Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 4
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 6/6/2016 7:09:46 AM EST
[#1]
Wu Ha Happen Wuz...
Link Posted: 6/6/2016 8:26:54 AM EST
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Sloppy police work is certainly a factor; especially on the scale of the murder investigation.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
That video is Scheck asking Fung if he was wearing gloves when he collected the socks and he said he was and then he showed a video where who ever collected them didn't have gloves on.

Something similar to that.

Little shit like that added up. Probably stuff that shouldn't have been a factor in the case.

ETA I read the description on the video and it was not the socks, but he ripped him over the socks too.


Sloppy police work is certainly a factor; especially on the scale of the murder investigation.


Fuhrman had to take the fifth when asked if he planted evidence. The jury got it right, how could they with a clear conscience convict when Furhman basically admitted planting evidence? It was clear OJ did it but the police fucked up so bad the jury had no choice but to vote not guilty.

To me it looked like if the LAPD left the evidence to speak for itself OJ would have been convicted but they were so used to bolstering cases through fraudulent evidence they fucked themselves when a decent defense team was involved. OJ getting away with murder is on them, not the defense, not the judge, not the prosecution or the jury, it is their fault.

Fuhrman should have been prosecuted for what he had done.
Link Posted: 6/6/2016 8:40:44 AM EST
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


He admitted to planting evidence before and then pled the 5th Amendment when asked about the investigation at hand.

What would you think if you were on a jury, for any type of case, and the detective pled the 5th as an answer to a claim that he planted evidence?






Wouldn't you like to know whether or not a witness is a felon or has a history of doing dishonest acts as a juror?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would have thought that a typical judge would make both sides stick to the facts of the case and not go off on tangents.

The jury believes that Furman planted the bloody glove at Simpson's house and the blood in the Bronco.

Does anyone outside of the jury believe that? They only got to hear what was presented in front of them. We got to see all the talking heads every night plus the stuff they saw.


He admitted to planting evidence before and then pled the 5th Amendment when asked about the investigation at hand.

What would you think if you were on a jury, for any type of case, and the detective pled the 5th as an answer to a claim that he planted evidence?






Wouldn't you like to know whether or not a witness is a felon or has a history of doing dishonest acts as a juror?


Judge Ito did a pretty decent job with what he was handed. From my perspective and what I believe to be the jurors OJ was guilty but there was no way to know what was good evidence and what was the LAPD planting evidence to bolster the case against a clearly guilty person. If Furhman could honestly say he never planted evidence I think OJ would have been convicted despite the problems.

Link Posted: 6/6/2016 10:00:48 AM EST
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Fuhrman had to take the fifth when asked if he planted evidence. The jury got it right, how could they with a clear conscience convict when Furhman basically admitted planting evidence? It was clear OJ did it but the police fucked up so bad the jury had no choice but to vote not guilty.

To me it looked like if the LAPD left the evidence to speak for itself OJ would have been convicted but they were so used to bolstering cases through fraudulent evidence they fucked themselves when a decent defense team was involved. OJ getting away with murder is on them, not the defense, not the judge, not the prosecution or the jury, it is their fault.

Fuhrman should have been prosecuted for what he had done.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That video is Scheck asking Fung if he was wearing gloves when he collected the socks and he said he was and then he showed a video where who ever collected them didn't have gloves on.

Something similar to that.

Little shit like that added up. Probably stuff that shouldn't have been a factor in the case.

ETA I read the description on the video and it was not the socks, but he ripped him over the socks too.


Sloppy police work is certainly a factor; especially on the scale of the murder investigation.


Fuhrman had to take the fifth when asked if he planted evidence. The jury got it right, how could they with a clear conscience convict when Furhman basically admitted planting evidence? It was clear OJ did it but the police fucked up so bad the jury had no choice but to vote not guilty.

To me it looked like if the LAPD left the evidence to speak for itself OJ would have been convicted but they were so used to bolstering cases through fraudulent evidence they fucked themselves when a decent defense team was involved. OJ getting away with murder is on them, not the defense, not the judge, not the prosecution or the jury, it is their fault.

Fuhrman should have been prosecuted for what he had done.


