Fair to say this case was unwinnable with this jury - American Crime Story (2016) Discussion

[–] fiero-49251 8 years ago

Sorry, but they made too many mistakes! It should have been more simplified and definitely left Fuhrman off the witness list! They had to know the dirt on the guy and it would come out destroying their case! ;-/

- - http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/fiero425.html - - homepage

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

Even if they left Furhman off the list, the defense still would have called them themselves, since he is there scapegoat, wouldn't they have?

But the prosecution failed to make Furhman a more credible witness. Marcia could have objected to a lot of the defenses questions but she chose not too and just let the whole thing go in the defense's favor.

And there is other evidence to give Fuhrman more credibility that the prosecution could have introduced but chose not to for some reason.

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

Even if they left Furhman off the list, the defense still would have called them themselves, since he is there scapegoat, wouldn't they have?

But the prosecution failed to make Furhman a more credible witness. Marcia could have objected to a lot of the defenses questions but she chose not too and just let the whole thing go in the defense's favor.

And there is other evidence to give Fuhrman more credibility that the prosecution could have introduced but chose not to for some reason.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

That's not fair to say at all, yes the jury was shít but the prosecution's performance was 50 times worse. We cannot excuse the prosecution and malign this jury like that. The prosecution were beyond incompetent, so your assertion is not correct. You've seen the Bugliosi assessment, you know they couldn't have done a worse job even if he tried.

reply

[–] I_Love_Netflix 8 years ago

I have seen the Bugliosi video on youtube and I always have believed what you are saying, but after seeing OJ Made in America the one juror admitted that the verdict was payback for Rodney King, and even went as far as saying that 90% of the jurors felt this way. It makes it hard for me to believe that even a strong prosecution performance would have made a difference. This jury had their minds made up.

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

Yes but if Bugliosi had been on the case, he wouldn't have chosen this jury and the trial wouldn't have been downtown so he would have won it.

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

Why didn't the prosecution want a change of venue? I mean they could have even chosen a jury that was not even in L.A. at all, couldn't they? Could they try the case in a different city like Sacramento or San Diego, as long as it was in the same state?

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

Believe it or not, and this is according to Bugliosi and I believe him, the trial was held in downtown L.A. because Gil Garcetti and Marcia Clark thought that you had to take the case to where the grand jury was held, which was downtown, or something like that. The point is that, legally, they didn't have to be downtown, there was no law that demanded it.

reply

[–] TheOtherUprising 8 years ago

Fuhrman made an enormous difference. What a scumbag that guy is.

The standard is reasonable doubt, he gave the jury a reason to question all the evidence against OJ. If you remove Fuhrman and the mistake with the glove its very much an open question.

It still might have been that the trail was way too long and the jury was way too worn out to fell confident enough about what happened to deliver a guilty verdict. But that's hard to say.

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

I honestly don't see how Furman made that hardly any difference though.

Even if Fuhrman did plant the glove, there is no way he could have planted all the blood at both locations from all O.J. as well as the two victims, at both as well. So even if Fuhrman attempted to frame Simpson, he was framing a man who all the other evidence pointed to as guilty anyway.

So if he did frame system, it was a moot-frame, since all the other evidence, which he couldn't have planted, points to O.J. as the killer. So how could Fuhrman have hurt the case, when it would have been a moot framing?

reply

[–] TheOtherUprising 8 years ago

So how could Fuhrman have hurt the case, when it would have been a moot framing?

Because it creates doubt. The jury didn't know that successfully framing OJ would have been almost impossible. When you have a racist lead detective for a police department that already has a tainted reputation in the area of race the jury is going to doubt everything that is presented from them.

They are going to think, sure the racist police department says the black defendant's blood was found at the crime scene along with the victims, but who knows if that's true?

And doubt is all that is required.

Once your credibility is gone even if you are telling the truth it no longer matters. Fuhrman became the face of the prosecution's case in it killed them.

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

But it doesn't create reasonable doubt. It is unreasonable to think that Fuhrman could have planted everything compared to one little thing, that doesn't account for everything else. The credibility of one cop, does not add up to the credibility of all the other officers, and the crime scenes themselves.

The jury is suppose to decide beyond a reasonable doubt, not unreasonable doubt. Fuhrman could have planted the glove, maybe, sure. But all the other blood and DNA evidence is already there before he got there.

