Blake, it was already established that the jury wasn’t informed of Furhman’s taking the fifth.
How do you know that? How do you know what evidence he may have tampered with? Can you show, for example, that there was no reasonable way that he could have switched blood samples taken from OJ’s house with samples taken at the crime scene?
No, I thought that, because an organisation had employed a man who was a known, self-confessed racist who as much as admitted that he tampered with evidence to obtain convictions, I probably shouldn’t trust that anything from that organisation when they are trying to convict a Black man.
If an organisation knows that a detective is a racist, and that detective as good as admits that he has tampered with evidence, and the organisation continues to employ him, that organisation loses all credibility when it gives evidence against a Black man. Once I believe that the organisation has manufactured *some *evidence for racist reasons, at that stage, the organisation has to establish that it didn’t manufacture evidence for racist reasons before I will accept the evidence.
This is called gauging the credibility of a witnesses. It’s what juries are expected to do.
That’s how it is supposed to work.
Now if the prosecution could have convinced the jury that the detective in question was an anomaly, that he was the only one on the case who was a racist and that he couldn’t reasonably have tampered with some evidence, they should have done so.
The fact that they didn’t is just more incompetence.
I don’t have a cite, but from my memory at the time, Fuhrman was called to the stand and asked if he lied when he said he hadn’t used the word “nigger” in the past 10 years. Since the tapes had been played, it was obvious that he lied. He had to take the 5th amendment on that question or else incriminate himself.
And again, IIRC, California law didn’t permit a witness to simply take the 5th on some questions, but answer others. The question preceding “Did you plant evidence in this case?” was “Is it your intention to assert your 5th amendment privilege to any question I may ask you?” to which Fuhrman answered “Yes.”
Someone else may come along and explain it better, (and his attorney was right beside him on the witness stand the whole time he was testifying), but it was my understanding that since Fuhrman didn’t want to admit perjury, he had to take the 5th on every other question, even if the question was “Did you assassinate Abraham Lincoln in 1865?”
ETA: So his taking the 5th on that question was not “as good as admits” tampering with evidence.
And wasn’t his story that he cut himself taking the cell phone out of the Bronco to take it inside? (Remember, according to OJ, the Bronco wasn’t driven that night) and he bled everywhere? I’ve cut myself doing stupid stuff. No need to stop by the kitchen to get at least a paper towel to stop the bleeding?
Then, he pulls the Bronco out of the gates of his mansion to park it on the street! Why? He has plenty of room for all of his vehicles. When you are leaving town, do you drive your car, for no particular reason, outside of the gates of your palatial estate to take advantage of on-street parking?
Doesn’t it make inestimably more sense that when OJ was returning from the murders that he couldn’t drive through the front gate because the limo driver was sitting there? So then he had to park it on the street and run around the back, climb the fence, bang his head on Kato’s a/c unit dropping the glove, and run inside the house pretending he just woke up? (Just like the limo driver observed)
None of these are dispositive, but are things that resonate with regular people like the jurors. But these things were not mentioned by the prosecution as they kept hammering on Fuhrman and domestic violence.
Several things
First off a mailing list I used to be on used to list the three dumbest things on earth, they were in order:
3. A box of rocks
2. A bag of hair
- The OJ jury
How they managed to find 12 people that dumb is beyond me.
Next for a frame to work, it has to fit. OJ was not a hood rat that it could be predicted with a great level of certainty would be available for the frame. At the time the frame would have have been formulated, nobody was quite sure where OJ was or what his alibi was. He was an international celebrity. He might have not even been in the country for all the LAPD knew at the time the frame would have had to have been started. The prosecution should have brought this up and stressed it at every opportunity. Hell they should have either used this for their closing argument, or had him come in and present it himself.
The glove. Jesus Christ how dumb were they? It does not exactly take Nobel prize smarts to realize that a blood soaked glove might be stiff and hard to put on, and someone wearing latex gloves might also have issues putting on another glove over the top of the latex ones. IIRC they had a vice president from the glove company (Isotoner?) testify. They should have had him testify as to the size of the gloves, and had him present the court with a fresh pair that were the same size. No issues with latex, no stiffness from blood, and he could also testify if they fit or not, instead of OJ, you know acting.
Yes, from the testimony of the 150 other witnesses.
