Good catch; this whole "Fifth Amendment" thing would probably have gone down badly with them, even though Fuhrman really couldn't answer that final question.

It took me ages to realise that "MF" are not the initials of someone else Fuhrman was being compared to, but simply a swearword, much like "FU" in House of Cards (both versions). In my defence, I don't ever use that word.

I'd never thought of it this way. I just cringe whenever I see the title I Am Cait because that name with that spelling is an abomination in mine eyes. Funny thing, priorities: the idea of transsexualism doesn't bother me nearly as much as the names of seemingly "normal" people that make me want to pull my hair in…

I was astounded when I realised they write the names "Courtney" and "Chloe" with a K. One can only assume that their mother won a lifetime supply of monogrammed handkerchieves and wanted to ensure that the sisters would also enjoy the benefits of this extraordinary windfall. It's the only reasonable explanation.

Laugh all you want, but you there's a tiny grain of truth in that.

I was thinking of it more in terms of "give them a road map of what we're dealing with here, and then take on each part in turn". As a layman I'll defer to your professor, but you've piqued my interest about what a better approach would be like. Perhaps beginning with the best evidence predisposes the jury to pay more…

Not cast the part? Surely you jest; this is the production that went to the trouble of casting characters such as Darden's father (to reflect on racial tensions) and Ito's wife (basically to allude to a potential conflict of interest that ultimately didn't affect the case at all).

Considering that Simpson has ended up in prison anyway, and without killing anyone else… I'd say probably not many.

I think he did say 1988 (which I suppose is also a social comment in its way). Personally I didn't expect such a focus on the jury, considering what we've seen so far after the beginning of the trial, so I was pleasantly surprised. When this series began I was curious how they intended to stretch a single trial to ten…

When I first saw a reference to the "Dancing Itos" a few weeks ago, I half-expected to see the judge dancing a jig. It would be completely ridiculous, of course, but the same could be said about many aspects of this trial.

One wonders how long it took people (and juries) to familiarise themselves with the concept of fingerprints 120 years ago…

I'm just guessing here, but it makes sense to me they'd want to establish Simpson's character and motive first (and deconstruct his public persona), then move on to the events themselves and the story of how the crime was committed, and only afterwards continue with the more technical evidence that would clinch the…

They seem to have condensed the opening arguments in general, so perhaps that particular element didn't fit in with the pacing of the episode. From what I've been reading in the comment section of these reviews, though, Ito has got off lightly in the series.

I'm sorry but I have to ask: which trial? I didn't even know what Skittles were; I vaguely thought that they looked like Smarties, though the colours weren't right.

I didn't catch that implication then, but it is pretty funny. He actually said "half the country", which was more accurate in his case; as far as his brood is concerned, it may well be half the world now.

Perhaps that juror didn't expect that his notebook would be inspected… Actually, I noticed later on that, in the courtroom, the jurors' empty chairs had notebooks on them, which means perhaps that they weren't allowed to take them with them to their rooms, but would be given access to them only during the deliberation.

I dislike referendums for similar reasons. They look democratic, but often they're just a case of the politicians who ought to make a decision (and are capable of doing so) passing the buck onto an electorate lacking a complete understanding of the matter in question and often unwilling to try and gain such an…

Are jurors compensated, though? Some of them have businesses they need to be running; others are probably missing out on salaries and might even lose their jobs if they are away for months.

It gets better: according to its cover, that issue of Playboy also includes… an interview with John Travolta.

That scene was riveting; I've read many times about the famous glove moment and how Darden may have single-handedly lost the case with his blunder, but it always felt more like a spur-of-the-moment thing. I had no idea how much went into it, and of course it helps that I'm watching the series with someone who doesn't…