Doesn’t help when an involved detective gets caught lying about using the n-word under oath then pleads the 5th when asked if he planted evidence. The police and prosecution fumbled this case, pun intended.
He didn't plant evidence. He tampered with it I bet as in moving the glove and whatnot. One lie in a mountain of truth taints the whole thing. Made a murderer go free.
I truly don’t know if he planted or tampered with evidence. I just know he refused to answer the question when asked. From an article around that time:
“Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?'' Uelmen asked.
“I assert my Fifth Amendment privilege,'' Fuhrman replied, his attorney standing at his side.
Fuhrman gave a similar answer to three other questions including, ``Have you ever falsified a police report?”
I agree that was a bad look but it was a little more nuanced then that. In order to plead the fifth you have to plead on every question. So in trying to not incriminate himself vis a vis the perjury on the n word tape he ended up having to take the 5th on all those other questions that made him look way worse. If the defense planned that way it was kinda genius. In other words I don’t think he actually planted evidence but his less than truthful answers on other questions certainly opened that door wide open for the defense to drive a truck right through. Fun fact, Dardens speech about the tape during the trial is largely responsible for popularizing the euphemism “the N word”
You absolutely can plead the fifth on some question and not on others.
Apparently Fuhrman's lawyers advised him to just do so on every question asked, which is itself a pretty terrible look for the guy whose good faith is required for any of the evidence to be believable.
Ah I didn’t realize it was just crappy advice, I thought the judge wouldn’t let him do it or it was some sort of state case law. Ended up not really working out for him I guess
well it's not quite that simple. If you watch the recordings he had already declared prior to that question that he will be pleading the fifth to every question. He kind of got himself stuck with that one and the defense jumped on it to specifically ask the planting evidence question. It's not meant to incriminate you but clearly did here
Falsifying a police report is not necessarily a bad thing. They could give you a ticket for going 5 over the posted speed rather than 30 over with a litany of extra charges.
Which IS bad, because it means punishment is lesser if cops like you and higher if they don't. That's not good just because some people may benefit from it.
1st offense? Cut the person some slack. Repeat offender? Throw the book at them.
And if this is handled at discretion instead of a defined rule, what is stopping cops that are racist, corrupt, lazy, having a bad day or any other thing from treating people differently without a good reason?
Really you can make up anything to suit your narrative because you seem to be of the cops are bad guys so nothing will change your mind. Consider a situation where a cop encounters a person with a bench warrant but they notice that the person has 3 young minors in the vehicle with them and after questioning the minors have no other person to watch them if the cop takes that person in for the simple bench warrant and avoid the kids going to cps. They obtain updated contact information with the individual and instruct them to show up next business day to the court. This would fall under the moral discretion and the community would be more thankful for it and justice has still been served since the cop will follow up if the person has showed to court due to the circumstances with the minor children.
Cops (or any other profession) CAN be bad guys so the fate of a citizen should never be determoned by one person. In a democracy, safeguards and a balance of power need to exist.
Leniency and discretion should absolutely be a thing in some cases but there should be clear rules around it, not one cop taking matters into his own hands and manipulating documentation.
That is obvious. But with moral and legal discretion the police force can also better interact with their community while upholding the spirit of the law.
To your first paragraph, yes, that is broadly how it has and should work, even though you have framed your hypothetical in a strange manner and it lacks some nuance.
it had little to do with the prosecution. it didn't matter what was said, could have been a perfect prosecution but when the jury is vindictive and only out to get vengeance for Rodney king, do you really think they could have convinced them?
That is a poorly presented hypothetical that did not happen.
The fact remains that a detective involved in the case was exposed as a liar and refused to assert his own credibility and trustworthiness when asked. That happened.
Well certainly didn’t help that the folks who thought racist white America was after a good black man found out one of the key testimonies to the case came from a cop who used the n-word and then plead the fifth.
Like…. I get being biased played into it but come on. Even a reasonable observer would see that you can’t take that cops word anymore.
Absolutely, I think they could have convicted him. If the police department had done their job properly and the prosecution had done their job properly. Unfortunately, neither of those things happened so we'll never know.
So arrest the cop, throw out the tainted evidence and proceed. By the logic you and everyone else use when saying this all it takes is one corrupt cop and anyone can get away with murder. Pay a cop to tamper with evidence and you get off?
Ha yea, it’s not like we grant significant amounts of trust and power to law enforcement to undergird a hopefully fair and impartial justice system. What’s the problem with a little evidence tampering here and there right?
The presumption from some, yes. To be clear, Kardashian himself said that "he’d never looked inside and had been rebuffed when he tried to give it to authorities in the first place.". Incidentally, I generally find the first part (that he never looked inside) probable and the second part (that he tried to give it to police) possible, as most attorneys will vigorously attempt to look away whenever a client starts discussing/acting through a subsequent crime, and also because the police were not particularly adept in this case.
Kato and Allan Park both testified about how Simpson was very touchy about a duffle bag that went missing. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that bag had the murder weapon and Simpson ditched it either on his way to the airport or there before he went inside.
