[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t have to account for any of the evidence because as I said before I think the guy is guilty. My comments were directed towards those who assert that threre is no way any reasonable person could find reasonable doubt. I disagree with that. As to the blood, there is evidence that Van Atter was walking around with a vial of O.J.'s blood for 10 hours, a very unusual circumstance. If we are talking about police officers rigging evidence to convict O.J. because they think he is guilty then all evidence is suspect. I don’t think that is what happened but the fact that Fuhrman was an important witness and important part of the investigation, was the first person on the grounds at O.J.'s without a search warrant, lied on the stand, is a proven racist who took the 5th Amendment with regard to whether he ever tampered with evidence, well then anything is possible.
With respect to the illegal search and seizure there was no testimony that the police enterted because of any suicide note. That note as far as I know was discovered long after the police had already climbed the wall. It was LAPD policy to notify the next of kin in the case of a murder, that would have been the parents of the deceased, not the estranged spouse. It is not LAPD policy to send 4 detectives to notify someone that a relative has died. Van Attter testified that Simpson was not a suspect and they entered without a warrant because someone may have been in danger. Lance Ito found Van Atter’s testimony with regard to his application for a warrant to contain a "reckless disregard’ for the truth. There was zero evidence when Fuhrman jumped the wall of any danger to any inhabitant within the house. There was later testimony that Van Atter stated that when a woman dies the prime suspect is “always the spouse.” This was heard by an FBI agent who only reported it after the defense found out about it. It demonstrates that O.J. was immediately considered a suspect and casts doubt on everything the police said motivated them to enter without a warrant, which they did by the way almost 5 hours after the murders. Exigent circumstances 5 hours later?
As far as the 5th amendment any atttorney will tell you that the jury immediately draws a conclusion of guilt with respect to any one who asserts the privilege. That this jury did so should come as no surprise.
As for whether I have credible evidence of Fuhrman’s malfeasance, I am not an investigator but the fact that his career is over in L.A. and the reputation of police officers the world over for protecting their own would make it very surprising if I did wouldn’t it? Just out of curiosity what do you think the reason for his assertion of the privilege was?