Are you working under the assumption that Fuhrman was responsible for the collection of the great majority of the evidence, or that he had access to the DNA evidence before anyone else could touch or collect it? Because that’s simply not what happened. I’m not about to get into the details of the trial with you, but I think you might be woefully misinformed about his role in the case and what he could or couldn’t have done.
No, it’s not. It’s called gauging the credibility of one single witness who you choose to disbelieve and deciding that that credibility magically extends to every other witness who belongs to, works with, or had any dealing with that organization. You’re not gauging the credibility of anyone but Fuhrman.
No, juries are supposed to gauge the credibility of the witnesses by looking at the evidence. After months of trial, 150 witnesses, DNA evidence, and expert testimony, the jury spent 4 damn hours deliberating. They did not consider the evidence whatsoever. They did what you did. Decide you don’t trust Mark Fuhrman and ignore all the other evidence. That’s not what juries are supposed to do.
That Dana Carvey video linked above is hilarious and brings up another point: Everyone LOVED OJ! Everyone! He was (to the public) a smiling, affable guy who was in the Naked Gun movies and seemed like an all-around great guy. That’s why his trial was so watched and so shocking.
Why would the LAPD want to frame a guy everyone loves? Because he is black and was married to a white woman??? If that were the reason, it would seem that the LAPD wouldn’t get anything done EXCEPT framing black men. Even in 1995, interracial relationships were common.
The prosecution should have been in attack mode instead of responding to every petty and irrelevant sideshow the defense started. IIRC, one of the things they harped on was that when Vannatter took a sample of OJ’s blood, he didn’t immediately take it to the lab, but stopped briefly somewhere else first and the defense implied that he then sprinkled the blood in different places.
If Vannatter was committing this serious felony, why wouldn’t he just lie and say he went straight to the lab?
I do agree however, that the evidence found at OJ’s home should have been suppressed. Those cops had no reason to go over his fence without a warrant.
The OJ trial episode of The Larry Sanders Show was fantastic.
Phil: They found blood on his Bronco, they found blood in his house, how do you explain all of that?
Hank: He’s always been nice to me. He’s a great guest, he’s a good neighbor, always kept his lawn up.
Phil: They found blood on his socks!
Hank: Yeah, like I’m going to go out and murder someone without my shoes on.
I’m not sure why you view trials in this manner. If the moon was on trial for causing the sun to rise, the prosecution would point out what you did: That you can see it with your own eyes. The moon’s defense attorney (have those three words EVER been used in that order in the history of mankind? 
) would then call expert witnesses like astronomers and other scientists to explain planetary motion to the jury.
Then not only would there be reasonable doubt, but you would be assured that the moon is not guilty of causing the sun to rise.
As has been pointed out, for OJ to have been innocent, it would have required a fairly massive conspiracy well beyond just Mark Fuhrman to plant all the evidence against OJ as well as the mind-blowing coincidence that OJ would be one the of 100 or so owners in the world of the type and size of the gloves worn by the killer and would have cut himself so badly that same night causing him to bleed all over the place while simultaneously forgetting how he’d cut himself and for no apparent reason, parking his bronco outside his compound and climbing over the wall rather than inside the way he normally did.
Moreover, I always laugh at the idea that the LAPD was trying to frame him.
An even cursory glance at the case would let anyone know that the LAPD clearly coddled him.
Had OJ been any other person, he’d have been arrested that night.
Does any many reading this serious believe that had they been found in the state OJ was with all the evidence against him already, giving the bullshit story he gave the same night as his ex-wife, whom you had a history of domestic violence against, was murdered, that they wouldn’t have been arrested that night.
Agreed. If it was you or I we would have heard a knock (or a battering ram) on our hotel room door in Chicago and have been flown back to LA shackled.
Looks like that judge reversed his decision after 3 months. Possibly due to national attention and Pres. Clinton and Sen. Dole, among others, coming down hard on the decision.
I have a question: the mysterious duffle bag that OJ gave to his friend (Kardashian)…this was widely assumed to contain bloody clothing. What did Kardashian do with it?
Nobody really knows what was in the duffle bag. Speculation ranges from bloody clothes to the murder weapon. I don’t know what happened to the bag.
I didn’t see the link. I thought you were talking about Itoh. Nipick withdrawn.
It would be cool if OJ gave a deathbed confession and spelled out all the details. Even cooler if it happens soon.
Those THREE words? Yes, there have been a number of defendants named Moon with attorneys.
The four words “the moon’s defense attorney”? Google says, just you.