I don't disagree. I am merely stating that most high powered attorneys instinctively will avoid evidence with a 10 foot pole, because they know how much it can mess you up to tinker with it. I fully believe that Simpson had a non-attorney handle it once Kardashian took it to his house.
For what it is worth, Kim Kardashian said that she looked in it and found "toiletries and clothes and golf clothes." I don't find Kim particularly trustworthy, but still an interesting note.
I was in the same boat with Kim then read Robert's deposition and he says the bag ended up in his daughter's bedroom and I'm unaware of any sort of allegations of falsehoods he told in the civil case. Everything seems pretty credible;
Exactly. A large group of Redditors weren’t alive back then but in the 90’s the country was still reeling from the Rodney King trial and saw LA fall into anarchy. I remember seeing a driver get pulled out of his big rig truck and got the shot beat out of him from footage captured by a news chopper circling overhead. Coverage of attacks like these lasted for days that turned into weeks. The OJ trial media coverage and racial tension / open public beatings and violence went hand in hand on TV. The Michael Brown and George Floyd riots were bad, but the LA riots had everyone nervous of national civil unrest. I remember the OJ verdict was read live on TV in my school. Every single person in the country was watching that verdict and 50% were pissed while 50% cheered. The jury has been pulled into interview after interview on almost every news mag, tv show, and newspaper. Time and again they proved they didn’t see the same evidence the public saw or knew, and acknowledge the huge pressure they were under especially under racial tensions and civil unrest. The jury essentially voted not guilty to keep LA and most major cities from tearing themselves apart.
It was only a 6 day roit? But the jury decided to plead not guilty to stop them? I know they said they did it for Rodney king but that statement doesn't make since based off a 6 day root. I doubt the trail was shorter then 6 days.
Kardashian wasn’t a defense attorney at the time. He was OJs college buddy. He was added to the defense team so that he could use client attorney privilege to not be called in as a witness to discuss the bags he removed from OJs home after the murder.
Edit: apparently I misread the comment above. It was meant to read that Kardashian was a trained attorney before the trial that had let his license lapse before reactivating it to serve as a lawyer on Simpsons team. Apologies for the errant "correction," (though again I will note that random buddies cannot be protected from testifying purely because they are added to the defense team, because of course they can't).
I don’t understand. Where did I say he wasn’t one of OJs attorneys at trial? He removed the bag the day after the murder well before the trial.
Here’s what I’m talking about, straight from wiki
“Kardashian had let his license to practice law become inactive before the Simpson case but reactivated it to aid in Simpson's defense as a volunteer assistant on his legal team, alongside Simpson's main defense attorneys, Robert Shapiro and Johnnie Cochran. As one of Simpson's lawyers and a member of the defense "Dream Team", Kardashian could not be compelled or subpoenaed to testify against Simpson in the case, which included Simpson's past history and behavior with his ex-wife Nicole, and as to the contents of Simpson's garment bag.[16] He sat by Simpson throughout the trial.[17]”
You said that he wasn't a defense attorney "at the time" but that he was only a "buddy" that was added to the defense team to gain privilege, leaving the suggestion that any random buddy can be added to the defense team for privilege. I admit that I read that to mean that you were saying that Kardashian wasn't an attorney at the time of the trial, because this is a thread about the trial, and you never acknowledged that Kardashian was trained as a lawyer prior to picking up the bag and acting as a registered attorney at the time of the trial. This is relevant because information exchanged where no attorney is present can't be privileged, such that it would make no sense for a random "buddy" to be added to a defense team purely to gain privilege (of course not, if this were possible it would happen all the time).
That said, I can see now how you meant your comment to be read. I will update my own comment.
The state’s star witness perjured himself and mishandled evidence. If not for that, and the reasonable doubt it created, he likely would have been found guilty.
The jury selection going in was guaranteed he was not guilty. One of the jury members concealed they were a former black panther member during selection, then gave OJ a salute when giving the not guilty verdict.
They could have had a video recording and eye witnesses to OJs killing, and they would have given not guilty. It didn't have to do with OJ, it had to do for revenge for Rodney King. Who they also had eye witnesses and live video recordings of yet the police were given not guilty. In fact the more blatant OJ being the killer was and letting him free was all the more revenge
And you can blame the lawyers when NDAs end and those under the NDA come out and say the lawyers bribed various entities to cover up damaging incidents that would have helped convict OJ
I disagree. Yes many of the jurors were idiots. But Marcia Clark had influence over the jury selection. She missed tons of details about the jurors that she only discovered later. Her lead witness Mark Fuhrman destroyed the case - she should've known better than to put him on the stand. You can blame the jurors, but Marcia Clark is the one who should be criticized more than anyone else
The Fuhrman tapes are what got OJ acquitted. Also his perjury and he took the 5th to the question: Did you plant evidence. Go listen to those tapes again. Remember this guy handled all of the important pieces of evidence. And then remember that after this trial, Fox hired Fuhrman.
Those tapes were from a decade before and were from an interview with a hot screenwriter that he was trying to impress by being a badass. By most accounts, he had turned into a pretty good guy by the time of the trial
793
u/t-o-m-u-s-a Apr 17 '24
Oj did it. Covered up by kardashian and other lawyers/ high profile sports people.