an ‘early retirement’.
Vannatter had a reputation of “Having a reckless disregard for the truth”, according to Judge Lance Ito in an interview after the Simpson case concluded.
I can’t say that Shapiro outright “destroyed” Vannatter, but he DID extract plenty of reasonable doubt through skillful questioning.
Phil Vannatter as an individual, and the LAPD as a whole, had only 1 enemy in this trial and that was themselves. They had a well-earned reputation of doing whatever the hell they wanted with virtual impunity, in most cases. Whenever you have an entity that large with little-no oversight and few, if any consequences when they were caught, cases like Simpson are supposed to serve as a wake-up call and the ultimate hope is restructuring and reform. Unfortunately, like in many other instances that involve sloppy work and the cutting of corners, any corrections were quickly forgotten and it was right back to business as usual. Between the DA’s office and the LAPD, the only shakeup that really made a difference is that most of the key players either quit, or retired within 5 years of losing the Simpson case.
Early retirement after 30 years ..uhhh ok 😂
Shapiro's cross of Vannatter was brilliant. "Shapiro v Vannatter", "F Lee Bailey v Fuhrman" & "Cochran's Closing" are 3 examples of brilliant litigation.
Barry Scheck vs Dennis Fung
doesn't mean OJ wasn't guilty.
I can't disagree, but everyone knows the prosecution blew this very winnable case. They decided to leave out key evidence and thought the DNA would be enough. Gil Garcetti's team blew this. Just look at closing argument; the defense interrupted constantly, the prosecution sat there like lumps on a log.
Cochran was certainly old-school snake oil salesman. Like watching the devil dance!
T Absolutely it does
Why would you take a blood vile to a Crime scene that is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard
RUben CHavez why do you think he did that?
John Ware he said he didn’t bring it to the lab. He took it home and the next morning brought it to fung over at bundy
Vial
So dumb walking around with person blood in any way you can not see anything but setting OJ up bc they did not have any proof of who did it
He took the blood to the crime scene to frame oj
Shapiro does a fantastic cross here, but F.Lee Bailey would have really smoked this witness....just imagine.
Snake oil salesmen
"A policeman's job is only easy in a police state." - Touch of Evil.
They should have shown at least some of Shapiro’s cross in the TV show, although I’m sure Travolta would not have done it justice.
Tbh, I thought Shapiro actually came off as a lot more likable and natural in his cross than the other dream teamers. Bailey’s cross is legendary of course, but you can definitely tell he is in “lawyer mode” and it’s a prepared, professional endeavor. Shapiro comes across as more natural in my opinion, like someone who is honestly just trying to get to the bottom of it. It’s a good style, I think.
On another note, I just think Shapiro does not come across as this cold, powerful deal-man of an attorney like Travolta portrays. And I realize that’s what the public image of him is. Just didn’t see it. Was surprised.
I agree.
Mind boggling that the ice cream and the water in the bathtub and the candles next to bathtub were not considered essential evidence.
Vannatter was either a bumbling idiot, or a lier, or a crooked cop, or... ALL THREE!
Bob Shapiro is on point here... detail oriented.
Robert Shapiro's legal expertise was in making plea deals for his clients. In his legal career, Shapiro very rarely did cross examinations. This being the case, Shapiro's cross of Phil Vannater is absolutely brilliant.
On another note, Phil Vannater's cocky/arrogant attitude on the stand did absolutely nothing to help the prosecution.
You don't get good plea deals by accident.
He had never tried a murder case before or after OJ, ever! He is not a top trial lawyer. judge ITO used to work under Cochran!
@@jasonmichael3676 you don’t but plea deals very different then jury trial
@@jjjj8039 the point being is him being a "plea lawyer" he still mopped the floor with Vanhatter and stood tall this day regardless if he never tried any case or a hundred, on this day he stood an held his own with Bailey and Cochran.....blame ito, blame furman, blame Kato, blame whoever bottom line the people looked like morons and in NO WAY proved OJ guilty regardless if he did it or not he was not proven guilty in this trial regardless what the media said then or now
@@williebeamen2x even Marsha Clark said Bob way over his head and didn’t have a clue...the case was won by mainly Cochran who was the strategist and a former DA assistant...he was ITo boss when both at DA office...sheck and peter also did very well...Shapiro only good thing he did was bring in peter amd Barry and Bailey who he won’t talk to again since he disagreed with Johnny and Bailey about strategy and he was wrong and proved Johnny and Bailey and peter Barry all were right!!
there is something wrong with Vannater's testimony
terry varta yes you are correct and the jury had a problem with it
It was chopped up and ridiculed by Shapiro line of questions. Stupid Ito should have allowed the objections
Shapiro earned his money on this day
Vannatter looks like he liked to have a couple now and again.
Who doesn’t
He does
Think I would as well if I had his job
So what? People today do much worse...
Yes, I agree.
He either has beautiful thick hair or that is a toupee.
