Quote:
Originally Posted by buckymcnix
of course it did.
he was presented as someone who found a key piece of evidence.
he was also proven to be lying under oath.
why do you think that that shouldn't taint the other things he said or a juror's overall impression of his testimony?
Both prosecution and defense try to shake the credibility of the opposing side's witnesses. It is nothing new.
|
his use of racial slurs does not negate his finding of key evidence
nor does it explain away the blood in OJ's car, the blood in OJ's house, the missing clothes, the fact that he had a disguise, and was planning to leave via airplane for other destinations, his threat of suicide, the knife, or any other HARD evidence. Does it account for what one of the kids saw/heard? NO. Does it explain away the fact that Nicole's breasts were slashed and her implants removed? NO.
Mark Fuhrman's use of racial slur had no bearing on anything other than to prejudice the jury as I said. If a jury could ignore all the other HARD evidence, and focus instead on the fact that a detective used racial slurs, then they werent concentrating on justice for two murdered people, but rather allowing themselves to be manipulated. No wonder attorneys think juries are stupid.