Assuming OJ gets convicted of these new charges, how likely is it that the judge will sentence him harshly because he got away with murder (IMHO). If I understand the law correctly (and tell me if I don’t) the judge is not SUPPOSED to consider it because he was found not guilty, and I don’t think judgment of the civil trial can be a factor either. But regardless, is there a likelihood that the judge will throw the book at him because of the murder trial anyway?
Just my guess, but I suspect a presiding judge would bend over backwards to avoid the appearance of judging him based on his past history.
The jury on the other hand…
With the right jury sure. Unless he gets a jury like the one he had in '95
Ditto that. I said the same thing in the Pit.
If a jail guard doesn’t bring O.J. a glass of water when he’s thirsty, his lawyer will use that as evidence of prejudice. O.J. will get better service in the Clark County Jail than he did at the Palms.
Unless some cops have to take the fifth amendment, OJ’s going to do jail time.
Yeah, I’d say that most judges would look for an excuse to sentence OJ very harshly. That’s assuming he’s convicted, of course. The Clark County Prosecutor’s Office is likely to be very aggressive too.
<boggle>
The guy <allegedly> held people at GUNPOINT.
Why should they go easy on him? Last I checked it was actually a fairly major crime to commit armed assault.
If I was a juror and it was demonstrated that he no shit held people at gunpoint [and making them stay in the hotel room, even if he was trying to get the cops to come] does also happen to be kidnapping which is another felony.
sheesh. What ever happened to actually putting someone into the slammer and punishing them for committing a crime?
I don’t think this is a fair statement. At all.
If Fuhrman didn’t lie under oath, O.J would’ve been convicted of murder. It is very difficult to convict an individual guilty if the lead investigator has admitted to planting evidence in the past and is/was a racist. Maybe I should start another thread, but why should I believe a racist over a O.J? Serious question. I think this is the question that the jury in that trial grappled with and could find no good answer. There was no way they could not convict OJ of murder with unreasonable doubt.
As for the OP, I hope OJ gets punished for what he did, if he indeed do it. I do think it’ll be a serious injustice if he gets some ridiculous sentence like forty years. He should be treated like anyone else in the criminal justice system, unfortunately, I don’t think there is an impartial cop or judge left in California.
- Honesty
One can only hope and pray
Actually to my knowledge the O.J. Simpson jury never heard evidence that Mark Fuhrman fabricated evidence, if my memory serves correctly when asked if he had ever falsified a police report in the past or if he had ever falsified evidence he refused to answer, invoking his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. I’m sure that was damning in the eyes of a jury but refusal to answer a question is not, legally speaking, an admission of guilt.
I think Mark Fuhrman deserves some of the blame for the acquittal. However I think the prosecution and the jury also deserve a good bit of it (if not most of it.) Several of the O.J. Simpson jurors have indicated that they did not believe Furhman fabricated the DNA evidence, but that instead they voted to acquit because “many people have the same blood type.” This is extremely worrying, because when discussing DNA, bringing up the point that many people have the same blood type suggests the person in question has a fundamental ignorance of what DNA is and how specific it is to a given person. More worrying is the fact that in a lengthy criminal case in which DNA evidence was used, you would imagine the prosecution spent a huge amount of time explaining to the jury what DNA is, the fact that the jurors would still confuse it with blood type makes me fear for our justice system.
The prosecution probably deserves the lion’s share of the blame, they let the case become focused on police misconduct instead of the mountains of evidence against O.J. The prosecution failed to submit all kinds of evidence that existed because they felt that any evidence collected by the LAPD would not have been trusted by the jury. I think that if the evidence was good evidence (and a lot of it was, like the fact that O.J. had bought a knife which matched the wounds inflicted on the victim’s not long before the murders) and would have been accepted by the jury. It was a mistake not to introduce the purchased knife, the keys that Simpson stole from Nicole’s home, or the suicide note and evidence about O.J.'s plans to flee the country.
Maybe some of that stuff would not have been admissible (I know nothing about evidentiary rules) but my readings on the case suggest the prosecution chose not to submit the evidence because they felt in the minds of the jurors they wouldn’t accept evidence from the LAPD, not because the prosecution didn’t think it would be admitted.