So there is no doubt at all when it comes to all the other evidence. Just the one piece, which if planted after, still doesn't change all that that came before.

reply

[–] fiero-49251 8 years ago

Just watched a little of "OJ: Made in America" where they reminded me of Latassha Harlin; teenager killed by a female Korean grocer who got sentenced to 30 days probation after shooting that little girl in the back of the head! There's video showing the entire thing like the Rodney King case and OJ's trial was going to be a no-win situation no matter what the evidence!

- - http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/fiero425.html - - homepage

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

But I don't think they should have had the trial in L.A., where people seem to have more of these biases. What if they moved it to a Sacramento, San Francisco, or San Diego or something?

reply

[–] fiero-49251 8 years ago

Hard to believe California can be thought of having biases anywhere in the state, but I learned years before with Gates and the Police Commander in LA, anything was possible when "choke hold" mess came to the fore! Police got away with that for years; even if a suspect was killed! I guess we shouldn't be shocked that several cops brutalized some guy on the ground and was videotaped for all to see around the world! They "walked" but for Fed charges later put them away! Move the trials across the country and certain verdicts still occur! ;-/

- - http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/fiero425.html - - homepage

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

Well I am Canadian, so I am not as familiar with the impact of the issue. So in the U.S. if a black person murders a white person, is it pretty hard to get a conviction, just based on that fact alone then, even if all the evidence points towards the defendant?

reply

[–] fiero-49251 8 years ago

Not at all; totally about OJ and his celebrity that "got him off!" Normally he would have been tried and put to death, but because of a couple other cases like Rodney King and Latasha Harlin, this jury wasn't going to find him guilty even of there was video tape of the man taking Nicole's head off! It's unfortunate that it happened, but was predictable! BTW, I'm Black, but born Newfoundland due to dad in USAF!  ;-/

- - http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/fiero425.html - - homepage

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

If this is why he got off, then how come the jurors have never said that? At least not from what I have seen on TV or read. Some jurors have come forth in interviews and have said that they felt that it was because the prosecution failed to make their case. There was one interview where two jurors said that.

But the person doing the interview, told the jury of all the other evidence, that did not come from Fuhrman, and the jurors just kind of sat there, not knowing what to say, as if they had been proven wrong in their reasoning.

But if it was because of Rodney King and Latasha Harlin, why didn't the jurors just say it was to get back at the LAPD in the interview?

reply

[–] fiero-49251 8 years ago

You're kidding right? No ones' going to admit to their biases! I'm watching the "OJ: Made Un America" show and to this day, Fuhrman, Vanatter, and the other cops won't take responsibility for their roles in OJ's acquittal! Even though a serious case, I have to laugh watching them on the stand justify their own incompetence! Taking evidence home, not cataloguing evidence in a timely fashion! ;-/

- - http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/fiero425.html - - homepage

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

What evidence was taken home?

reply

[–] bythelake123 8 years ago

If this is why he got off, then how come the jurors have never said that? At least not from what I have seen on TV or read. Some jurors have come forth in interviews and have said that they felt that it was because the prosecution failed to make their case. There was one interview where two jurors said that.

But the person doing the interview, told the jury of all the other evidence, that did not come from Fuhrman, and the jurors just kind of sat there, not knowing what to say, as if they had been proven wrong in their reasoning.

But if it was because of Rodney King and Latasha Harlin, why didn't the jurors just say it was to get back at the LAPD in the interview?

In OJ: Made in America, juror #9 (Carrie Bess) openly admits that OJ's acquittal was payback for Rodney King. She said it was her reason and the reason for about 90% of the jury.

Also, Bill Hodgman (one of the prosecutors) said after the jury was released, they could be seen in the parking lot high fiving each other and saying that they have to watch out for their own.

So I guess the jury is starting to admit their true intentions with their verdict.

I think this information was revealed in part 4 of the documentary.

reply

[–] TheOtherUprising 8 years ago

The credibility of one cop, does not add up to the credibility of all the other officers, and the crime scenes themselves.

But it is more then just one cop. The department's reputation was already tainted. Fuhrman confirmed what at least some of them already felt about the department. They are going to think well if Fuhrman thinks like this and is allowed to be a lead detective then what does that say for the culture of the department. So can we really trust the rest of the evidence.

