It could have happened (under some vaguely defined motivation), ergo it must have happened. Q.E.D.
Stranger
No, AFAICT they accepted it because the manner of its discovery and collection were legal.
That’s the plausible reason I was talking about. He did suspect OJ, at least after he spotted the bloody car. So he jumped the fence for two reasons
[ol][li]He thought OJ was a suspect, and[/li][li]OJ might not be a suspect because he (OJ) had also been killed.[/ol][/li]
Of course it matters - if OJ had had an iron-clad alibi, then Fuhrman would go to prison for planting evidence.
Because he didn’t want to be seen coming up his own driveway.
Because he was in a hurry.
Yes. He didn’t notice that he had dropped the glove, because he was in a hurry. And because he was just coming back from killing two people with a knife.
Regards,
Shodan
It means that when they showed up at the murder scene, the plan wasn’t to frame OJ.
So you say definitively that you haven’t when you know you have rather than saying you don’t remember, etc? It doesn’t take a genius to realize this lawyer is asking you this for a reason, and that he has the answer to the question being asked. Also, why do you plead the 5th when they ask you directly if you planted evidence?
What are you basing your belief that you would be caught on? can you even name a case where this has happened and blown up in the person’s face?
[quote=“Shodan, post:102, topic:686139”]
That’s the plausible reason I was talking about. He did suspect OJ, at least after he spotted the bloody car. So he jumped the fence for two reasons
[ol][li]He thought OJ was a suspect, and[/li][li]OJ might not be a suspect because he (OJ) had also been killed.[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
It’s plausible, but it’s also likely a lie. The issue is the judge granted Furhman more credibility than he deserved. Even the idea that someone murders two people, then goes to murder the ex-spouse of one of the people is unlikely.
This is just wrong. The glove didn’t have to directly implicate OJ. They already saw blood at OJ’s house. They likely knew the murderer had been there even if it wasn’t OJ, so even if OJ had been in Poland, the glove could have still plausibly been there. And even that is the extremely unlikely worst case scenario.
By whom? The guy whose window he landed right next to?
…whether or not Fuhrman actually planted the glove was irrelevant. I don’t think he did. I think OJ did it and I think that the prosecution had enough evidence to prove that he did it.
Its just that the defense did their job very well. They didn’t have to prove OJ was innocent. They just had to poke enough holes in the prosecution case so that the jury would walk away with the conclusion there was reasonable doubt. A couple of the prosecution have been cited in this thread stating that the jury was always going to come to the conclusion they did. I don’t think that is true. The prosecution made some poor decisions. And the defense was pretty damn good.
Can the people arguing against brickbacon please address the question in bold?
In the court of law, a jury is not supposed infer guilt when a witness pleads the 5th. But in the court of public opinion? Sorry, but there needs to be a damn good reason why a lead homicide detective can’t answer that question with an unequivocal no. In the absence of such a reason, it can not be assumed he didn’t fuck with the evidence. And so the integrity of the entire case becomes questionable.
If the onus is on the prosecution to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt, how can they do that if the lead detective outright refuses to confirm the evidence he collected was not manipulated so as to intentionally implicate the defendant? This is the crux of it.
That last sentence of yours is where your, and brickbacon’s, argument falls apart. You, just like the defense wanted, conclude that if one witness is lying, then they all are, and thus you can’t convict.
That’s not how it works. You, and the jury, judge the credibility of each witness individually. You don’t get to say: “Well, this one guy lied, so the other 148 witnesses must have lied”. It’s that kind of sloppy thinking that the defense wanted the jury to follow. And they did.
It’s the crux of the argument over ONE piece of evidence provided by ONE witness. Which, again, takes us to the problem of sloppy thinking and refusal to consider ALL the evidence. Or, if you want, question the credibility of the other evidence. But don’t simply ignore it all because one officer was a racist lying scumbag.
Where are you getting this bullshit from? I’m not talking about any other witnesses except Furhman.
Like hell it is. We’re talking about a detective who was responsible for investigating several aspects of this case, who had access to multiple pieces of evidence. If we have reason to believe he’s dirty, then everything that involves him becomes suspect.
Raise your hand if you’d want a guy like Furhman investigating a crime you’ve been accused of. You gonna trust a jury to effectively winnow out his lies and fabrications from potential proof of your innocence? Yeah, right, ok. You might be willing to take that gamble, but most reasonable people will want a detective who doesn’t plant evidence and can swear to that in a court of law.
Fuhrman had testified that he had never falsified a police report, and never used the word n*gger. The defense attorneys now had statements from other witnesses that he had bragged about the police reports, and taped interviews using the racial slur. That left him vulnerable to criminal perjury charges. On the advice of his attorney, he asserted his Fifth Amendment rights on all questions from then on. Even the one about planting evidence in the Simpson case. He had to assert the 5th on all questions, because:
[CurtC raises his hand]
Me!
