o.j was arrested because the evidence against him was overwhelming. mark furman was the cop who was in charge. OJ said furman set him up. we said BS furman was asked on the witness stand,did you plant evidence? "no" did you tamper with evidence? no. lying under oath is a crime. planting and tampering with evidence is a crime. the 5th amendment is asserted so that you don't have to incrimminate yourself in a crime. when furman was asked a 2nd time, under oath, instead of saying "no" to all the questions again, he asserted his 5th amendment privelege. so when asked, "when i asked you the last time you were here if you planted evidence and you said no, did you lie?" by taking the 5th he really answered "i can't answer that because if i say yes then i will go to jail for purjury, and if i say no, i think you may have evidence that i did and i will commit purjury now" don't you think the jury wondered why he just didnt say no again? why didn't he say no again? maybe because he DID?
2007-08-25 15:24:55 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
12 jurors acquitted him. Innocent until proven guilty - beyond a shadow of a doubt.
2007-08-25 15:34:43 · answer #1 · answered by pepper 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The evidence would have created an airtight case against anyone except a person who could mount a multi-million dollar defense. The defense team was able to leverage the jurors experiencd with cases of corrupt police planting evidence or tampering with evidence.
Furman lied about his use of the n word. The highly paid team of attorneys for OJ was able to orchistrate a performance that cast doubt on OJ's guilt. Fortunately, OJ did have to pay during a civil case after the criminal case.
The LA police department should have been more careful during the investigation. They should have obtained warrants and they should have carefully documented everything using teams of investigators. There were clear lapses in handling of evidence that were exploited during the trial.
2007-08-25 23:49:15 · answer #2 · answered by Skeptic 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
.... no offense, but who cares. it was years ago. whether or not furman lied under oath is irrelavant (though he wouldnt be the first to do so!!) as OJ got away with murder.
In the case that OJ had been convicted of Manslaughter, homicide, or murder, then only would it be relevant if furman purjured himself or planted evidence.
OJ killed his wife and got away with it, not because of the "great" arguments on behalf of his legal team and defense attorney, but becasue 1, he was a celebrity, and 2, LA was subjected to severe racial rioting during the length of the trial. In the event that OJ was convicted the city and the court feared pandemonium therefore, the jury, not wanting to be the casue of more unnecessary rioting, absolved him from the crime he was cleary guilty of, and gave the "not-guilty" verdict.
It's as simple as that. And who cares anymore. He's no one important, or anyone you should concern yourself with .... the man's a murderer and ought to be in prison. Had he not been a celebrity there would've been no contest, he'd of been convicted.
2007-08-25 22:34:36 · answer #3 · answered by sugarplumlulu™ ♥ 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Furman MAY have planted evidence to secure a guilty verdict...because OJ certainly murdered his wife and her lover. It makes no difference at this point, he can never be tried for it again. If he had been tried seperately for each murder, he could still have been found guilty in the second trial.....hindsight's always 20/20.
2007-08-25 22:33:08 · answer #4 · answered by evans_michael_ya 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
O.J. would not have been convicted if they had pictures of him with the knife. they whole trial was a travesty of justice and a mockery. I am glad that he was convicted by a civil jury so at least he has to live with that. he is a waste of skin. i feel for his poor children, they were denied their mother and have to know that their father murdered her and Ron in a fit of rage nearly decapitating Nichole and cutting out the implants that he paid for....it was blood lust by an animal.
i don't recall ferman taking the fifth but i am sure he is aware how lawyers can twist testimony to their advantage.
2007-08-25 22:38:20 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't think the jury wondered anything.
I think they felt that it was their job to make amends for the alleged miscarriage of justice involving the beating of Rodney King prior to this trial - and I think they were all aware of the riots and destruction that took place following the acquittal verdict handed out to the police officers charged with the beating.
I think OJ was guilty as sin - but I also believed that he would never be convicted, regardless of the over whelming evidence against him. As concerned the King case, what better evidence could a prosecute ask for than a video tape of the beating - and still the officers were acquitted.
Quid pro quo?
2007-08-25 22:43:46 · answer #6 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
They were trying to confuse him and succeeded. I believe OJ guilty. I watched the entire trial and from what I saw, he was guilty.
2007-08-25 22:33:41 · answer #7 · answered by Sweetharttt 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The 5th Amendment does not allow you to lie. It allows you to refuse to answer.
2007-08-25 22:28:35 · answer #8 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