Vannatter reminds me of Chris Farley....lol
lol
I noticed he always paused so council could have a chance to interrupt .that gave time to refrase the answer...or not answer
amanda please he is an experienced witness, you don't just blurt out the first thing that you think of. Take a second to think about the question.. that's how these expert lawyers destroy witnesses. The officer getting grilled by Bailey is a good example of this.. he answered quickly which let Bailey keep up the tempo getting the officer flustered
@@Lench923 allllllllllllllllll theeeeeee timeeeeeee.yeah right
@@Lench923 this was my birthday 🎉 and my friend is going down îiiii
I underestimated Shapiro! His line of questioning was good!
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
l
L
L
L
L
L
Ll
L
Lll
lll
Llll
Ll
L
Lll
lll
L
Ll
L
L
L
l
I was make l
"I wanted to meet him" lol
😂😂😂😂
Shapiro being a smart ass lawyer trying to chop Van Adder down
And he certainly did a great job of it. Van Adder says he sees a shovel and some
plastic in the back of a car that has blood on the door handle and he doesn't write
that in his report. What a detective, eh?
A lead investigator that has no notes?!
Pitiful 😂
How's he supposed to take notes while raiding a possible crime scene? That's not how it works. "Hang on guys, don't move yet. I dropped by pen". Seriously? You people are dumb!
You don't "take notes" when you're on what potentially a tactical stake out. There's no time to "take notes". You act on instinct. It's what a detective is trained to do.
@sdssteward PD are accountable otherwise we have a police state!
I don't see anything wrong if he admitted Yes we went to Rockingham looking for OJ as A suspect not as THE suspect. These guys didn't have the balls to say it.
The problem with admitting that is that that would mean they entered the premises of a suspect illegally and conducted a search without a warrant.
That's why they have to dance around the fact that OJ was their prime suspect when they went there, and they painstakingly constructed a narrative of exigent circumstances to enter the premises out of concern.
@@SSS-ie6mh
Well said
Because they jumped the fence without a warrant. That's why they all lied about why they went there
Shapiro wearing the support the police pendant!!! 🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻🤦🏻
Sho Nuff yeah....lol! 😂
Don Julio And proceeded to expose part of their incompetence.
Don Julio - most likely he do support the police at least the concept of to police to service and to protect, but un lawful policing no ¿who should ? Because that's not policing that's the same as criminal activity
Shapiro’s cross here was right up with Bailey’s methodic dismantling of Furhman. Why “American Crime Story: People Versus OJ Simpson” did not include any footage of Shapiro’s cross of Vannatter, is beyond me. It was a brilliant cross in which he made this seasonsed lead-detective look incompetent and biased. Loved the It’s not possible to determine what is or is not evidence initially, line of questioning. the fact that the two lead detectives leave the crime scene to attend to the children - which could have been done by ANY LAPD officer. By leaving the crime scene on Bundy, they left it open to contamination and or fabrication of evidence. This is beyond incompetent. The fact that they felt is was significant enough to state in their report that OJ had been involved in previous domestic incidents, is clear evidence that they zero’d in on OJ from the start.
Hence the reason , why I have changed from guilty, to innocent over the years...this crime scene was open to any and all Law Enforcement officers roaming freely through this
@@allendebono3460 They took a blanket,from Nicoles condo to cover her body.A gas receipt was found in the Bronco ,signed by Nicole.This cancelled all trace evidence connecting OJ to the crime scene.
Any good detective would follow his instincts&suspicions, whether 💯legally or not. You cannot expect to combat a criminal mind who is continuing to persevere in a life of crime or even a simple criminal act by strictly pursuing only what is procedurally permitted by the courts. The courts do not keep the public safe, the cops do. Unfortunately some cops cross that line&never come back. What is key and separates good from the bad is recognizing that line, respecting it and knowing exactly when to cross it or bend it for the greater good and in this particular case and with the gruesome nature with which the victims were handled I believe this is an exception where this culprit needs to be stopped dead in their tracks and held to the utmost accountability. And they caught him by a small fraction of which was frowned upon by this circus of a court. If you wanna catch the wolf you gotta be a wolf or think like the wolf. Otherwise we will live in a society that values the criminals rights over the lives of the innocent which is ridiculous. I think that pretty much sums up our justice system in its current shape💯
All this cross succeeded in was distracting the most serious of offenses, a intentional premeditated double murder versus a detective with 25yrz of an impeccable record of respecting the law for spitting on the sidewalk that was already covered with spit.
They always zero in on the spouse. They are always at the top of the list. Usually because they are the one‘s guilty of it. Look at the recent murder cases out there.
I do feel that there was bad police work in this case, no doubt and Fuhrmann framed a guilty man.
Shapiro gave a very smart line of questioning he knew the cop would have to agree with to set up the premise that the police didn’t contain the crime scene or adhere to procedures without even asking him whether he did or not. Brilliant. This is why people pay these guys so much
Absolutely! This is also why OJ walked.
@@Twp205 , you are wrong. The Juice didn't walk because jury felt LAPD was incompetent. He walked because they felt LAPD has a history of racism and perhaps planted evidence to frame Juice; and it's possible some jurors would never ever convict the beloved Heisman Trophy winner and charismatic personality. (Me, personally,=I would NEVER convict Ace Frehley.) So all of this Shapiro stuff was irrelevant and probably only annoyed the jury. (LAPD didn't attempt to look for footprints on carpet, inside the house; so they must not have looked for anyone else hard enough=Lol.)
