CA - O.J. Simpson & the murders of Nicole Brown, Ron Goldman, 1994 *not guilty*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

LinasK said:
I worked with black people who were ecstatic that OJ got off. It was tough!
Click to expand...

I'm sure. What I was questioning was whether they were celebrating the death of two white people OR one instance in which the justice system--which they viewed as fundamentally hostile to African-Americans--lost its attempt to put another black man in prison.

As I recall it, the OJ murders and trial came at a time when a number of black, male celebrities (Mike Tyson, Michael Jackson (civil, not criminal)) seemed to have been "brought down" by The System.

And we know from later evidence that African-Americans were regularly framed by officers in the Rampart division (an area where a number of jurors lived).

Ms. Brown and Mr. Simpson had been dead for a couple of years. I still think the celebration (however wrongheaded) was inspired by the defeat of a corrupt system (even though it wasn't corrupt in this particular case), NOT by the death of two white people.
 
LinasK said:
His whole "Dream Team" knew they were defending a GUILTY man. I corresponded with one of them years after the fact. Claims it was "moral cover". Two of the are dead- Kardashian and Cochran. Wonder if the stress contributed to killing them...
Click to expand...

What does "moral cover" mean, Linas? (Sorry to be dense. I am seriously asking.)

In line with your post, I thought Lawrence Schiller's book did a good job of showing how each member of the defense team made his own "deal with the devil".
 
LinasK said:
Dateline aired the trial last night, plus the civil trial and his current conviction- 33 years, but he's eligible for parole in 2017, ugh!
There were a couple of witnesses we didn't hear about that could have bolstered the prosecution- a woman who saw him speeding away from Bundy with his lights off shortly after the time of the murders and recognized him- but she sold her story. And a man at LAX airport who witnessed OJ dumping items from his gym bag into a trash can there. It was too late to retrieve the items when they found out about it. Kato also admitted OJ pressured him to lie about his alibi, about the time they went to McDonald's (right before the murders).
And when the jury saw OJ's house, all the pictures of OJ with white people were changed to pictures of black people to stage it to sway the jury.
They also played OJ's depo tapes where he admitted beating her up, and he told his prosecution team, "If this jury convicts me, then I guess I did it!"
OJ's blood matched what was found at the crime scene- this was no plant!
Click to expand...

Sad part of the whole thing for me was that Domestic Violence against women got lost in the cluster buck. So sad it was. At one time they were a lovely couple. Such a sad, sad ending for Nicole and Ron.
 
Nova said:
I'm sure. What I was questioning was whether they were celebrating the death of two white people OR one instance in which the justice system--which they viewed as fundamentally hostile to African-Americans--lost its attempt to put another black man in prison.

As I recall it, the OJ murders and trial came at a time when a number of black, male celebrities (Mike Tyson, Michael Jackson (civil, not criminal)) seemed to have been "brought down" by The System.

And we know from later evidence that African-Americans were regularly framed by officers in the Rampart division (an area where a number of jurors lived).

Ms. Brown and Mr. Goldman had been dead for a couple of years. I still think the celebration (however wrongheaded) was inspired by the defeat of a corrupt system (even though it wasn't corrupt in this particular case), NOT by the death of two white people.
Click to expand...

(Edited because I typed "Simpson" instead of "Goldman".)
 
I was watching a special on the case the other day. I was a young child when it happened, but I'd always read a lot about it, so I was familiar with all the facts. However, even though I knew that Fuhrman had gotten in trouble for racist recordings, I had not realized that he plead the fifth when asked if he planted evidence. What is the general explanation for that? I've never doubted OJ's guilt, although the strangeness and highly public nature of all the drama does make me see how some people come up with vast conspiracies. But I can see why his lawyers gloated about that and declared it was reasonable doubt. The question was whether prosecutors proved their case, not whether he was guilty, and I can sort of see why the jurors acquitted. People always say "oh yeah, do you think OJ is innocent too?" when acquittals come up, but it's kind of confusing the issues. Awful situation all around - the poor kids of OJ and Nicole, and just awful for the Goldman family. Everything got lost in the chaos.
 
I think that you have to answer each subsequent question with that same response once you have pled the fifth? That's what I have always understood but I could be wrong.

FYI - Mark Fuhrman moved to this area a year so two after OJ was acquitted. He had a local radio show for a couple of years that spotlighted crime cases and local politics.....he was very good at it and I sure miss listening to it.
 
