MovieChat Forums > O.J.: Made in America (2016) Discussion > Mark Fuhrman single handedly lost the ca...

Mark Fuhrman single handedly lost the case for them.

posted 8 years ago by dasanimet
16 replies | jump to latest

First, he didn't have to lie about using the n word...Not sure why he thought he needed to lie? He wasn't the one on trial. Saying he used the n word just confirms he is likely racist and nothing else.

Then when he was caught and asked if he planted evidence? He asserts the Fifth Amendment...SAY WHAAATTTTTT? Not when the jury has 9 black individuals and the black community don't trust the LAPD.

Do I think OJ is guilty? Hell yeah. Do I understand why he was acquitted? 100%. The case fell apart for the prosecution.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

Not sure why he thought he needed to lie? He wasn't the one on trial. Saying he used the n word just confirms he is likely racist and nothing else.

Telling the truth and admitting that yes, he's used the N word shows him to not just be a racist, but a racist policeman. In the trial of a black man, with a predominantly black jury. On TV, with millions of people watching. That's why he lied. I hope he was also embarrassed and ashamed.

Then when he was caught and asked if he planted evidence? He asserts the Fifth Amendment...SAY WHAAATTTTTT? Not when the jury has 9 black individuals and the black community don't trust the LAPD.

That's not exactly how it happened, although a whole lot of people seem to remember it that way.

First he was asked several questions by the defense. Each time he very briefly consulted with his lawyer, who was sitting right next to him, and each time he said he took the 5th. The defense then asked him if it was his intention to take the 5th on all questions, and he said yes.

Marcia Clark then stood up and asked to put an end to the questioning, since all Fuhrman was going to do was take the 5th, and anything beyond the questions already asked was for show.

The defense then consulted with one another and Uehlman (the defense lawyer doing the questioning) said he had one more question he wanted to ask. Ito asked what the question was, and Uehlman went ahead and asked Fuhrman if he'd planted any evidence, knowing ahead of time Fuhrman was going to take the 5th. Which of course looked terrible for Fuhrman, which is why Uehlman did it.

Added: The prosecution definitely fumbled the case, and Fuhrman had a lot to do with why Simpson was acquitted, but I don't think he was the only factor.

[–] dasanimet 8 years ago

Yes, I heard the previous questions in which he pled the 5th, but he still could have not taken the 5th for the last one which was the "gotcha" question. Just because he said he was going to plead the 5th for all questions did not mean he couldnt change his mind at any point. In fact, the lead prosecutor in this documentary also said he didn't understand why he pled the 5th for that last question.

To me, that's where the case was lost. The wheels just fell off.

[–] catbookss 8 years ago

but he still could have not taken the 5th for the last one which was the "gotcha" question.

And that was the problem, it was a "gotcha" question. If he'd not taken the 5th and answered no, I didn't plant any evidence, that would have opened the doors for the defense to get more of the tapes in before the jury in an attempt to discredit him. The defense had the prosecution on the rails at this point. The wheels had already fallen off.

It was possible for them to still pull things out with the blood/DNA evidence, but they botched that too.

[–] evi320 8 years ago

I was shocked watching the documentary how bad the Fuhrman stuff really was. And i loved how honest Marcia Clark was about how angry she was at him. I remember back in the day kind of disliking her but really liked and respected her honesty in this documentary.

As for Fuhrman, I respected his honesty in the doc too. He owned up to it. Way too late, but he took responsibility.

Having been about 19 when the car chase went down, all of this hindsight is just fascinating.

[–] crystal-78256 8 years ago

I knew how bad the Furhman stuff was and I was in elementary during the case. Fuhrman helped OJ get off because he was stupid enough to spew his racial hatred on tape. There's much more to the tapes than what was in this documentary. LOL @ Fuhrman owned up to it. Yeah, after he lied and was caught.

[–] audierules 8 years ago

the 6 months is what lost the case for them and dingbat Marcia Clark with her hair crisis.