Now that is revealing, I didn’t know that. Keep in mind I was a boy when during the trial. I had thought the acquittal rested squarely on the idea that LAPD could have planted evidence - which is entirely possible scenario that is often preemptorily dismissed as nonsensical. The Fuhrman Tapes were pretty damning. I would not have convicted OJ after hearing them. No way.
Now the idea that the jurors equated blood type and DNA seems like a severe misunderstanding. I wonder if the jurors still hold the view that blood type and DNA are synonymous. I agree that if that is the reason they acquitted OJ, that was an injustice in itself.
- Honesty
And yet what’s more all-American than holding people at gunpoint? They do it on every western and cop show.
How long did the incident last? It’s one thing to thuggishly restrain someone–that’s some kind of an assualt–but I wouldn’t call it kidnapping until the victims start to worry that they’ll never see their loved ones again. It’s the prolonged fear and uncertainty that makes kidnapping an excruciating experience and thus such a serious crime.
As for the OP, I don’t see why a sentencing judge couldn’t look at the totality of OJs record and see no reason to give him a break on the maximum sentence.
I think I’m gonna regret this. Another “trial of the century” rehash? Gah. But I have to respond to this:
Okay, that’s been dealt with, so let me continue your quotation…
Here’s a serious answer: How on Bob’s blue earth can any rational person believe that the whole trial boiled down to whether or not Fuhrman told the truth on the stand? That it was, in the end, a decision to “believe a racist over a O.J”?
Oh, boy. Sorry, no personal disrespect intended, but I just gotta sheesh at that idea.
Go ahead and assume he was lying through his racist teeth. Reject his testimony completely. Believe his every utterance was a foul, foul, racist lie.
It makes no difference! There was a great deal of other, highly incriminating evidence against him; far more than enough to convict him cold.
This was precisely why the prosecution was so incredibly eager to throw Furhman under the bus, again, and again, and again! It seemed like they spent days crushing him under that bus then backing up over his corpse ad infinitum. Their case depended on Fuhrman’s testimony not a whit after that. If I recall, they brutally excoriated him and his testimony still further in their closing argument. No one was being asked to “believe a racist over a O.J”. The jury was instead asked to carefully consider all the other compelling evidence against him.
Which they most obviously and emphatically did not do.
Now, I’m not claiming that they decided as they did for some kind of “reverse racism” or any of that kind of thing. I think they were just not quite up to the task of properly understanding the evidence and the weight of that evidence presented against O.J. If they had been, they would have found him as transparently guilty as he actually was. Perhaps some of them did think it was a decision to “believe a racist over a O.J”. But – and again I do not wish this to show personal disrespect – I sure as hell hope not.
(As an aside, didn’t Kato hear someone brush up against the air conditioner where the bloody glove was later found considerably earlier than when Furhman arrived? I could never understand how anyone could justifiably believe Furhman planted the glove if that was the case…)
Uh, Mark Fuhrman found the evidence (bloody glove) without a warrant. Furhman had a history of racism and blatant disregard for the rule of law. He also lied under oath when asked, “Have you ever used the word nigger?”. His testimony wasn’t credible; if I can’t believe the lead investigator of the case, then everything he did comes into question. After hearing the testimony, I would have rejected the DNA evidence as police tampering and acquitted OJ. I’m sorry. If it makes it any easier, I would come to the same conclusion if Luis Farrakhan was the lead investigator and the OJ was white.
I know this is unrelated, but have you ever looked at some white supremacist websites on the Internet? Check out the Stormfront forums and do a search on police officer - many posters in that forum claim to be (or want to be) apart of law enforcement. That scares the shit out of me. I believe Mark Fuhrman is of that stock. If you need convincing, just do a search on “Furhman Tapes” and listen to yourself.
Did Kato hear the sound of leather dropping on the ground?
- Honesty
What mechanism do you think Fuhrman used to spread a large amount of O.J.'s blood around? Simpson’s blood was sampled and the defense argued that the 4 of the 10 cc he gave to the police disappeared without any explanation. However, they would have needed more than 4 cc of O.J.'s blood to have fabricated the entirety of the evidence.
