|
January 04, 2007
Duke Meets OJ
The Duke case and the OJ case have a lot of similarities. I watched the OJ trial from the point of view that the LAPD was a corrupt police department. I knew this because I followed the drug war and saw lots of instances of LAPD corruption in that war. OJ's defence made the point that the police may have corrupted the evidence. Guess what? We found out a few years later in the in the Rampart scandal that the LAPD was corrupt and had routinely planted evidence . The defence took advantage of community knowledge before it became public knowledge. In othter words it may very well have been a case of the LAPD framing a guilty man. In the Duke case we have the DA and police framing innocent men. In both cases the problem is corrupt police and in the Duke case a corrupt DA as well. The common thread is the corruption of the justice system. I believe this is SOP across the country. Look up testilying. (I wrote about that in Corruption Is Routine.) It is rampant. This is another case of the system's bad habits catching up with it. I blame drug prohibition for the bad habits. === The above was inspired by the comments at this post: Durham In Wonderland Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 01.04.07 at 11:09 AM
Comments
What the jury took into consideration (in my opinion) is their community experience with the LAPD. The widely traveled blood sample with the missing blood was key for me. And the sudden finding of blood on the gate after the blood sample collection. The key, I think, is that once trust in the justice system breaks down, eventually so does the system. We are treading a very dangerous road with drug prohibition. Not unlike what happened during alcohol prohibition. M. Simon · January 4, 2007 09:21 PM You paint with a broad brush. In my experience dealing with, and observing both law enforcement and the court system, the vast majority are not corrupt. Defense attorneys very often will imply that evidence is planted simply to cast doubt: "And just how did that weapon without fingerprints find its way under my client's car, which was stopped on a public street? Anyone, even a police officer could have thrown it there, blah, blah, blah."
Charles K. · January 5, 2007 01:17 AM Charles K., It is widely accepted that testilying is wide spread and that prosecutors and judges look the other way except in the most egregious cases where alternative evidence can be presented. Care to comment? The practice is named. Rather unusual for something that is not very common. Look at my post "Corruption is Routine" for links. Available here at Classical Values or at my site linked above. M. Simon · January 5, 2007 02:28 AM I once ran the board for Mark Fuhrman's radio show. It was very weird— he asked me questions during the break, and though they were the normal things like "what do you plan to do with your life?" it was impossible to ignore the fact that this man had been a cop, because every question felt like an interrogation. He was just so very focused on my answers. (The show was "All About Crime" and had things like how to make your home unattractive to burglars or major cases in the past and present. It was actually pretty good. I was still at that radio station when the Spokane serial killer was caught and because one of the talk hosts was working with Fuhrman on a book about the guy, I got to hear all sorts of evidence that we weren't reporting on, like how they got the DNA samples. Serious ICK.) B. Durbin · January 6, 2007 03:03 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2007
December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"Mars Inc."
There Is No Problem Truth in taste! The Machines Stop Just cooling up after a brief warming off period! Where Are The Arabs? More Problems On The Home Front Palestinian Civil War Watch - 8 Duke Meets OJ Palestinian Civil War Watch - 7
Links
Site Credits
|
|
In the OJ case, the defense successfully established that Fuhrman had used racist language in the past and lied about it on the stand. They were able to use that fact to taint his testimony but could produce no reason to believe that Fuhrman actually planted the glove.
Interestingly, with all of the investigation the defense obviously made into Fuhrman's background (imagine the effort to come up with the incriminating audio tape), they were able to find ex-cons that said Fuhrman was brutal, that said he was racist, but not one ex-con ever accused him of planting evidence. Had there been one, is there any doubt he would have been the defense's star witness?
I believe Fuhrman is innocent of that accusation and that the jury should have taken his testimony into account.