Blondie in Spokane said:
I think that you have to answer each subsequent question with that same response once you have pled the fifth? That's what I have always understood but I could be wrong.

FYI - Mark Fuhrman moved to this area a year so two after OJ was acquitted. He had a local radio show for a couple of years that spotlighted crime cases and local politics.....he was very good at it and I sure miss listening to it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think you may be right, but I wasn't sure. Part of it is that you can't just answer the questions favorable to you, and if you are pleading the 5th inconsistently it kind of reveals which ones you don't want to answer and thus what you did. But they seemed like unconnected lines of questioning - the perjury/racial slur questions were first, then the evidence planting. I thought those could be done separately. He even looked a bit confused - checking to see if he could answer that one. The whole thing was weird.
 
Blondie in Spokane said:
I think that you have to answer each subsequent question with that same response once you have pled the fifth? That's what I have always understood but I could be wrong.

FYI - Mark Fuhrman moved to this area a year so two after OJ was acquitted. He had a local radio show for a couple of years that spotlighted crime cases and local politics.....he was very good at it and I sure miss listening to it.
Click to expand...


Yes once you plead the Fifth you have to plead it on everything. You can't pick and chose what you are going to answer. Something that was not explained to the jurors. Although I honestly don't think that would have mattered if it had been.

Mel.
 
Looking at it again, I think the reason why he had to continue is because the first question was have you been entirely truthful on the stand. So that would encompass the evidence planting, which he had denied on the stand? So he could no longer talk about anything he'd said earlier without waiving the privilege to the perjury issue. Some good lawyering there. The way they asked the question initially confused me, but now I get it.
 
Nova said:
What does "moral cover" mean, Linas? (Sorry to be dense. I am seriously asking.)

In line with your post, I thought Lawrence Schiller's book did a good job of showing how each member of the defense team made his own "deal with the devil".
Click to expand...
I interpreted it to mean that they were doing a job- they believe in the constitutional right to a good defense (whether the person is guilty or not), so they closed their eyes to the guilt they knew. I've known other defense lawyers who WILL NOT ask their clients whether they are guilty or not because they don't want to know. It makes it harder to defend when you know the truth.
 
Mels3kidz said:
Yes once you plead the Fifth you have to plead it on everything. You can't pick and chose what you are going to answer. Something that was not explained to the jurors. Although I honestly don't think that would have mattered if it had been.

Mel.
Click to expand...
Thank-you. The Dateline show didn't make that clear either. It made it look like that was the final straw that sunk the prosecution because him pleading the fifth to planting evidence, instead of an outright denial made him look guilty. It should have been a jury instruction.
 
lawstudent said:
Looking at it again, I think the reason why he had to continue is because the first question was have you been entirely truthful on the stand. So that would encompass the evidence planting, which he had denied on the stand? So he could no longer talk about anything he'd said earlier without waiving the privilege to the perjury issue. Some good lawyering there. The way they asked the question initially confused me, but now I get it.
Click to expand...
He still got hit with perjury charges, because he was caught in a lie, when he previously testified that he had never used the "n word", then there are tapes with him uttering it. Mark Fuhrman was a racist cop, but the defense capatalized on it.
 
LinasK said:
Thank-you. The Dateline show didn't make that clear either. It made it look like that was the final straw that sunk the prosecution because him pleading the fifth to planting evidence, instead of an outright denial made him look guilty. It should have been a jury instruction.
Click to expand...

The court wouldn't have been able to tell the jury why he responded that way, because we can all only theorize. There's no way they would tell the jury to infer he responded that way because he had no choice and hadn't done anything wrong. That wasn't a jury instruction issue. Fuhrman could have answered - it just risked opening the door to the racial slur issue, which he should have just admitted to. It would have looked bad, not nearly as bad as pleading the fifth.