@@ZumaDogg They had OJs blood and nothing else.
@@philipwilliams1754 ok. You convinced me. OJ was innocent of the double murder. Good job!
@@ZumaDogg I hope it's because it's the lack of evidence.Eg OJs prints not found at the murder scene nor in the Bronco.
I think the LAPD got comfortable with being sloppy until they ruin their case with arrogance, and Furman was the perfect gift to the defense. They wanted and possibly had the big fish, this became County of Los Angeles vs LAPD, thus OJ wins.
Criminalist Collin Yamauchi testified from May 24-31,1995. testified he spilled OJ's reference blood on himself, didn't change his gloves and OJ blood got on the swatches of evidence then handled all the subsequent evidence was the first scientist to handle and, including the Rockingham glove and the sock from Simpson's bedroom, Barry Sheck established these grave errors that is why the jury found OJ not guilty
Lmfaoo!
The prosecutors destroy the case they thought they had Point Blank.
A rush to judgement
We need to QUIT giving the actions of racists "Passive Terms"....What they did wasn't "Sloppy" it was criminal negligence - committed by criminals. If someone leaves a child in the car in 90 degree heat, and the child dies, nobody calls it "Sloppy Babysitting"
Lapd never had a case not guilty da only suspect oj why wasn't keto a suspect everything falls right into Furman hands da glove bronco Furman told keto 2 give him a reason 2 go n da back
I love how Shapiro interacts with the jury during his cross. He's looking over and making sure they're following along with his points. Excellent, excellent cross.
Why would one detective carry the blood of the suspect and victims around? That would be enough to throw the whole case out today. Maybe he did it but there was enough reasonable doubt that’s for sure.
Why would secured vials of blood in a Police Officer's hold be considered tainted and suspect? Those cops were obviously OJ fans and closet misogynists. Why else did they ignore Nicole on 8 separate occasions? Allowing her and Ron to be ultimately stabbed and murdered by this man? Because obviously - Hey! HE WAS THE JUICE! AND NOBODY MESSES WITH THE JUICE!
Very much so
Why was he carrying the blood around
Kinky you make absolutely zero sense here.
Here is THE question you ought to ask yourself: if they were all a bunch of liars trying to frame OJ.......why would they admit to that in the first place? Why not just say you booked it at parker?
Had Bailey crossed VanAtter, this case would have been lost much earlier. VanAtter has no idea what he is doing. Shapiro did ok, but Bailey would have essentially ended the trial.
B Trimble I thought Shapiro did a great job of making him look incompetent
It's entertainment for the uninitiated....but the fact is: all the recovered evidence points to his client. All the tap dancing in the world doesn't change that.
@@09rja The defense destroyed the "evidence" pointing to Simpson's guilt. Did you miss the trial and the verdict? And evidence that should have existed , collected and presented during the trial i.e. "the shoes and the murder weapon" were never introduced. The murders are almost 1/4 century old and still no murder weapon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Bola Oladapo I have to ask myself "how stupid is the average American"? The answer to that question is frightening.
Who is talking about a landfill or grains of sand on a beach. Here is the actual scenario Inspector Closeau as presented by the Los Angeles DA's office.
Murders occured at around 10:35 pm and OJ Simpson was getting into his limo at 10:54 pm. So within a 19 minute spread which includes getting back to Rockingham to meet his limo driver where is the murder weapon? If this question doesn't free you from your brainwashed state of mind then heaven help you. And it's 25 years later and they still have no murder weapon. You dont have a lot of options when you've decided to kill two people with a knife 19 minutes before your limo is to arrive at your home. Do you understand now genius?
Jack Johnson if he O.J. Simpson had the crime pre planned 19 minutes is a lot of time to get ready of a murder weapon and also O.J. Simpson only lived 5 minutes from the crime scene driving at a speed limit of 35 mph and remember 1 person claim they saw a white bronco speedy that night going well of 35 miles mph, O.J. Simpson could've got rid of the murder weapon along the way
Vannatter is trying to buy time by acting like he doesn’t understand the questions.
I bet he had training in THAT.
they were dumb nonsensical questions designed to deceive. and shapiro clearly wanted to upset vannatter with mind games. there are moments in this clip where shapiro demonstrates clear psychopathic traits
@dick hole enterprises he wasn't exposing anything, he was trying to annoy him. it's his job i guess, but that type of stuff shouldn't have been allowed
The LAPD playing dumb. Typical
The foot impression evidencence is what basically got Oj in trouble in the civil trial.
The reason for sending 4 detectives to make 1 notification is sketch, to say the very least. Regardless of what Vanatter swore to under oath while on the hot seat, O.J. Simpson was right at the top of his list of suspects the minute Detective Mark Fuhrman informed Vanatter of O.J.'s history in relation to Nicole Brown Simpson, Vanatter could hedge, deny or play dumb all he wanted... the simple fact is that he suspected O.J. from the moment Fuhrman put the bug in his ear.