Furthermore, there is no way that Fuhrman could have planted (weeks before the crime was committed) the knife purchase by O.J., a knife which matched up with the wounds inflicted on the victims. Why this purchase was not introduced into evidence is beyond me. Why O.J.'s actions following the murders were not introduced into evidence is beyond me. Why his “suicide” note that was fairly damning was not introduced into evidence is beyond me.
Fuhrman was not personally involved with the collection of all the DNA evidence in the case. For example he had nothing to do with O.J.'s white bronco which had both Nicole and Goldman’s blood in and on it (when O.J. said he had never met Goldman.) Fuhrman was also not the lead investigator in the case, Tom Lange was. Nor was he the sole evidence collector, I remember evidence collector Dennis Fung was also faced with attempts to smear him–which failed.
Just because one person in the investigation may have been a racist does not even, in my opinion, establish reasonable belief that the evidence was fabricated. There was forensic expert testimony that suggested some of the evidence was fabricated (this was, of course, countered by the prosecution)–that is the job of juries, to sort between the conflicted stories and decide which is most credible.
I think the jury proved itself inept because it didn’t know what DNA was, but I also think that the prosecution bears more blame than Fuhrman as they are the ones who failed to submit key evidence.
I think O.J. Simpson was guilty, but whether or not he should have been acquitted, I don’t know. I think the defense offered up some credible doubt, but I also think i f I was on the jury I would have been swayed by the presence of any of Goldman’s DNA (in the form of blood or hair) on anything of O.J.'s simply because O.J. asserted they had never met. That evidence alone would have been enough for me to set everything else aside and decide that it isn’t reasonable to think O.J. is not guilty because there’s no reasonable explanation for the presence of Goldman’s blood/hair on personal possessions of O.J. that Goldman never would have come into contact with.
The fact that O.J. says they never met does not mean that they did not have contact or that he is lying. Goldman worked in a popular restaurant and O.J. presumably was a potential customer who could very well have not remembered his waiter. He also was still seeing Nicole who was seeing Ron, hug, hug, hair on O.J.
One of the things the jury probably did not know was that much of the evidence discovered without a search warrant came in because the police were able to convince the judge that there were exigent circumstances which made it potentially dangerous to wait for a warrant, even though there was absolutely no reason to think this. Had the judge ruled the other way, which he easily could have cosidering how far fetched the argument was it is possible that none of the evidence would have been admitted. The cops screwed up big time and Lance Ito (I am not sure he made the ruling, but I think he did) let them off the hook.
I too agree that a lying racist does not make for a good witness especially if you have seen some of the footage of Southern California cops beating up on innocent people.
Anyone who thinks Fuhrman’s taking of the Fifth Amendment is not an admission of guilt does not deserve to have a voice. The Costitution allows a person to take the Fifth Amendment so that he is not compelled to give evidence against himself and for no other reason, thus there is evidence of his guilt which he is privileged not to have to disclose. Thus he is guilty. The good news for Fuhrman is that if noone else can testify to the guilt he cannot be convicted. The jury would have to be composed of 12 dopers to have an argument over this.
[QUOTE=ambushed
(As an aside, didn’t Kato hear someone brush up against the air conditioner where the bloody glove was later found considerably earlier than when Furhman arrived? I could never understand how anyone could justifiably believe Furhman planted the glove if that was the case…)[/QUOTE]
Even though I watched every minute of that trial on court tv and saw most of the commentators as well, thankfully I have repressed most of it. therefore I don’t remember whether or not kato heard something or when he heard it, but how does him hearing someone brush up against the air conditioner mean that it was at that point that the glove was dropped, planted or whatever?
If you are a citizen of Southern California where the police have ruled for decades and not necessarily with kindness and fairplay it would be remarkable to me if 12 members of a minority group could put that information out of their mind in the absence of any testimony about it. When your lead investigator takes the stand and lies etc. etc. etc. what is the logical thing to think? There might be others? He might have friends on the force? Yes they threw him under the bus and that could have helped in some cases, but if you are predisposed to believe ill of the police, admitting that the worst of the worst was involved in the investigation from the get-go is not going to be forgotten. Do you really think those jurors care who introduced the allegations of racism? Do you think they trust the prosecution because they have a black attorney on the bench? Because they fired the first shot at Fuhrman? I don’t think so and I agree with them, they should not have. I did not know that the explanation of the DNA evidence went over the jury’s head, but if that is so I am not surprised. IIRC the DA’s presenter was a novice and the Defense’s cross examiner was Barry Scheck (sp?) who is the premier expert in the country. He would be expected to muddy the waters.
