Quote:
Originally Posted by irishgrl
this bears repeating:
the blog highlights referred to just a fraction of the hard evidence, as well as the fact that Fuhrman was not the guilty party, OJ was. Pretty clever of the defense to put Fuhrman on trial eh? To cast doubt on HIS character or his actions as if he was somehow responsible??
AGAIN: that Jury was more than willing to be sit there and focus on something entirely OFF TOPIC so as not to have to face the sorry fact that one of "their own" had actually murdered two innocent people.
|
Ok then - well this bears repeating:
He lied. He lied under oath in front of the jury. Hard Evidence. It wasn't clever of the defense to point this out because, as i stated, both defense and prosecution try to get at the opposing witnesses's credibility. Standard operating procedure. The prosecution should have expected it.
fuhrman was guilty of lying under oath.
the defense pointed it out.
the prosecution couldn't rehabilitate their own witness.
AGAIN- that was what we disagreed on, whether the prosecution did a good job or not. You said they were unjustifiably criticized. I didn't agree with you and feel that they are in many ways responsible for the innocent verdict.
Now you seem to want to shift the argument to the jury being clueless, easily manipulated and worried about the fate of "one of their own" over justice. I think the prosecution didn't reach them and when it did, it wasn't in a good way (the glove demo).
Maybe when the prosecution took a lying racist and put him under oath and then were surprised when it blew up in their faces proves as a good example of my original point - they blew it.
It is not "OFF TOPIC" to consider the consequences of a lying witness.
Can you really not see that?