Mark Furhman has a hard-on for OJ and was a KKK dog
Lots of people comment about this trial but 26 yrs ago lots were children or not even born so for your information Denise brown was notified on the morning of June 13 1994 by tom lange she blurted out he killed her WHO KILLED HER OJ SIMPSON her ex husband from then on they had a motive for the homicide
@@fritterfoof5146 Denise Brown is a viper alcoholic who is after money just like Faye Resnick and is using this murder and its media infamy to make bank she was jealous of her sister and literally was the black sheep of her family OJ did everything for Nicole's family except her why because Nicole said OJ don't help my sister until she gets her act together right after the murders she said her sister had NOT been the victim of domestic abuse.
@@fritterfoof5146 Philip Vanatter, regardless of what he's stated publicly, had O.J. as his prime suspect just prior to heading to Rockingham. He wanted to get inside O.J.'s house and start building a case. Judge Ito didn't talk much about "The Simpson Matter" as he called it, upon the conclusion of the case, except to say that Philip Vanatter "Had a reckless regard for the truth". Ito had been a Superior Court Judge since '89, so it's unclear if he based his opinion about Vanatter's testimony during the Simpson murder trial, or if was formed from testimony in previous cases that Ito presided over that Vanatter was involved in.
Vanatter was the senior detective in the Vanatter and Lang show. Vanatter was the no-nonsense leader and Lang was the deliberator, who served to reign in Vanatter when he was about to cross the line and the cleaner when he went too far. In sheer business terms, Vanatter was the pitch man and Lang was there to take the order and send it out... or in Godfather terms, Lang was Tom Hagen to Vanatter''s Sonny Corleone.
exactly! four detectives left a bloody crime scene instead of leaving two behind to do a wellness check on OJ and testilied that the ex-husband wasn't the prime suspect. the fact that they never took pictures and videotape of the inside of his ex-wife's house or went to the waiter's apartment and did the same indicate that he was the only suspect.
This was money well-spent Mr. Simpson.
"That's "Exactly what it was, money well spent. Had OJ Simpson not had the money to defend himself he's doing life in prison. There would have been no investigation as to how the evidence was collected nor a DNA expert to challenge the procedure in how these tests were performed in these laboratory in LA. There would be no investigation into what these law enforcement officers did right up to the second that they were on the crime scene. The video footage in this case speaks for itself,police officers walking through the blood evidence and lying about it . Caught moving clothing around in OJs bedroom only to plant a sock with EDTA in OJs blood.
None of this stuff comes up if OJ wasn't financially stable.
I'm not even going to mention Mark Fuhrman's culpability in this case. All caught, because his money was well spent and invested. (Money is like knowledge it's for protection)
So well spent.....an evil and dangerous killer walked free..
@@sdssteward most people believed that OJ Simpson was guilty, but really, if he was guilty? Why were the police planting evidence.
Why did the criminalist Dennis Fung changes the initials on blood evidence collected at both crime scenes after receiving OJs blood sample from Vannatter, inside OJs house he lied and said he gave him the blood evidence as he was leaving, but he was already inside OJs house when he handed OJs blood sample to Dennis Fung. Why would detective Lang,Philips Vannatter not take notes and then Mark Fuhrman stopped taking notes once they were notified they were off the case at around 3:00 and for 75 minutes they just stayed in the street doing nothing? You believe that right? Now all this time they claimed Fuhrman and Phillips that they didn't know who the victims were at Nicole Brown Simpson resident, but he lies again that he had no immediate knowledge. He was told at 1:00 who one of the murdered victim was Nicole Brown Simpson. Upon entering her house he didn't notice all the pictures. You probably believe that too!
Under cross examination every single detective fell apart their testimony was very weak and their lies were exposed. Instead of Ms Clark and Darden defending Nicole and Ron. They proved to be worthless prosecutors who ended up trying to defend the police actions. At one point judge Ito had to tell Ms Clark, that Mark Fuhrman has a lawyer and it wasn't proper of her trying to speak for him concerning his fundraising money, for his own law fees, of which he lied about not knowing what was being done on his behalf. But when did he see the memo he replied, "Yes but he didn't read all of it. Another lie.
Vannatter sat there smirking until the questions could no longer be ignored. Why did you take OJs blood sample from downtown to the crime scene? Twenty miles away?
I could go on but what sense would it make trying to show a person who isn't willing to accept the fact that they planted evidence. So all that DNA expert witnesses ended up being explained by Ms Clark in the closing arguments was just terrible, instead of having one of the experts who were involved in this case do the closing as did the defense team did. Ms Clark chose to put on a domestic violence case against OJ Simpson. Maybe you can explain how that EDTA was found only in OJs blood evidence. If the prosecution team wanted to make their case they should have tested every single drop of blood for EDTA, but they didn't only two drops of blood was in question the rear gate at Bundy a month later and OJs socks two months later.
And forget about the Bronco blood evidence collected months later that wasn't there the day Dennis Fung inspected the Bronco. It's the evidence that was collected and by who did the investigation they lied, but that's been the practice in law enforcement for centuries in America or at least in LA. But this time it wasn't some poor guy who was being defended by a public defender. Yes OJs money was a major factor. Like all rich white men he was able to afford the best lawyer's money could buy..
@@kennethcharles1386 in short. The problem with all of these questions you're asking is that they are all based under the assumption that I follow the common narrative by the prosecution. You even used the words "most people".