LinasK said:
He still got hit with perjury charges, because he was caught in a lie, when he previously testified that he had never used the "n word", then there are tapes with him uttering it. Mark Fuhrman was a racist cop, but the defense capatalized on it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I knew that. It seems that pleading the 5th accomplished nothing because the evidence of perjury was already there. It was not a great idea for him to admit it, but maybe he should have taken the blow for the prosecution and owned up on it to avoid further damage to the case. This really wasn't a case where racism was the defining issue when it came to guilt, despite what people say about the jury, but combined with implied corruption/dishonesty on his part, it looked a lot worse than a tape from 10 years ago. The defense most definitely capitalized it, as is their job. I just can't judge the defense in this case as much as I can the prosecution - they had the burden and were in a position of trust, and really fell apart. I feel bad for what they were up against, but they pretty much did themselves in. Of course, I feel bad for the families of the victims most of all, but I don't believe the prosecutors are as much friends of victims as they like to portray. They have their own agenda.
 
lawstudent said:
The court wouldn't have been able to tell the jury why he responded that way, because we can all only theorize. There's no way they would tell the jury to infer he responded that way because he had no choice and hadn't done anything wrong. That wasn't a jury instruction issue. Fuhrman could have answered - it just risked opening the door to the racial slur issue, which he should have just admitted to. It would have looked bad, not nearly as bad as pleading the fifth.



Yes, I knew that. It seems that pleading the 5th accomplished nothing because the evidence of perjury was already there. It was not a great idea for him to admit it, but maybe he should have taken the blow for the prosecution and owned up on it to avoid further damage to the case. This really wasn't a case where racism was the defining issue when it came to guilt, despite what people say about the jury, but combined with implied corruption/dishonesty on his part, it looked a lot worse than a tape from 10 years ago. The defense most definitely capitalized it, as is their job. I just can't judge the defense in this case as much as I can the prosecution - they had the burden and were in a position of trust, and really fell apart. I feel bad for what they were up against, but they pretty much did themselves in. Of course, I feel bad for the families of the victims most of all, but I don't believe the prosecutors are as much friends of victims as they like to portray. They have their own agenda.
Click to expand...
I do agree that the prosecution was sunk when Christopher Darden had OJ try on the glove in open court for the first time. He wanted an "a-ha" moment and it backfired because he failed to take into account the shrinkage from the blood, OJ wore latex gloves (could affect the fit), and OJ mugged his arthritis and made it appear worse than normal so he couldn't pull the glove on. You never ask a question you don't already know the answer to in open court.
 
lawstudent said:
Looking at it again, I think the reason why he had to continue is because the first question was have you been entirely truthful on the stand. So that would encompass the evidence planting, which he had denied on the stand? So he could no longer talk about anything he'd said earlier without waiving the privilege to the perjury issue. Some good lawyering there. The way they asked the question initially confused me, but now I get it.
Click to expand...

I think you are right. Fuhrman didn't even know where O.J. was when Fuhrman discovered the bloody gloves. There was no way he was going to take a chance that Simpson had an alibi that would expose the "planting of evidence".

But as you say, with the Fifth, it's all or nothing, and Fuhrman couldn't admit to using the "N word" without convicting himself of perjury.

The entire Fuhrman business was a red herring, IMO, and I blame the prosecution. They should have thoroughly deposed Fuhrman and told him to say, "Yeah, I used the 'N-word' with my friend in North Carolina when we were roll playing for her book." Fuhrman had several black partners who swore they had never heard him use the word in anger or as a deliberate slur--and that he was not racist in his daily dealings with African-Americans.

The problem with the "police cover-up" theory is that it required 40-some cops to instantly decide to frame someone who had been their hero and their access to Hollywood parties and nightlife. Never happened.
 
LinasK said:
I interpreted it to mean that they were doing a job- they believe in the constitutional right to a good defense (whether the person is guilty or not), so they closed their eyes to the guilt they knew. I've known other defense lawyers who WILL NOT ask their clients whether they are guilty or not because they don't want to know. It makes it harder to defend when you know the truth.
Click to expand...

They can't ask because they can't suborn perjury. Once a client confesses, his lawyer can no longer allow him to lie on the stand.

I agree with you 100% about the defense team. I think each member had his own reason--from friendship to wanting to improve DNA collection to Dershowitz' genuine concern with constitutional law--for joining the team. I think it's quite possible some were as surprised as I was when O.J. was acquitted.

Unfortunately, our system is designed so that the only way defense attorneys can achieve real reform is by winning an acquittal for a defendant who is clearly guilty. Simply speaking out to the legislature isn't usually enough.
 
IMO nothing mattered. No way were they going to convict him. Wouldn't have mattered if there was a video...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 257 more.
Total: 585 (members: 258, guests: 327)

Online statistics

Members online
258
Guests online
327
Total visitors
585
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,738
Messages
18,244,965
Members
234,437
Latest member
Turtle17
Back
Top