In my mind Johnny Cochran won the entire case when he said there had been a “rush to judgment” because it was true. I think the guy was guilty, but there is no question the LAPD and the DA’s office thought so too and that is not the way to conduct an investigation.
Again, that makes no difference!
Let me repeat from my previous post:
Not just because he was not the lead investigator, as Martin Hyde has pointed out, but also because: (1) the prosecution threw out Fuhrman’s entire testimony themselves, making the whole issue moot, and (2) there was more than enough other evidence demonstrating O.J.'s guilt!
You cannot justifiably acquit someone because you don’t believe legally irrelevant testimony that the prosecution has withdrawn from their case and their closing argument.
There is no justification for your Fuhrman tunnel-vision. None at all. Just as there was no justification to acquit O.J. None at all.
I hope you don’t believe that’s not highly disingenuous. Are you suggesting that it was mere idle coincidence that someone happened to bump up against the air conditioner outlet in an obscure, overgrown, unused area that was not a walkway, at O.J. Simpson’s house, at night, within a locked and gated property, shortly after Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were brutally murdered, right near the area the bloody glove was found, but long before any cops arrived?
Do tell.
And how do you account for the blood of Ron Goldman on O.J.'s car? That’s quite a mysterious amount of blood evidence to magically jump from person to person in a totally innocent way.
Where did you find this bit of totally nonsensical information? The police went into O.J’s property without a warrant because they found a suicide note written by O.J. and could not locate his person. The genuine belief that someone is attempting to commit suicide (supported by a note that basically says this) is more than enough reason for police to go into a residence without a warrant–there is a legitimate claim that they were worried about his health and safety.
The poor ruling from Ito you meant to talk about is most likely the one in which Ito said they could question Fuhrman about whether or not he had ever used racial slurs without having any evidence to support the claim that he had planted evidence. Initially, Ito ruled the defense could not question Fuhrman about his past use of racial slurs without actually having any evidence that Fuhrman had planted evidence. For whatever reason, Ito eventually reversed this ruling and that is probably the turning point in the case. Whether or not Fuhrman was a racist should have been irrelevant in a court of law, the defense had no credible evidence that anything was planted, only evidence about Fuhrman not being a nice guy. The actual evidence against O.J. Simpson was overwhelming, they failed to refute pretty much any of it, but what they succeeded in doing was destroying the reputation of a cop (a pretty assholish cop who I feel no sympathy for, but all this was done without, in my mind, doing anything to remotely cast doubt on the actual evidence Fuhrman collected.)
Invoking your Fifth Amendment right is not an admission of guilt, period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is simply wrong. I can imagine you do not feel I deserve “a voice” because of the fact that for your totally incorrect statement to stand you would have to disregard the factual truth of the matter, that invoking 5th Amendment rights is not an admission of guilt.
Do you have any credible evidence that Fuhrman ever doctored a police report or planted evidence? I’ve never seen any, I’d be genuinely fascinated to see it brought to light.
Okay, here we go:
(1) Kato testified that someone bumped up against the air conditioner outlet…
(2)… in an obscure, overgrown, unused area that was not a walkway…
(3)… at O.J. Simpson’s house, at night, within a locked and gated property…
(4) … shortly after Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were brutally murdered…
(5) … right in the area the bloody glove was found…
(6) … with both Nicole Brown’s and Ron Goldman’s blood on it …
(7) … with particles of Goldman’s hair and carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco …
(8) … long before any cops arrived.
If the glove was not left at the time Kato heard the person bumping against the air conditioner, when else could it possibly have been left? What other reason could there be for someone to be in an obscure, overgrown, unused area that was not a walkway, at O.J. Simpson’s house, at night, within a locked and gated property, shortly after Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were brutally murdered, right in the area the bloody glove was found, with both Nicole Brown’s and Ron Goldman’s blood on it, with particles of Goldman’s hair and carpet fibers from Simpson’s Bronco, long before any cops arrived?