I'm not most people. I don't hold to the prosecution's narrative OR timetable. My views on this case represent the views of about 0000000000000000.2% of those who believe OJ was guilty.
You're barking up the wrong tree with these questions. They are irrelevant to the narrative I personally believe.
Again, get "Ron's Revenge" by Chris Todd. I actually know the author personally. I've even seen direct text messages from witnesses in the case whome he has researched.
You can't grasp.....what I know and have seen. And admittedly, my findings have been very recent. My views aren't even the same as they were a month ago. I have been LIVING in some very HOT information that has rocked my world over just the last several weeks. I can't even sleep because of it.
Trust me. These murders didn't go down how you think. The prosecution was wrong. The defense was wrong. Heck, even OJ said in his 2006 "hypothetical" confession (hypothetical by butt) that "the whole world got it wrong".
You need this book. Get it!
@@kennethcharles1386 before you start the book, I recommend you watch the video "OJ Simpson - The Lost Confession "Hypothetical". It will lay the ground work for what you will read in Chris Todd's book. It will also give you a glimpse of OJ's accomplice. Take note...OJ basically CONFESSED in this video. It's on TH-cam. Go watch it right now. Then get the book.
Some of the questions Shapiro is asking are ridiculous.
Establishing
The verdict says otherwise
Shapiro brilliant? No. I see an attorney trying to badger a Cop into admitting what ANY rational person should expect. Dead woman in her home- spouse is usually under scrutiny immediately. We’ll known, abusive ex-husband- should be under extra scrutiny. Crime scene has footprints and blood drops leading thru exit. Ex-husband’s car has blood on it, blood drops leading to front door of residence. HELLO!! The Detectives the defense are trying to make look incompetent actually knew EXACTLY what to do. Yeah, they can’t admit it, but THEY WERE RIGHT! All we are seeing here is word salad back and forth, quite honestly for way too long. It’s no wonder the trial dragged on so long.
Robert is not a detective to tell Vannatter what they should have done
U sound stupid just like you look
Detective vannatter was a old-time police officer who was just "winging it " on speculation
I wonder if Vanatter was a religious man, and if he confessed to all these lies before he died?
@@williebrown2463 I wonder if o.j. is as well
@@williebrown2463did OJ ??
Lol
Robert Shapiro's method of questioning is an art in itself.
Very true
He brought over 2 other specialists over from NYC. 1 from Brooklyn and the other from Queens
Peter neufeld from Brooklyn and Barry scheck from Queens
Barry Scheck is the god of lawyers
Barry Scheck is so good he can persuade the Jews not to condemn Jesus
Shapiro intimidated the witness. He really pissed off the witness and threw him off balance.
lol it is called intelligence
Piss off a LAPD cop by asking him questions?
Interesting
I don’t know y but this detective reminds me of Fred flinstone watch him carefully look at his face expressions!
More like Barney Rebel
Omg this comment is soo funny!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Certainly not impressive. Yet, he was one of the top detectives. Wow
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Shapiro did well here just picking at him about not following procedures 100%
Seminole Nation I am a ‘Nole fan
Shapiro proved here that he was more than a plea deal lawyer for the rich and famous. he was less brutal than bailey but still effective and devastating. imagibe being a witness and see this. after that fung and fuhrman. I would doubt the results of the investigation
@Michael Ronga he killed the rationale of the DA and police timeline. he might be a scumbag but if you need a lawyer this is the best money can buy
vannatter had a zen like control over his emotions. it looked like he was going to break a few times and each time shapiro pushed even harder, but he just wouldn't give in. shapiro was probably steaming inside
@@tolstoyed Shapiro believed that V. was the one planting the glove nor Fuhrman. he was so zen he took the blood of OJ to the crime scene which was stupid at least if not in purpose
Vannatter is a LIAR!!
OJ is a Killer
Ofc he’s a liar. All cops are liars. Most humans are liars. It’s a misconception w humans to think when a person becomes a cop he suddenly is perfect and honorable. It’s laughable.
Poor Phil. Shapiro is a snake
Total slime ball
@audrasitarek9113 I disagree, people that tamper with and plant evidence are slime balls
hate to say it, but Shapiro made him look like a clown!
This is the face of police corruption.
This ^^^ comment is the face of delusion
yeah right. This "face of corruption" never had a single such complaint made against him during his entire career on the LAPD.
@@icaanuldon't be Naive
Darden is constantly having to save him
@Bola Oladapo idiot she is right and that is why OJ won
dolt Darden
Darden was so incompetent he couldn't even save himself let alone anyone else. He's a buffoon.
Philip Vannatter looks and sounds a bit like Bill Farmer, the guy who voice Goofy.
Voices.
Bill murry
His saying rib kadsastion do time was the ultimate for any friend on team to comprehend that was his cold shoulder time
Wow, Shapiro really was top notch, and in the TV series they really made him look like a buffoon!
So much fluff that means nothing.
They went to Rockingham to simply plant evidence. Thinking this would be an open and shit case.
