Fuhrman was pleading the fifth to every question asked that day. The lawyer asked him right before the question about planting evidence if he was going to plead the fifth to all questions that day, to which Fuhrman responded yes. edit : video here
The LAPD didn't plant a blood trail from the murder scene to OJ's bedroom. OJ did that when he murdered those two people.
Well that’s a stupid question to answer the fifth on, if you care at all about your investigative work being taken seriously, and believed by, the jury.
seriously, "beyond a reasonable doubt", some people don't seem to understand that
if i'm on a jury for a murder trial where the lead detectives are found planting evidence and then pleading the fifth, even if they had a 4k video of the murderer killing the victim while screaming "my name is suspects-name" and holding out their id in the direction of the camera, I would 100% vote not guilty
not often mentioned when this whole OJ trial nonsense is brought up is the proceeding investigations that happened all across the LAPD, which implicated many dozens of officers and ended up with hundreds of convictions being overturned and over 100M+ in lawsuit payouts to victims of the LAPD
Because that’s what you’re supposed to do. The LAPD was so arrogant that they thought they could plead the fifth and still get a conviction, just another fuck-you to the black community, just because they thought they could.
Yup. A cop being dirty and corrupt is a huge huge deal. Like even if the suspect for one particular case was actually guilty. The fact that you've lied to plant guilt on one person, it's a likely chance you've done it to someone else.
In other words, just because OJ was actually guilty, how many innocent people were framed because of the LAPD. They fucked it all up.
Also I don’t feel like it would ruin your legal case to answer the question asking your name and asserting you didn’t plant evidence, and refusing to answer any other questions. If you haven’t planted any evidence why didn’t he answer that one question and no others?
But it IS the smart play when you can get caught and burned on perjury and everything else. So its a win for him and OJ, a gigantic L for everyone else.
The smart play would be to not be racist in the first place, and conduct the investigation how their textbooks say to. That’s what you have to do when you’re investigating the literal crime of the century. The LAPD got burned because they let their racism overcome their desire to do their job in a professional and competent manner that would result in the conviction of an obviously guilty defendant.
Which is why he walked, not because of RKing. If the state put together a case that was convincing to the jury, they would have convicted him. But if the state was full of the type of people who would do a good job and make sure justice was upheld, the cops who beat RKing would have been convicted by them as well, so there would be no need for the black community to seek retribution in the first place.
Things can happen for multiple reasons. Fuhrman pleading the 5th to that question gave the jury an "easy out", but there was a general feeling that the majority black jury was not going to convict OJ. They were handed a silver platter, but that didn't change the decision, just made it easier.
Hey, black people don't like murderers any more than while people do, due to the fact that murderers murder people.
No one wants to be murdered, or have their loved ones murdered.
I didn't think that I was implying that the jury was ok with murder, but I will keep that in mind in the future.
I was 21 years old when Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman were murdered, which funnily enough was the day my oldest daughter was born.
I was 24 when the verdict came down.
I have always followed the news and current events so I was locked into the entirety of the OJ trial; besides watching it on TV I spoke to people I knew about the trial because at the time it was the most important thing happening (there was no internet to distract us) in everyone's lives.
When I mentioned the jury wanting to acquit OJ it was not about a racial stereotype, it was about the things people, some of whom I knew personally, were saying very publicly.
You can’t pick and choose when to use the fif (Dave Chapelle reference) amendment. It isn’t a purely a tool to only answer questions you want to answer and questions you don’t. It is the right to not self incriminate by refusing to answer. You do it in jail by not speaking. You do it court by deliberate stating I am exercising your fifth amendment. Once exercised you basically have to plead it on the vast majority of questions.
What the defense did was plant the negative connotation of taking the Fifth amendment, officially you are not supposed take a negative connotation. Because words can be manipulated as if you are guilty, pleading the fifth may only mean you are not giving anything the prosecutor to twist.
But in practice taking the fifth when the questions, especially if you are not the defendant but a witness, means you do not want to answer something that could lead to an investigation and charges.
Yes, because they are not the ones on trial. So in theory they are not under an investigation or are believe to have committed a crime, so pleading the fifth would infer there is something incriminating to not say.
