Fuhrman was dating a woman and they were trying to put together an idea for a TV series. In order to work out the scripts, Fuhrman put himself into the persona of a racist cop. It was in that context that he said “n*gger”. (Cite.)
Further, the blood evidence and thus the DNA was discovered at 8:00 in the morning. Blood samples were not drawn from OJ until (IIRC) 2:30 that afternoon.
Regards,
Shodan
To the OP’s question - because DNA evidence, when collected and analyzed properly, is pretty conclusive as to who the donor was. Put your suspect at the scene and add other evidence (and there was a TON in this case) and you ought to have a slam dunk.
Bugliosi pretty much blasted everyone but especially the prosecutors. I really enjoyed his book.
As for black women not liking white women because they steal their men. Uh uh. I’d venture to say that that is not a common experience in the black community. However, having white LA cops violate the rights of black men (the husbands and sons of those jurors) WAS a common experience. They wouldn’t find it hard to believe that it happened again.
Furman - Fifth to one question, fifth to all. BTW, there was never any evidence presented that he planted the glove.
I really don’t understand why the cops only interviewed OJ for 30 minutes when they knew he was their prime suspect and he had no lawyers present. It was an interrogators dream. They should have spent hours grilling him until he either confessed, gave details which could be later proven to be lies or asked for a lawyer. I’m sure those guys investigated far more murders than I ever did but thirty minutes in you should just be getting past the introductions.
Thank you for the clarification:). You know, after watching the Bronco chase, I pretty much tuned out all the OJ stuff, I only started actually looking at anything about the case when it started coming up in SDMB threads.
No, the defense played the tape, then repeated the question about having said the word “n*gger.” That’s when Fuhrman took the fifth. Once he took the fifth, he could not answer ANY questions, and the jury was instructed to disregard any previous testimony he had given. As someone else said, “fifth to one, fifth to all.”
I don’t know where you got this idea, but it’s incorrect. A witness other than a criminal defendant may refuse to answer (on Fifth Amendment grounds) only questions whose answers may implicate her. Only a criminal defendant may refuse to testify entirely on Fifth Amendment grounds.
Now, if a non-defendant witness testifies as to some matters but pleads the Fifth only in response to questions which harm the state’s case (or his party’s case in civil matters) then the court might strike all the testimony on Confrontation Clause grounds (the Fifth Amendment cannot be used “as both a sword and shield”.)
ETA: that actually seems to be what you are getting at, based on your last post, but it is not an absolute rule as you seem to be implying.
If untrue, please let me know specifically how.
The blood on the gate was found days later after the detectives had been given a vial of OJs blood. And the EDTA level of the blood on the gate matched that of the level in the vial.
The tech who processed the drops on the driveway testified that she resuspended them, transferred them onto DNA paper, carefully dried them for hours, then placed them into evidence bags and initialed each one. Yet the samples that were actually tested came in bags with no initials, and were smeared with blood. Meaning the samples had been stuffed in while still wet. Detectives had full access to the lab.
Also the detectives were given vials of both victim’s blood (why?)
If my facts are indeed correct (and I think they are, although it has been awhile), that takes care of all OJ blood found at the scene.
Hard for a jury to ignore.
Also, Fuhrman plead the Fifth specifically in regards to planting evidence…
Was that in regard to ever planting evidence anytime any case, or planting in this case?
Uleman - “Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?”
Fuhrman - “I wish to assert my 5th Amendment privilege.”
I’m pretty sure that Fuhrman took the fifth on all questions put to him. I read his book, and IIRC, he said that was what happened. And maybe the judge did strike his testimony. I didn’t watch the whole trial, but I had a bad sinus infection one week, and only basic cable, and it happened to be the week all the Fuhrman fury was going on.
But even if you didn’t watch the trial, you couldn’t help hearing about it everywhere if you were an adult in the US at the time.
From the article:
So the fifth does not mean that he planted evidence. he could have. He also might not have. Just as in court, refusing to answer cannot be assumed to be a “yes”.
The trial simply showed that the sloppy and lax and possibly criminal methods used to build cases probably framed quite a few suspects who could not afford millions of dollars for good lawyers and investigators.
Read the quote I cited.
As mentioned, EDTA is a common component of laundry detergent and of paint, and is also found in human blood naturally. It is therefore not significant that it should be detectable in blood taken from garments and painted surfaces.
No, it actually doesn’t, unless you are able to explain how blood evidence can be planted before it is collected. As well as how to account for Nicole and Goldman’s (and OJ’s) blood being in OJ’s car. As well as how to account for the fact that OJ makes no mention of being framed in the note he wrote before the Bronco chase. As well as for the fact that OJ lied about owning Bruno Magli shoes. Etc.
Regards,
Shodan
He denies planting evidence in his book, where he admits to using the n-word, but places it in context.
I tend to think that whether Fuhrman planted evidence or not, Simpson is still guilty. It’s possible to frame a guilty person.
But like I said, I also was absolutely convinced Gary Condit killed Chandra Levy, so nothing will shock me at this point.
He may very well have taken the Fifth on all questions put to him. For all we know, all the answers might have tended to incriminate him (or the defense may not have cared). I’m just saying it’s not true that you either testify fully or not at all.
That’s not quite right. Since Fuhrman wasn’t on trial, the jury was entitled to infer that he did plant evidence. The Fifth Amendment protects a non-defendant only from subsequent criminal prosecution.
True enough. But somebody planted some of the evidence, and his refusal to answer just highlighted this. The whole case was based on the assumption that LAPD had integrity. Once this assumption was proved false the case was over.
Cannot blame black jurors, slimy defense attorneys, or incompetent prosecutors.
Agreed. Some prosecutors around here suffer from the same problem. Since they have the burden, they must craft a simple, short, and concise narrative to show that the Defendant did X beyond a reasonable doubt and that everything else is fluff. It’s the defense’s job to try to confuse this simple story with ancillary points to try to make the jury grab on to reasonable doubt.
Less is more when it comes to prosecuting criminal cases. Don’t bore the jury or else you will lose them. A confused jury has reasonable doubt.
Some of your facts are incorrect;
“the three blood stains on the rear gate were not collected until July 3, 1994”
Also, for EDTA, true enough some is found in natural human blood and detergent. But the blood on the gate contained VERY high levels. Levels that correspond exactly to what is found in a lavender top test tube…
All the other evidence you cite is true enough. I am not arguing the OJ innocence. Only against the notion the jury was stupid.
To what extent can a prosecutor introduce evidence to refute a defence claim, if the evidence is not presented during the first phase? This is how I understand the obsession (IANAL) to spend weeks introducing every picky detail of the prosecution’s case. They want to be sure every possible point is on the record.
I’m always amazed to read about some European court cases - for example, one article I read mentioned a major French murder trial that was expected to last a week at most.
Ultimately, did the sequestration of the jury help either side? I can’t imagine it: 10 months in a hotel with strangers, no access to the news. Its like being in prison.
Since the prosecution probably requested it, and the judge granted it, and the jury tends to think of the judge and the prosecutor as being on one side, since they are both on the city payroll (even when the defense has a public defender), it probably worked against the prosecution.
Towards the end of the trial, there was increasingly more and more talk in the public media that “the trial itself was on trial” – meaning to suggest that the jury might come to see the trial itself as a circus unfit to judge a real case, and acquit just for that.
I think that may well have been exactly right.