In fairness to Fuhrman, he was essentially required to plead the fifth to that question, as he had already done so to a question as to whether he had lied in his earlier testimony.  A witness cannot jump back and forth between using the protection of the fifth amendment and not, essentially only answering those questions that they want to.  The defense would have known this, and by forcing him to invoke the fifth amendment with their previous question, were then able to force his response to their provocative questionas about planting evidence.  It doesn't MEAN anything about whether he may have planted evidence or not - but it sure makes an impression on the jury, which was the real reason the defense called him back to the stand.  Any defense with the opportunity to raise such a doubt (especially in a case where the handling of evidence is being called into question) would have done so. Mark Fuhrman was found guilty of perjury in 1996.

Mike
Link Posted: 6/6/2016 10:15:27 AM EST
[#5]
One of the gloves and shoe prints also present.







Link Posted: 6/6/2016 10:18:20 AM EST
[#6]
If this case was open/closed and OJ went away for murder, we would have never had the Kardashians. Think about that.
Link Posted: 6/6/2016 11:21:40 AM EST
[#7]
Link Posted: 6/6/2016 11:39:27 AM EST
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


That plus when he was starting to confess, the interviewing detectives weren't paying attention and changed the subject to talk about football.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The whole world knows he did it...just missing the details.  The prosecution in that case are the ones responsible for him getting away with murder.

It's not that he was innocent...it's just that "...guilty beyond a reasonable doubt..." was never proven correctly.

Prosecutorial AIDS and Fail ruled that trial.

I read the prosecution put all their eggs in a DNA and science basket without realizing the majority of the jurors had the IQs of a rock. Most of the jurors didn't even know what DNA was.
 

The LA police operated under their own rules for years and had extremely poor relations with blacks and other minorities. The defense was smart and quickly turned it into an issue of race, a black man vs LAPD.
 


That plus when he was starting to confess, the interviewing detectives weren't paying attention and changed the subject to talk about football.


As someone who loved doing a good interrogation, that transcript makes me so angry
Link Posted: 6/6/2016 12:37:30 PM EST
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Wouldn't surprise me if he does confess. They can't try him again.
View Quote


Sure they can, at the Federal level.

Charge him with Conspiracy to Violate a Person's Civil rights.

Happened to the cops who beat up Rodney King. They were acquitted at the local level and the DOJ got convictions for 2 of the 4 cops for federal civil rights charges.
Link Posted: 6/8/2016 4:37:07 PM EST
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


This is very well known....Cochran repeatedly blasted the race issue every time he was in front of a camera.


The defense team knew that they simply could not dispute the physical evidence, so Cochran convinced them that the only way to counter it was to fuel the passion and distrust of the public (and jurors) toward the LAPD and challenge the validity of the evidence collection/handling. They weren't even coy about the fact that they were accusing the LAPD of framing OJ and that race had much to do with it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Shapiro in the very begining was actually talking with OJ to make a plea deal then something changed and it wound up going to trial.
 

Cochran got on board the legal team and saw that it would be easy to use the hatred and mistrust the blacks had for the LAPD.  
 


Bullshit. Black juries convict black defendants every day in LA county.

The prosecutors were too busy fucking each other and lining up their own books deals to bring their "A" game. Meanwhile OJ got the legal defense that every American under criminal charges should be afforded and usually don't get.


This is very well known....Cochran repeatedly blasted the race issue every time he was in front of a camera.


The defense team knew that they simply could not dispute the physical evidence, so Cochran convinced them that the only way to counter it was to fuel the passion and distrust of the public (and jurors) toward the LAPD and challenge the validity of the evidence collection/handling. They weren't even coy about the fact that they were accusing the LAPD of framing OJ and that race had much to do with it.


Are you joking? They tore the evidence collection to pieces. Yeah, they had him dead to rights but you fuck up the handling and a good attorney will destroy it.

Even my old man, who worked homicide cases and HATED OJ, said the prosecution was fucked.
Link Posted: 6/21/2016 3:50:20 AM EST
[#11]
Just finished OJ Made in America documentary. Amazing insight and his former agent telling about OJ confessing to him while high was
Link Posted: 6/21/2016 9:56:18 AM EST
[#12]
I watch the latest documentary also. According to what some of the jurors said it was basically a case of jury nullification. Mainly due to the attitudes and treatment of blacks by the LAPD over the past few years. One juror went as far to say that OJs not guilty verdict was a direct result of the Rodney King beating.
Page / 4
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top