I’m a white guy!
Seriously, no one is arguing that Fuhrman was a nice guy - he was obviously a racist asshole who loved his power as a policeman. If it was at all plausible that he might have planted the glove, I’d suspect him of doing it. It’s just not plausible to me - not because Fuhrman’s a nice guy, but because it would not be in his personal interest to do so.
Here are your exact words: “And so the integrity of the entire case becomes questionable.” I’m absolutely flabbergasted that you could say with a straight face that you’re only talking about Fuhrman when, in the very post I quoted, you say it’s the entire case that is questionable.
That is only true if you believe that Fuhrman had dozens of accomplices who helped him with the multitude of evidence that was taken. I know you want to make it seem like he was the only one in charge of evidence, but that’s simply not true. In order for Fuhrman to have manufactured evidence, he would have had to have the aid of dozens of police officers, a couple lab techs, and a few evidence handlers. You seem convinced he, and he alone, was responsible for the investigation.
Please try and pay attention to what I actually say, and not what your fevered imagination tells you I’m saying. Even if you disregard all of Fuhrman’s testimony, there is more than enough evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Simpson murdered two people. I think Fuhrman got off to easily on his perjury charge, that he’s a liar, a reprehensible human being, and the main reason (along with stupidity) that Simpson got away with murder. But that doesn’t magically make all the evidence against Simpson disappear.
Why was in his personal interest to arrest people without legal justification, then cook up after-the-fact excuses for probable cause? Why was it in his personal interest to talk on tape about calling men “niggers” when that shit could easily blow up in his face? And while we’re on the subject of personal interest, why was it in OJ’s personal interest to commit murder? Seems like that knifing two people to death provides little in the way of entertainment value for a former football player and D-list actor, right? But we all believe he did it despite that.
Researchers have been known to exaggerate and even outright falsify data to make their papers more appealing. What’s crazy is that they sometimes do this even though their evidence is compelling as is. But a p-value of 0.03 just isn’t as sexy as a p-value of 0.001, gosh darnit. If you can get the latter by adjusting your regression model ever so slightly, then by gollee, why not? No one will eve know, and it’s not like you’re really lying. Statistical significance is statistical signficance.
Maybe I’m the crazy nutcase, but I can totally “get” why a guy like Furhman would plant evidence. Old habits die hard and if this was typical behavior in the department, the idea that he could get in trouble for it probably barely crossed his mind. Just like calling perps nigger didn’t and making false arrests didn’t.
…only if you pretend that the defense didn’t exist and didn’t put up a case.
They did a very good job of convincing the jury that, since Fuhrman is a liar, then there is reasonable doubt. They did a fantastic job of taking advantage of horribly incompetent prosecutors. They did an excellent job of manipulating the judge, the public opinon, and getting the jury pissed off at the government. They did an outstanding job of taking advantage of the stupidity of jurors in regards to DNA evidence.
What they didn’t do a good job at was attacking the actual evidence. Simpson’ blood was at the crime scene, and he suffered a cut on his hand. The victim’s blood was in his car, and at his house. Fibers from his hair and car were at the crime scene. There were bloody footprints matching shoes he wore. He had a history of violence against the victim, no alibi, no reasonable other explanations, he had motive and opportunity, and an unworkable (unless you believe in a massive conspiracy of dozens of people) theory of a frame job.
This case wasn’t decided based on the actual evidence presented. Because had it been, there wouldn’t have been any reasonable jury that would find Simpson not guilty.
Do you understand what “questionable” means? It doesn’t mean I’m saying every other State witness was lying because Furhman lied.
It means the integrity of Furhman’s investigation and everything associated with that investigation became tainted with doubt. Not certainty of wrongdoing. But uncertainty. Suspicion. Questionable.
He was the lead detective for the investigation and had access to all the evidence. One rotten apple in a barrel full of other apples doesn’t necessarily mean they are all rotten, but it does mean the whole barrel now stinks. You wanna eat an apple from a barrel that reeks of rot, you go ahead. But don’t expect most people to follow suit.
I will repeat my question since you neglected to answer it. Would you want a detective like Furhman investigating a crime you’ve been accused of, knowing what we know about the things he’s done or admitted doing? If you had the choice between an investigator who would rather kill himself than plant evidence or perjure himself and an investigator who not only perjured himself but also refused to confirm whether he’d plant evidence against you…is there any question who you’d pick?
If Furhman’s shadiness is truly immaterial like you insist, then you should be willing to have someone like him be the guy potentially standing between you and prison.