Yawn. U are one foolish human. Who did it if Simpson did not? There was no robbery. No evidence of anyone but Simpson. NO ONE. Bruno Magli shoes, size 12, only sold in NYC, with prints at the crime scene. Guilty AF.
There were hardly any “objections” during this cross examination? The defence constantly interfered and interrupted proceedings whilst the state were certainly distant during this detectives oath. Very odd.x
This is a brutal cross examination
shapiro had NOTHING ass hole. He came with "you weren't there because you were driving to the scene." and "you don't know how many officers were searching for the weapon." and "you didn't take enough notes." he had NOTHING. This case was indeed over right here. GUILTY.
Brutally boring. Brutal mental gymnastics. Brutal nonsense. All his (in fact, the entire defense) questions are bent around "could have....might have....unseen evidence destroyed" and so on. It's inconceivable that every last bit of evidence pointing towards the "real" killers was somehow wiped out by the police. And the fact he is asking these questions shows there WAS a legit attempt to investigate this. How does that co-exist with this big conspiracy? Wouldn't the non-conspirators (in spite of their incompetence) turn in the conspirators?
OJ had an Accomplice..
@@09rja you obviously don't have any idea of how cross examination works or how to properly phrase a question.
@@lynndragoman2454 Long time no see professor. Getting the semester started out right (in the meantime)? lol
So how many cases have you been a attorney in? How many have you testified in? I'm willing to bet I've spent more time in a court room than you have.
Good quality video
OJ’s money exposed how careless LAPD is in regards to crime scene investigation.
FACTS!
1:42 Hasn't even asked the question yet ) ( 18:12 Glib about the severity of his job ) ( 23:11 10 minute walk through then ran to OJ's ) ( 29:43 Was told by a different boss, not even over him to make the notification ) ( 37:08 Nonsense reason for going ) ( 47:17 The real reason they went ) ( 48:35 Answer seems rehearsed ) ( 1:12:28 Tells him to zip it ) ( 1:31:54 The answer is the same )
The Defenses wiped the floor with LA fitness.
@always maga Why are you going through my profile? Who are you F.B. I
50:50 54:00 1:00:13 Great point, at Bundy he stood around….now he’s off alone investigating1:06:15 55:05 Why didn't they just have the watch commander ask the kids.
00:13 This dude's ridiculous, one minute he goes from KNOWING what the "General Area" is....then at 00:27 Goes back to being evasive and playing dumb.
Detective knew no rules but he held up well
Shapiro is the man!!
His son Jason knew too had big doubts
I wanna give Shapiro 100000 for jus in case .DAMN HES GOOD.....
@amanda please - and what makes Shapiro's cross examination all the more excellent is that cross is not his area of expertise. Shapiro was/is known for making plea deals for his clients. I also admired the way Robert Shapiro remain every bit a gentleman while being the screws to you. He's brilliant. Vannater not so much!
Agreed. I thought bob did well on this cross examination
FACTS
10:36 He doesn't do collection, but collects evidence anyway? 10:46
Vannater knows he's a slouch and Shapiro knows Vannater is a slouch. Vannater is trying to not let it be known to everyone, but Shapiro very effectively lets us all know. Darden and Ito helped Vannater legally look better.
oj guilty
New York has the best lawyers and all of them a Jewish
Chris Darden asked every insignificant question he wanted the defense kept getting overruled now every question Robert Shapiro asked Darden objects it's substained
Chris Darden is a POS and he also has profited of the frame job done by Mark Furhman against OJ while getting the whole LAPD to follow his racist motive
This is similar for non-famous cases too.
This dude is lying like hell !
Shapiro was extremely arrogant. Van Atter was very competent and Oj was very guilty.
Jury didn't think so !!!
They thought the LAPD cops and criminalists were crooked, pathologist was useless , the evidence was tainted(and/ or planted), the prosecution expert witnesses were biased, and the time-line was a joke.
This detective is a old school racist, Flintstone, uneducated and red face kind of guy and Shapiro with his legal expertise tore him to shreds.
@@Ken-iu2zp No, there was no evidence of that whatsoever. We all know O.J did it. He just got away with it. He will get his karma though.
Why is vanatters tie so long?
He's old and was working to pay off a mortgage
His mommy dressed him
Lmao... 39:00 OJ writing something and sticking his tongue out... looks like he's in elementary school!🤣
He was watching the prosecution lose the case and was advised not to laugh out loud.
Investigators botched the collection of evidence and it was intentionally done, just look at this officers attitude.
That a wig on vanatters lyn head.
right around 1:28:00 Cochran and Douglass yucking it up
They were not there to help Mr Simpson. They were there to not help Mr Simpson!!!
Maybe they were there to try and find the truth. They had just witnessed the bodies of two young innocent-looking people SLAUGHTERED suddenly with candles and New Age Music playing softly in a pristine condo with two kids asleep upstairs. YES! They should have procured a warrant for Rockingham but other than that, I think they were just looking for the truth and keeping the Bundy victim's images in their minds as any human being would!