Now if the jury fully understood the DNA evidence and how next to impossible it was for him to be framed it wouldn't matter as much but its pretty clear they never fully did. So Fuhrman made an enormous difference.

reply

[–] fiero-49251 8 years ago

Watching docu-show now and it's just hilarious watching all the cops stumble over themselves! It was all of them from Vanatter taking blood evidence from one crime scene to another, OJ's shoes being taken home, Fuhrman jumping the wall at Rockingham and finding the glove by himself! It just looked bad from the jump regardless of the truth!

- - http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/fiero425.html - - homepage

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

But it's still unreasonable to blame the entire department as tainted. Fuhrman had no contact with all the investigators of the crime. What's Fuhrman going to do? Ask all the lab technicians which he likely is not friends with, or knows at all, to participate in a conspiracy that could land them all in jail if caught? It is impossible for the entire department to be tainted, because not that many people could have reasonable be in on it.

And that is what I mean by the jury suppose to having reasonable doubts compared to unreasonable.

reply

[–] fiero-49251 8 years ago

I'm the last one to say all police forces are tainted, but they taint themselves when they try to protect and back "1" who did something wrong! You can support the person without going on TV saying "he was in fear for his life and the wellbeing of his fellow officers!" That same excuse written on a card like "Miranda rights" just won't fly when everyone has a video of what really happened for all to see! If a cop makes a mistake, say "I made a mistake" and stop trying to justify it by looking up the record of the one shot! Sandra Bland in Texas was pulled over for not signaling when changing lanes! That flat-foot was heard telling his supervisor he tried to deescalate the situation and it was a flat out lie! He was fired, but she's still dead! ;-/

- - http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/fiero425.html - - homepage

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

Okay thanks. I agree that not every police station has all honest cops. But my point is, is that they blame the jury blames the whole department for framing a man, when only one guy was held responsible (Furhman).

And Fuhrman could not have had hardly as many co-conspirators working for him as the jury claimed to believe in interviews later.

The blood of Simpson was at the murder scene, and the blood of the two victims were at his house, and Furhman could not have planted all that by himself.

So the jury should have judged by the crime scene itself, and not that of the reputation of only one of several investigators in it.

The evidence to show Simpson is guilty was already there long before Furhman could have done anything to plant it.

reply

[–] fiero-49251 8 years ago

If you lived as long as me, you would understand "anything" is possible! We had a case outside of Chicago in Naperville; a fairly affluent area where some kid was murdered! They wanted this put to bed ASAP and it appears they didn't seem to care who took the rap! After all was said and done, all concerned were found to be in cahoots in framing some Latino kid; either disbarred or run out of office! The list of offenders went from the local cops to the sheriff deputies and from the DA to the judge! It was an absolutely obscene miscarriage of justice! It happens and probably a lot more than we want to believe! Sorry to blow up your bubbles!

In California, supposedly if you knowingly try to prosecute a person you know didn't do the crime, you're supposed to take their place and be sentence to significant stretches of time! It never happens, but it's on the books!

- - http://www.childrenofrassilon.com/fiero425.html - - homepage

reply

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

I understand that anything is possible. But O.J. himself admitted in his police interview, which was recorded, that his blood as was the scene. You can tell it's his voice, and I looked it up. Their is no technology available to falsify someone's voice like that.

So if it's possible that the police had planted the blood, than why does he say it's his on the interview. But I guess this doesn't matter, since the prosecution never played the tape for the jury to hear.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kinseisenshi 8 years ago

I don't really think the jury was stupid. They wanted something for Rodney King. Furman just solidified it. There's no way he could have sabotaged the crime scene(s) are we going to suggest he cut OJ's knuckle too?

If they tried him in the Santa Monica courthouse like it should have, Simpson would have been convicted. I'd say OJ was lucky to have an Earthquake, high profile LAPD racism, and a mostly black jury. Hiring 12 lawyers obviously helps too.

A person hates you because they either wanna be you, see you as a threat, or hate themself

reply

[–] kinseisenshi 8 years ago

I don't really think the jury was stupid. They wanted something for Rodney King. Furman just solidified it. There's no way he could have sabotaged the crime scene(s) are we going to suggest he cut OJ's knuckle too?

If they tried him in the Santa Monica courthouse like it should have, Simpson would have been convicted. I'd say OJ was lucky to have an Earthquake, high profile LAPD racism, and a mostly black jury. Hiring 12 lawyers obviously helps too.

A person hates you because they either wanna be you, see you as a threat, or hate themself

reply