Quote:
Originally Posted by irishgrl
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. |
It has to do with him LYING about his using racial slurs.
Under oath.
The rationale being that if he would lie about one thing, then he could be lying about another.
and it also came out that he also was telling an author how you can set people up in law enforcement. I am not saying that he actually did those things, but he certainly seemed to know alot about how to do it, and it was enough to push an already suspicious jury to the other side.
I didn't say it explained away anything other than that it triggered "reasonable doubt" for some of the jury who were already inherently suspicious of the police. The prosecution did a terrible job of explaining the point you are now making to the jury. which was my original point right? that the prosecution was
justifiably criticized for it's case presentation.