Kinky they lied to get their evidence. Cops can’t do what they want to get people they think are guilty. Jury’s decide guilt. They lied about why they hopped the fence, they lied about how they collected evidence-They lied about using the “N” word, they lied about how many cc’s of Mr. Simpson’s blood they took,
OJ never took the stand and never lied under oath-why where all those cops lying-the reason people lied-to hide something else
DEBBIE SLOCK - No they wasn't there to help O.J. Simpson they were there to plant evidence and to arrest Simpson they made their mind up that he Simpson did it, in their rush to judge and also racial bias hatred by at least 1 of the 4 detectives Mark Fuhrman
Defense tried to make it seem like the ice cream was important and that detectives screwed up by not collecting it as evidence. The only thing the ice cream did was prove that Nicole and the kids went to Ben and Jerry’s after eating at Mezzaluna.
Defense did a genius job creating reasonable doubt and assuming the jurors would be stupid enough to fall for it. They were right!
The outcome of this trial is right at the foot of Gil Garcetti and his team's botched prosecutorial job. This was incredibly winnable, and the inept job they did, and the fact that they inexplicably left out, purposely, key evidence because they thought it wouldn't be needed is 100% their fault. They allowed this much more experienced and seasoned defense team to bully them in front of this "star struck" judge and a double murderer walked free, inspire of a MOUNTAIN of evidence. It'll forever be the LA county DA's fault.
The level of intelligence by these detectives involved was unbelievable no training in new police technology these were high school students who became law enforcement officers who delt with low level criminals, poor, and defended by public defenders. Now their being interrogated by defense attorneys who have to use basic language for them to understand. Look at how many times Vannatter says I don't understand a simple question.
Their own arrogant attitude towards being questioned about their involvement was a disaster for the prosecution.
"They spent more time trying to explain the police behavior.
He is lying!
Winnable? How.?
The cops ACCUSED Mark Fuhrman of planting the glove.
At least 5 neighbors all saw either white or Hispanic males at Nicole's home around 10pm.
One Neighbor even saw her being attacked and even had a sketch made.
The cops and prosecution all believed their main suspect got rid of everything, bloody clothes, cleaned up, got rid of the murder weapons - ALL IN 5 MINUTES - WHILE BEING IN THE DARK.
The prosecution and detectives repeatedly got caught lying. WHAT PART OF all that - do you believe was fucking winnable?
@@_BossNGAWELL SAID…
Shapiro was brilliant.!!
Reminded me of a slimeball
35:40 vanutter is set up with queztioning...He was so concerned about the kids but forgot OJ was the dad or might be the dad and that would be part of the reason he was going to OJ's house...
1:21:10 Does anyone know how they knew OJ had a maid? They didn't know him and just left the crime scene....
OJ had one of those private security firms to check on his house. The detectives were outside his house trying to reach him on the intercom as one of the firm's cars was driving by. The security guy stopped when he saw the police at Oj's gate . He told him who was living in the house and gave them Oj's phone number . The security firm, Westec, is mentioned at 1:33:20
All these procedures can be picked on and overanalyzed if you have millions to throw away on scumbag attorneys out to make a name for themselves. 99/100 would have made a deal to avoid the death penalty on this case. This trial is one of the great travesties in American History..
Agreed
Hard to disagree with your analysis. The rich and famous, CAN get away with murder. Look at Trump- murdering 40 innocent people over chocolate cake at Mara Lago.
No u fool ur wrong
@@cm9317 no ur a fool too u turd
@@ronnrogers9459 lol turd? What are you, 5 yrs old?
This is better then the best movie ...incredible detail
Caught up in confusion,Dt Vanatter is completely a white wash his ignorance is only short of the 27 years that he has been involved in law enforcement without any former training, his lawlessness and disregard for proper procedures; very little notes, sloppy detective work in a crime of this magnitude ; all four leading detectives leave one crime scene to advise OJ that his ex wife has been murdered.
Total incompetent detectives. Did they really think that they are smarter than lawyers who practice law at this level especially when their getting paid substantially in this case with a rich client. Vanatter, Lang ,Philips and Fuhrman, where dealing with this case as if OJ had a public defender who works for the State. They would have never been questioned like this about their job by a State appointed lawyer. Just unbelievable how incompetent these detective are arrogant and corrupt practices have been exposed. If the video hadn't caught Vanatter in the blood transfer of OJs blood. That never gets mentioned in this case. Shapiro has just proved reasonable doubt with this detective. He can't be trusted. Vanatter just got busted framing OJ Simpson with Mark Fuhrman.
The evidence of something is wrong goes right to the core of police corruption in the LA Police Department. You know its bs when you've been in law enforcement 27 years and you can't find the address of a suspect who is as famous as OJ five minutes away from the crime scene.
O.j. ran that day on freeway thinking the other was arrested
Shapiro may not have been a legal heavyweight by any stretch of the imagination but he demonstrated that he knows his way around the courtroom. He showed good court-room prescence , he knew what he wanted to elicit on cross-examination, he asked intelligent questions and sat down.
With respect to his cross-examination of Vannatter, Vannatter should have admitted that he viewed Simpson as "a" suspect not "the" suspect but instead told Shapiro on cross that in his mind that night, Simpson was no more of a suspect than he, Robert Shapiro, was. Although that may be possible but not believable. the jury however did not believe Vannatter.