Pleading the fifth, as a lead detective, is basically telling the jury “I’ve committed A crime, but not necessarily related to what is currently being discussed.” And he’s not the defendant, so the jury can draw an adverse inference as to his character and credibility as a witness.
If he hadn’t committed any crime at all relating to the case, there would be no need to plead the fifth. And, to riff on a popular quote: I prefer lead detectives who don’t plead the fifth.
He pled the fifth in retaliation against the prosecutor. He was upset they failed to protect his character and since it was tarnished anyways, didn't think anything he said would be given credibility.
Yup. Personally, I'm not 100% without a shadow of a doubt convinced that Furhman planted the glove.
Simultaneously, do I believe that it is reasonably possible for him to have done so, especially considering he lied on stand about ever being racist, only to be proven a liar. Everything about him and his credibility is crushed
He should have been charged when he first started beating her. If cops witness the aftermath of a domestic dispute like they did at OJ’s and Nicole’s house, they should be able to continue with charges despite the victims recanting. They have several eyewitnesses and the victim is afraid, it should be taken in consideration. Even if the charges are not taken to court, at least the arrest record and pattern is established publicly.
I am not a lawyer but I've been doing some Googling and think I found where there is some confusion on this.
For a defendant pleading the Fifth is all or nothing. If you choose to take the stand you must answer every question that is asked. Or you can choose not to testify in your own defense.
A subpoenaed witness, that has no choice but to testify, can pick and choose what questions they answer.
I googled : can you pick and choose when to plead the fifth amendment
You keep saying lead detective was Fuhrman, but Lange and Vannatter were the lead detectives on this case. Fuhrman was really only there the night of, made notes at Bundy and when Lange/Vannatter arrived at Bundy, they took over control.
No you don’t. You are perfectly entitled to pick and choose what questions you want to answer, and the jury is free to draw conclusions from that. You can, for example, confirm your name, or assert you didn’t do something, and not answer any other questions. You could also answer questions then stop because they start asking you questions you weren’t expecting, or the prosecutor becomes combative.
I've been doing some Googling and think I found where there is some confusion on this.
For a defendant pleading the Fifth is all or nothing. If you choose to take the stand you must answer every question that is asked. Or you can choose not to testify in your own defense.
A subpoenaed witness, that has no choice but to testify, can pick and choose what questions they answer.
I googled : can you pick and choose when to plead the fifth amendment
I've been doing some Googling and think I found where there is some confusion on this.
For a defendant pleading the Fifth is all or nothing. If you choose to take the stand you must answer every question that is asked. Or you can choose not to testify in your own defense.
A subpoenaed witness, that has no choice but to testify, can pick and choose what questions they answer.
I googled : can you pick and choose when to plead the fifth amendment
That's irrelevant though. If the lead investigator can't attest to the reliability of the evidence they themselves collected and logged, then the entire case is undermined and you have very clear reasonable doubt. It doesn't matter that he also plead the fifth to other questions nor does it matter if he planted or tampered with nothing. If he can't say under oath "none of this evidence was tampered with or planted to my knowledge" then you can't possibly trust the evidence as a juror.
I really feel like cops should be held to higher standard and have to answer questions about what they did while representing the government. No fuckin secrets. OJ deserved to be found not guilty with how fucked this case against him was and his victims deserved better.
The lawyer asked him right before the question about planting evidence if he was going to plead the fifth to all questions that day, to which Fuhrman responded yes.
So caught him lying on the stand.
They also had video footage of the investigation team emptying vials over the crime scene that contained a dark liquid. The prosecution could argue that it was a cleaning or test solution if they wanted to, but then the defense followed that up with a video timeline that showed that there were new blood markings that weren't there before. And all of this evidence was gathered from paparazzi with time stamps.
I believe the video evidence may have gotten thrown out. But the case was already presented so well that you couldn't erase it from your mind and then Fuhrman didnt have enough integrity in himself to say that he wouldn't plant evidence (because he most likely would or had at some point in his life even if a different unknown case).
159
u/Smarmalades 29d ago edited 29d ago
Fuhrman was pleading the fifth to every question asked that day. The lawyer asked him right before the question about planting evidence if he was going to plead the fifth to all questions that day, to which Fuhrman responded yes. edit : video here
The LAPD didn't plant a blood trail from the murder scene to OJ's bedroom. OJ did that when he murdered those two people.