…so it seems like the defence did everything that the US system of justice allows them to too, and they did it really well. Seems like you have a problem with the system, not this case.
I’ve heard this opinion many times and it really is just a pathetic attack with no basis. DNA isn’t that easy for most people to understand. And Barry Scheck was simply masterful in what he did. (And I used the word masterful even before I read the below cite.)
You’ve just spelled out the prosecution’s case. Congratulations. As long as no one says anything otherwise: we’ve got a winner!!!
But of course the defense laid out a different story. They poked holes in the evidence. The trial was televised for 134 days. Your summary of the evidence probably took you a couple of minutes to type out. Are you sure you didn’t leave anything out?
Except there’s the minor detail that at the time when Fuhrman would have been stealing the glove to frame OJ with, he would have had no idea there was blood at OJ’s house (not having been there yet).
Spare me the paternalistic bullshit. Not once have I made that argument you are claiming I did, nor have I even weighed in on the effectiveness of the defense or the rectitude of the verdict. I haven’t even talked about all the other evidence in the case, or the trustworthiness of the other victims. All I have said is that the idea that the glove was planted is not as far fetched as you guys want to make it out to be. PERIOD.
More bullshit. I don’t need you to tell me “how it works”, and I don’t think you are at all qualified to comment on what the sequestered jury did or didn’t believe, or why. The fact this that you just worked backwards to impute “sloppy thinking” because you didn’t like the outcome. You don’t give a shit about the process or the rationale for why they voted the way they did. You care because you think they got it wrong. Tough shit for you. And just because you think it was a travesty doesn’t mean you get to assume they made a bad call for the reasons you want to invent after the fact.
Even if you are just trying to address the last comment you with the face made, you are completely ignoring the context in an attempt to distort what was written. The fact is that a prosecutor trying to sell the idea the he was framed but guilty is gonna have a pretty tough time. The comment was expressing the fact that prosecutors are trying to write a cohesive narrative resting on the credibility and professionalism of the people they choose to call to give credence to that narrative. They called a witness who knowingly lied about at least one thing he had to have known could easily be refuted. As such, everything that witness said can be assumed to be not credible. You with the face was simply expressing the idea that falsus in uno, in the real world, permeates through everything in a trial when the person whose credibility was impeached is an integral part of the narrative being woven. It doesn’t mean because one guy lied, everyone lied; it means because one really important guy lied, the case has several holes that make the entire story less compelling. When that fact is compounded by incompetent prosecutors, the verdict is understandable.
First, he didn’t HAVE to assert the 5th on all questions. It certainly was a wise legally speaking ONLY because he had clearly lied before. That was the point of my question. The reason why Fuhrman pled the 5th was because he was already proved to have lied while under oath.
But again, there needn’t be some kind of direct personal interest for a cop to frame a suspect. We can look at tons of cases where evidence was later suspected/proved to have been planted. I would bet almost none of them involve a direct personal interest. It’s usually just laziness and a misplaced sense of justice; both things equally present here as in most other cases of police corruption. I think most people in those types of situations don’t think of it as doing anything particularly wrong because the “facts” are on their side in terms of actual guilt or innocence. Nobody cries when a guilty guy goes to jail for the wrong reasons.
Geez. Do you people even read the thread before you comment? This comment has been made (and responded to) like 5 times.
First, he didn’t steal the glove to “frame OJ”. He likely stole the glove because it was essentially superfluous given the presence of the other glove at the crime scene, and because leaving the stolen glove wherever the prime suspect lived/visited/worked would ensure an easier conviction.
Second, after recognizing (likely correctly) that OJ did it, he could easily slip away to grab the evidence, and plant it where he knew OJ may have been given OJ’s house was considered a crime scene based on the blood stains, etc.
The idea that he needed to have an intended target in mind, or that he needed to know OJ wasn’t across the country at the time is just not relevant here, or in many cases where people are framed. Again, think about how that process usually works. Those cops are not stealing drugs with intent to frame a particular suspect, they have the drugs on the to use if they choose to do so. Fuhrman could have just as easily done the same with the glove.
Why can’t anyone see the difference between planting a baggie of weed on some mope and planting a murder glove on a rich and famous celebrity who may have a rock solid alibi for the time of the murder?
We all know that cops sometimes drop drugs or guns on people. The bloody glove is totally different. Every step in the planting process has me saying “Are you nuts?”
Pocketing a dime bag from that dealer you just rousted - Not Nuts
Stealing a murder glove from a crime scene with dozen cops tramping aroung - Nuts
“Look what I found in your trunk… drugs!” - Not Nuts
Trying to drop strong evidence on a guy who may have 100 people attesting to his whereabouts during the murder - Nuts