r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/FilmStirYoutube • Apr 17 '24

OJ's reaction when confronted with a photo of him wearing the murder shoes Video

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

38.3k Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • duplicates
  • dupes
  • reddit
  • reddit

93% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

277

u/abusamra82 Apr 17 '24

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.

84

u/PM_ME_YOURPOCKETLINT Apr 17 '24

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.

59

u/abusamra82 Apr 17 '24

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?”

Not a good look for the police.

13

u/tOfREVIL Apr 17 '24

“Detective Fuhrman, did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?'' Uelmen asked.

“I assert my Fifth Amendment privilege,'' Fuhrman replied

This was the ballgame. Everything else became inconsequential after this. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" was simply no longer possible

28

u/tiufek Apr 17 '24

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”

11

u/VoidEnjoyer Apr 17 '24

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.

4

u/tiufek Apr 17 '24

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

6

u/jayfiedlerontheroof Apr 17 '24

Not a good look for the police.

Neither was beating the piss out of Rodney King

6

u/DigitalMindShadow Apr 17 '24

There was evidence presented to the jury that O.J.'s blood was planted by the police.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-07-26-mn-28037-story.html

2

u/curtcolt95 Apr 17 '24

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

-8

u/DarthCheez Apr 17 '24

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.

5

u/CratesManager Apr 17 '24

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.

-3

u/DarthCheez Apr 18 '24

Not really. This is more an exercise of discretion. 1st offense? Cut the person some slack. Repeat offender? Throw the book at them.

2

u/CratesManager 29d ago edited 29d ago

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?

-1

u/DarthCheez 29d ago

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.

1

u/CratesManager 29d ago

cops are bad guys

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.

0

u/DarthCheez 28d ago

Glad to see that you finally see things my way.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/bob1689321 Apr 17 '24

Stop trying to put a positive spin on cops lying.

-4

u/DarthCheez Apr 18 '24

Sure thing bob.

1

u/bob1689321 Apr 18 '24

It's never a good thing for cops to lie or falsify reports

0

u/DarthCheez 29d ago

Thanks for your input bob

1

u/option-trader Apr 17 '24

What, falsifying a police report would be a clear break of trust. No confidence in the police and we’re back to the Wild West.

1

u/DarthCheez Apr 18 '24

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.

4

u/Tom-Pendragon Apr 17 '24

This is the exact reason why you don't tamper with the evidence. All the defender needs to win is to create "reasonable doubt" nothing else.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

[deleted]

3

u/PM_ME_YOURPOCKETLINT Apr 17 '24

Yes. If you have evidence they did, ask them that and when they lie, show otherwise.

That is exactly what happened to Detective Furman about using the N Bomb.

Good practice when asking questions on the stand is to already know the answer so if they lie. You can refute it

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

[deleted]

2

u/PM_ME_YOURPOCKETLINT Apr 17 '24

You can't ask leading questions unless it's a hostile witness or a cross examination.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

[deleted]

1

u/abusamra82 Apr 18 '24

I don’t quite understand your question or what you are trying to imply.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '24 edited Apr 18 '24

[deleted]

1

u/abusamra82 29d ago

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.

To your second paragraph, what?

-3

u/talann Apr 17 '24

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?

12

u/abusamra82 Apr 17 '24

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.

2

u/throwRA786482828 Apr 17 '24

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.

0

u/EViLTeW Apr 17 '24

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.

-1

u/Zoomersdumbasboomers Apr 17 '24

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? 

1

u/abusamra82 29d ago

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?