The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Los Angles DA really mishandled Mark Fuhrman. He could have been rehabbed
| bigtree | 02/03/25 |
| Bronus Swagner | 02/03/25 |
| ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,.,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. | 02/03/25 |
| ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, | 02/03/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: February 3rd, 2025 11:09 AM Author: bigtree Fundamental point: Prosecution needed Fuhrman because he was all over the crime scene, and the man - of course - who found the matching glove at Rockingham.
There was never going to be a way to hide him.
There was a New Yorker article assassinating his character before the trial even started, so they were on full alert he was going to be a problem.
Presumably they didn't know the n-word tapes existed, and presumably he didnt tell them. Nonetheless, they apparently failed to coach him on the all-but-certain cross exam questions about ever having used the word.
F. Lee Bailey set it up perfectly. "No, 100%, No, No I havent used the word in the last ten years. Anyone who says different is a liar," etc, all under oath. DAs just sat there and let this happen.
Retard level DA, armed with the New Yorker story, could have been aware this was coming and coached some kind of "I have used all kinds of language I now regret. I have suffered from depression as a police officer, I fall on my sword, etc." They could have found black cops who were buddies with Fuhrman (they actually had one already testifying! didnt ask him about Fuhrman) to mitigate the issue, etc. And basically owned that he was a wit with baggage, but that's as far as it went.
Instead they got him perjuring.
Then, after the perjury became known, they STILL could have engaged him when he was brought as defense wit to do some weepy apology and limit the damage.
Instead, when they wouldnt return his calls, he lawyered up and pled the fifth. Not just to saying the bad word, but to the question "Did you manufacture or plant evidence in this case?"
Pleading the fifth, in front of the jury, to THAT question... makes the NG verdict fucking inevitable.
Marcia Clark let it get to that. Shameful lawyering |
Date: February 3rd, 2025 12:04 PM Author: Bronus Swagner Could they have kept the tapes out if he hadn't testified like that? The prosecution definitely failed to appreciate how devastating he was to their case (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5674660&forum_id=2#48617930) |
|
Date: February 3rd, 2025 12:05 PM Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,.,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,. Would not have changed the outcome (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5674660&forum_id=2#48617939) |
|
Date: February 3rd, 2025 12:06 PM Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, cr.
"F. Lee Bailey set it up perfectly. "No, 100%, No, No I havent used the word in the last ten years. Anyone who says different is a liar," etc, all under oath. DAs just sat there and let this happen."
=== why not prep him for, "idr any particular instance of saying that, but, look, it's a tough job and we all say things we regret we said. so of course it's possible."
at that point, the tapes shouldn't come in. |