[–] MortimerSpice 8 years ago

No way. The way the Dna and blood was handled was the nail in the coffin.

[–] dasanimet 8 years ago

The case was on shaky ground then, that was the second wheel to fall off, the glove was the third wheel to fall off, and Mark Fuhrman threw the train off the tracks. I thought they could recover from the DNA cause there was still a lot there against Simpson with his own finger being cut. Judge Judy always say if someone is caught lying on the stand, his credibility is shattered and usually the side of the case the person caught lying is on. That's why he pleaded the 5th. He knew he was toast. I just think he should not have plead the 5th for the last question...save whatever dignity he had left.

[–] tonychappell 8 years ago

the trial was over before it even started...OJ had too many sleazy lawyer pros working for him that know every dirty trick in the book to get their clients off

[–] DACHokie 8 years ago

This series reveals numerous screw ups during the investigation that made using Fuhrman advantageous to the defense. Imagine if Fung and Vanatter had not been so careless with handling evidence ... Remember the WHOLE LAPD was made to look like it conspired to frame OJ. While Fuhrman surely hurt the prosecution, he's a convenient scapegoat. Darden and the glove ... The missed opportunities of the post-arrest interview ... The missing garment bag. The celebrity status of the case seemed to blind the LAPD ... The Bronco chase comes to mind. There were plenty of failures that hurt the prosecution and let race and Fuhrman become the focal point.

[–] Waldimore 8 years ago

Yes, he did.

[–] Clockwork399 8 years ago

Okay, let's think about this for a second. There were a couple of things that they screwed up on. The glove..............Fuhrman. Yes, Fuhrman was spouting racial things. This is true, however being a racist doesn't mean you will plant evidence. People forget one thing here, OJ was PROTECTED by the LAPD. All the time for several years. He was a wife beater and they did nothing about it. So why in the world do you frame a guy that you adored? It is crazy that people think OJ was the type of person the LAPD would frame. Plus, how did anyone know what OJ's alibi would be? To frame him meant you had to be a mind reader.

So while there were mistakes by the prosecution and Fuhrman - and there were - there was still plenty enough evidence to nail him on things.

[–] dasanimet 8 years ago

And that's what I said...he should not have pleaded the 5th on the last question when he was asked "is it possible you could have planted evidence"...this is when he should have been defiant and said, okay I lied about using the N word and I maybe a racist, but in no possible way did I or any member of my force planted any evidence."... He didn't do that....That's why I said this is where the case collapsed. Pleading the 5th made him look like he could have planted the evidence. It was the weakest moment in the prosecution case.

Nobody is saying that OJ is being framed. But the defense lawyers did an outstanding job to convince the jurors that it could be a possibility by using Mark Fuhrman's lie ...that my friend is the definition of "reasonable doubt".

You say that OJ was protected since he a wife beater...I maybe wrong, but all the 911 calls made by Nicole and the prior incidents were not allowed in court for the muder case. So that's irrelevant. The jury did not hear that and could not factor this in their decision.

[–] LinkovitchChomofsky123 8 years ago

i thought the same thing about fuhrman for years...until I heard that black woman juror utter 6 words durning the 30 for 30. it made me freakin' sick. "it was payback for rodney king". this trial was a not guilty verdict as soon as the defense landed their 9 low income black jurors. they deliberated for 3.5 hours. one of the blacks fist pumped in the jury box after the verdict???? our system is a cesspool.

[–] dasanimet 8 years ago

I think when she said "it was payback for rodney king" - She meant how the case turned out. I don't think she was intentionally trying to find OJ not guilty. Its like when a team wins a game to a team they lost badly too in a previous meeting. You say the win IS payback. But they could also have lost to that team again. I think her saying it was payback for Rodney King is independent of what she thought who presented their case better - the defense or prosecution. Even the white juror ruled "not guilty"

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

No, Marcia Clark single handedly lost the case for them, don't blame Fuhrman for her utter idiocy.