I watched every y minute of trial and Johnny the former assistant
DA amd he was former boss of judge Ito he knew LA and court better then anyone....Shapiro looked he Ana amateur with court procedures both in pr trial and trial
@@jjjj8039 what?
@@jjjj8039 Shapiro is not a trial attorney. But he prove useful because he's the 1 who assembled the lawyer team who ultimately got OJ acquitted. Shapiro has a different kind of legal acumen. He had connections, knew how to assemble a team, but wasn't a good trial attorney mainly because that wasn't his area of expertise. But he got paid big bucks in his career as a lawyer for a reason.
@@Ken-iu2zp agree he put great team together mainly due to fact he knew he Lacks trial expertise since he never tried a murder case his entire career.
but other then that Johnny won the case along with Barry and Peter. But biggest luck for defends was that Van matter and fuhrman planted evidence....this gave jury a reasonable basis for acquittal.
The detectives should have just admitted they instantly thought O.J. was at least "person of interest #1" based on their experience, which turned out to be the right conclusion.
This is so dreary
Vannatter kept playing dumb, he looks like someone on the run lol
You know, I get that cross examination is inherently somewhat confrontational...as it SHOULD BE. However, is it a written rule that part of the cross has to include an immediate raising of the voice to a near shouting level and, basically, insulting every witness that takes the stand? It sure appears to be for this defense team. It's completely unnecessary. I think it's low brow behavior.
Jody Carrithers you need to watch the Jodi Arias trial. Martinez the prosecutor literally screams at times. It’s beyond confrontational, it’s borderline abusive. And as much as I’m on his side, it’s unbelievable. Makes great viewing. It’s sure to put off anyone thinking of a life of crime in maricopa county, Arizona! Lol.
If they were accusing you of murder Jody, would you want your defense attorney to be very polite with the cop you say planted evidence on you? Try to put yourself in someone else's shoes.
@@LyonsArcade ummm, well, if I were GUILTY with millions of dollars to buy my way out of conviction I guess I'd expect unscrupulous behavior to be displayed by my defense team. I would NEVER put myself in a brutal murderers shoes (Bruno Mali's in this case). Sorry.
Yes America the police failed basic things to dooo and the ran with it watch it
Shapiro was a true boss
He’s a scumbag
I don’t see how anyone’s saying Shapiro did so great or detective vannatter was a bad witness .. if anything Shapiro was getting frustrated and he answered the questions as best as possible with the line of questioning..
A car has blood on the door handle and you claim (later) that you saw a shovel and a sheet of
plastic in the back but you don't write about the shovel and plastic in your report? I'm taking
note of that if I'm on the jury.
Love Shapiro asking 'is there something funny?'. That shut him up, real quick. Vannatter that is. Or as i like to call him... Grown up 'Detective Butters' from Southpark.
Have some respect. The guy is dead.
@@B-ch6uk and
man Shapiro Cochran and Bailey were really the Dream Team
and Schek!
Nobody would have been shocked or upset if they admitted that Orenthal was a suspect. All this victim, hostage, Orenthal bleeding to death is not believable. How tf do you not take notes? I see why Orenthal was acquitted. Sloppy sloppy sloppy
Question…at any time did the Prosecution bring up why OJ led cops on a high speed chase? Just curious.
Judge Ito ruled to not allow this into trial.
Vanatter and Shapiro still got on ok outside of the courtroom. If I was Vanatter I doubt I'd have spoken to him again after that lol
Lori Massacci More like “ego driven” than crooked... I’d even go so far as shady. Detectives, like Vanatter, have a certain knack about making a case fit the direction of their theory. Too much legal latitude, creative thinking and a department Captain with a broken bullshit meter is what sent Fuhrman over Simpson’s gate. There was “0” legal justification to breach Simpson’s property. Shame on Judge Ito for allowing that evidence to ever be presented before the jury
A HORRIBLE detective!
Just don’t even look at the comment section. Nobody commenting has a full and impartial view of all evidence produced at trial.
Rachel Shamariah - *Almost* noone does, no... and also it will upset anyone that does to see too much of this... It would be nice though if many could agree with each other under one sample of the same ignorant comment instead of the "i'm in this camp" said as though it wasn't what they already came to conclude, so that one could ask questions like : "Does anyone know why the camera kept zooming in on Shapiro's Pin?" He seemed to be bothered by it too. Looked like it threw him off at one point...
Rob kadsastion sitting there and he knew here things really bad on his team and the truth he had serious doubt now about oj
Shapiro actually won the case for the defense by introducing extraneous details which impressed the jury. He was allowed wide latitude to ask any question, no matter how irrelevant. The judge was irresponsible. The judge was mentally asleep most of the trial.
Marcia Clark had me at her opening statement. If she had crafted the voir-dire more wisely, if she had presented just a few key witnesses and then rested her case, like a 2 month trial say, the people may have just won the case. The jurors were furious and rightly so and so they voted against themselves and all of us, "Not guilty."
Marcia Clark said judge Ito was fantastic until she lost the case
Due process and legal stuff ain’t your bag… enjoy play doh.
@@kinkle_Z is on her clown ish here
And YOU were the judge and jury? I'm glad you're not trying my case
Darden was about to explode ,while Bailey cross Riskie.