evidence that OJ was guilty

[Susanann]

*Originally posted by occ *
**Also, why the hell would the LAPD have wanted to frame OJ Simpson? What, because he was black and successful? Give me a break. Certainly police corruption exists, and certainly, police racism exists – but not on any sort of grand, top-on-down scale. Not to the degree where a “smear campaign” would be put out on a prominent entertainer/athlete for the reason of simple bigotry. **

Cops and prosecutors everywhere try to get the easiest suspect they can find. They always try to find some evidence or reason why a husband is the one that killed a wife. In any murder, instead of being objective and trying to find any murderer, the spouse is always the first suspect they try to get some evidence to pin the crime on him.

In most cases, like in the case of O.J., the cops do not even try to find out if anybody else could have done it. If they can find anything that could be used in a trial against a spouce, they never go beyond looking for someone else that could have committed the crime. I have seen this first hand.

[UncleBill]

Susanann, it’s been a while since the trial, and I did not follow it as closely as some. This is not to challenge, but to ask for clarification. What did Furman lie about on the stand? I seem to recall him using a racial slur previously, and denying that. Was this the lie to which you are referring?

[Susanann]

Yes. That is a proven fact that he lied in his testimony, I heard the tape. I saw him take the fifth ammendment when he was questioned on his testimony.

I also very strongly suspect that Furman lied about other things, seeing the drop of blood, going over the wall, the glove, etc. since he took the fifth ammendment on all of his earlier testimony.

I, for one, would not want Furman to give testimony against me if I was ever put on trial.

And for those of you who like Furman, who believer Furman, I hope someday, I wish with all my heart, for your sake, that he may testify against YOU at your trial!

[lucwarm]

It’s really two different questions – first, whether OJ actually murdered Nicole; and second, whether he should be convicted of the crime.

I believe the OP was directed at the first question, the answer to which is “yes.”

The second question is slightly muddier, but I would point out that 50-90% of witnesses lie when under oath.

Cops and prosecutors everywhere try to get the easiest suspect they can find. They always try to find some evidence or reason why a husband is the one that killed a wife. In any murder, instead of being objective and trying to find any murderer, the spouse is always the first suspect they try to get some evidence to pin the crime on him.

In most cases, like in the case of O.J., the cops do not even try to find out if anybody else could have done it. If they can find anything that could be used in a trial against a spouce, they never go beyond looking for someone else that could have committed the crime. I have seen this first hand.

True, but keep in mind that in the OJ case, the cops’ instincts were correct.

[Lure]

The second question is slightly muddier, but I would point out that 50-90% of witnesses lie when under oath

Not disagreeing with your assumption of guilt,but could you provide a link for the lying under oath statement?

This seems to me,to be farfetched,thinking most people with no axe to grind,eg,the chauffeur or others not really acquainted with the subject in any meaningful way,would tell the truth on a witness stand out of a common moral decency.

Is the societal fabric that flawed?Am I one of the few schmucks left?

[lucwarm]

*Originally posted by Lure *
Not disagreeing with your assumption of guilt,but could you provide a link for the lying under oath statement?

Just my personal experience. I’m an attorney. People lie lie lie under oath. A trial is a big freakin’ lying contest.

(Although yeah, people like the “chauffeur” tend to be more honest. I was thinking more of folks with an agenda, such as cops.)