• Important! If you attempt to register and do not get an email within 5 minutes please check your spam box. This is especially true for Microsoft owned domains like Hotmail, Outlook, and Live. If these do not work please consider Gmail. Yahoo, or even AOL email which works fine.

FX: The People VS OJ. (spoilers inside)

BirdOPrey5

BirdOPrey5

Staff member
Administrator
VIP
If the lead detective can't honestly answer "No" and has to plead the 5th when being asked if he planted any evidence in this case, not guilty is the only responsible verdict to reach.

Not sure OJ was innocent but he most certainly shouldn't have been found guilty.
 
S

skeptic

VIP
Guy I worked with at the time was from a police type family. Lots of cops, FBI etc. Shortly after it happened but before the trial he told me they were sitting around talking about it and one of the FBI family member said they know 100% he did it but OJ would likely walk because the FBI would not provide that evidence and divulge how they know. Third hand knowledge and all, but this was an honest guy who wasn't into telling stories or making stuff up.
 
pirranah

pirranah

pierced dingaling
VIP
BirdOPrey5 said:
If the lead detective can't honestly answer "No" and has to plead the 5th when being asked if he planted any evidence in this case, not guilty is the only responsible verdict to reach.

Not sure OJ was innocent but he most certainly shouldn't have been found guilty.
Click to expand...
A somber, stony-faced Detective Mark Fuhrman asserted his 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination three times Wednesday, refusing to answer questions posed by defense lawyers who charge that he framed O.J. Simpson.

"Was the testimony that you gave at the preliminary hearing in this case completely truthful?" defense attorney Gerald F. Uelmen asked in a quick, pointed confrontation with Fuhrman, who has told jurors he found a bloody glove at Simpson's estate. "Have you ever falsified a police report?"

And most strikingly, "Did you plant or manufacture any evidence in this case?"

After each question, Fuhrman leaned over, whispered to his attorney and then sat stiffly straight to answer: "I wish to assert my 5th Amendment privilege."
Click to expand...

His was a damn if you do damn if you don't situation after the tapes were leaked and his previous testimony gone to shit. No matter what his answers were it would be reasonable to think that he is either lying now, or he planted evidence then. It was in the prosecution's best interest to invoke the 5th and try damage control.

Fuhrman Invokes 5th Amendment, Refuses to Testify Simpson case Ex-detective is asked three questions, including whether he planted evidence. Jurors arent present, but defense will seek to have them informed of the action. - latimes
 
BirdOPrey5

BirdOPrey5

Staff member
Administrator
VIP
pirranah said:
His was a damn if you do damn if you don't situation after the tapes were leaked and his previous testimony gone to shit. No matter what his answers were it would be reasonable to think that he is either lying now, or he planted evidence then. It was in the prosecution's best interest to invoke the 5th and try damage control.

Fuhrman Invokes 5th Amendment, Refuses to Testify Simpson case Ex-detective is asked three questions, including whether he planted evidence. Jurors arent present, but defense will seek to have them informed of the action. - latimes
Click to expand...
If I was on that jury the case was over as soon as he took the 5th when asked about the current case. If he can't say "No" and not fear prosecution for saying he didn't plant evidence, he can't be trusted- and if the lead detective can't be trusted there is no case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top