I think I better remember the circumstances, though I am still a bit foggy on them. In my opinion whether a well principled man could choose Furman as a hero might yet depend upon a great many things, among which is the manner and context in which he used the word "nigger" on the recording. I think it was on this same recording that Furman said that he and/or other officers routinely planted evidence against minorities, or that he thought it fine to do so. If I am correct, then I think Furman deserves to be esteemed only by the likes of "Aryans" and other such filth.
But perhaps I err. Here is a little something I found browsing the web for "Furman." I have no idea of the identity of its author (in his article he claims to be a "convicted criminal"). I think he presents a perspective and belief regarding law enforcement that was shared, if even subconsciously, by at least some members of OJ's jury.
But I present his article because he mention's Furman's having gone "on the record" in admitting that he[Furman] thought it was fine to plant evidence against blacks. I think this was the issue I was thinking of when I posted to you. If Furman said this, and in the context that the words imply, then Furman is no hero, and I am no longer surprised that OJ was not convicted. The prosecution's decision to use him to testify against a once lauded black athlete to a black jury (at least some members of which likely harboured suspicions toward the remarkably incompetent LAPD to begin with), was about as insane a thing as anyone could imagine. The use of Furman was to beg, on bended knee, the jury to acquire a reasonable doubt as to OJ's guilt. No doubt when Furman was reduced to taking the Fifth after committing perjury, it simply presented the final nail in the coffin of justice. Some dang hero.
***********************************************
Bailiff, bring the guilty Nigger in!
Well the O.J. trial is over. Or is it? The media can't seem to break their addiction to it. Each day, new ramifications are put forth. The implications to male/female and interracial relations are daily expounded upon by the punditry. I, for one, find most of these reactions to be at best questionable, at worst simply silly. I am one of those 25% of White people who think that the verdict was just and fair. I am not prepared to say that O.J. did not kill his ex-wife and friend. I am also not prepared to say he did. It just seems to me that the prosecution did not even begin to prove their case. Let me explain.
When the prosecution first presented its case, I thought, like many or most other people that they really had the goods on him. Circumstantial, perhaps, but quite convincing given what I knew about the science involved in DNA testing. There did indeed seem to be a mountain of evidence pointing towards his guilt. When Mark Furman took the stand and stood steadfast against the harsh cross-examination of the defense, I thought, this is it. Bye-bye, O.J.! When F.Lee Bailey asked his now famous questions about the "N" word, I thought, "Boy, these guys are getting desperate!"
However, when the defense took over, the "mountain of evidence" began to shrink to a "molehill" and finally to a wisp.
Let's look at the main points.
Motive. It was maintained that, because O.J. was an admitted wife beater, he must have done it. The fact that 99.9% of wife beaters do NOT kill their wives, much less innocent bystanders, was conveniently overlooked.
The Missing Alibi. No one disputes that O.J. was missing from witness' view for no more than about an hour and a half. During this time, it is alleged that he changed clothes (into a "disguise"), drove to Nicole's, murdered two adults with a knife who were fighting back vigorously, drove back to his own house, disposed of the bloody garments and the knife and cleaned himself up, dressing for a business trip which had been previously scheduled. Whatever you think of O.J., he sure must be an efficient killer! But, kinda sloppy.
The Trail of Blood. The pictures of the crime scene show a veritable swamp of blood and bloody footprints. Somehow, however, only a drop or two was conveniently splattered here and there in the Bronco, on the sidewalk and elsewhere. It tested out positive for O.J.'s, Nicole's and Ron Goldman's blood in most cases, but there was at least one case where the blood was unidentified. Then there was the bloody socks, left right where the police could find them. There was the bloody glove, conveniently transported all the way from the murder scene to be deposited on O.J.'s property. To make sure that it be found, a couple of thumps alerted Kato as to its location. It's as though O.J. had left a nice little trail of evidence for the detectives, to make sure they caught the right guy...him.
Police Competency. Here the defense was preaching to the choir and the prosecution was saddled with poisoned well. That is, if you are a member of the Black community or, like myself, a convicted criminal. I will state flatly and without fear of contradiction, that police routinely...I repeat, routinely...manufacture evidence to make their cases stronger when they fear they can not get a conviction. One can argue that the alleged perpetrators, like myself, were guilty as sin anyway, that the cops "knew" it and just made sure the prosecutors jobs were made a little easier by "restoring" evidence that us perps had destroyed or hidden. In O.J.'s case, we not only have a lot of accumulated evidence that police did not follow good procedure in collecting[...] (witness Fung's performance), but we also have an arrogant White supremacist shithead, who went on the record saying that he believed that it was O.K. to frame Black defendants, since we'd all be better off if all Blacks were exterminated anyway.
This is a case for conviction in a murder trial? I don't think so. Had I been on that jury, I would have deliberated with the others only long enough to see that they all agreed with me. Why is this so hard to see for three out of four White observers? As far as I am concerned, for them to claim that the verdict was "racist" is outrageous and a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I also believe that most of these same people will come to think differently as time goes by.
Like I said at the outset, I do not know if O.J. did or did not commit this crime. All I am saying is that the prosecution did not prove that he DID do it, only that he might have. In a U.S. court, this is not enough. I mean, you MIGHT have done it. The job of the police and the prosecution is to find out who did do it AND to prove it, beyond a reasonable doubt. Did Furman and/or others plant the evidence? They might have, but they were not on trial. O.J. was on trial and the prosecution failed to prove that he is guilty. So, he is not. That's how our system works and I, for one, am glad for it. I only wish more people could get the kind of defense O.J. got!
patriotnews.com |
