Hippo, you do not recall correctly.
Quote
Patrick James McKenna was a private detective hired to assist the other investigators working with Simpson's defense team. Through a contact, he discovered the existence of tape recordings held by a woman called Laura Hart McKinney, who worked as a professor at the North Carolina School of Arts.
The recordings had been made over a period of six months, ten years previously, when McKinney lived and worked in Los Angeles. There, she had done a lot of journalistic work revealing racism and sexism in the LAPD She had met Mark Fuhrman one evening at Alice's Restaurant in Westwood and struck up a friendship with him. She was intending to use the tapes as a basis for a screenplay she was writing called Men Against Women.
[
www.trutv.com]
Mark Furhman's use of the word "nigger" does not mean OJ Simpson didn't do it. Furhman's denial under oath to the direct question "have you used the word nigger at any time in the past 10 years" means that he's a perjurer, because tape recorded evidence proved that he had used this word in the last 10 years.
The situation was not absurd in any way. Fuhrman was questioned; he answered. Then his own words on tape revealed he'd lied under oath. When someone lies under oath, all of their testimony must be thrown out. The court can't say, well he lied about x, but we're pretty sure what he said about y is true. There is no way to be sure what was true and what was false.
Or would you prefer a system that convicts people because other people "just know, can just feel in their guts" that the accused did it, so he totally deserves to go to jail, even when key witnesses commit felony perjury? That would be absurd.
Your post is exactly the reason I posted about the OJ trial. Hopefulness is a waste of time. Ray has already hired a very, very high powered Los Angeles defense attorney who specializes in white-collar defense and, as an assistant US Attorney, prosecuted it. He's paid this lawyer a million dollar retainer. He has millions (probably offshore or in his family's bank accounts) and he can raise at least some money. These facts mean his situation is similar to Simpson's, and might well lead to the same outcome-- a murderer walking free.
It's not what the defendant did. It's the story about what the defendant did, and whether that story is believable beyond a reasonable doubt. A client who pays a million dollars to a lawyer is paying to have reasonable doubt raised in the minds of the jury. Once reasonable doubt exists, the jury cannot convict. Period.
What's the OJ story? He went over to his ex-wife's condo and stabbed her and some hapless waiter? Easy to say, hard to prove. Quod erat demonstrandrum.
Oh. Welcome new poster!
Quote
Hippo
Thank you for the welcome and the virtual glass of lemonade.
I wanted to make a comment on the parallel between the O. J. Simpson case and the James Ray case.
A poster named Christa brought up the issue of the defense spending possibly tens of thousands of dollars to dig up information on the police officer, Mark Fuhrman, purjuring himself.
If I recall correctly, the defense did not do that--a screenwriter named Laura Hart McKinney came forward voluntarily with this information because she was hoping that the publicity from the trial would allow her to sell a screenplay.
Without going into all the sordid details of the Simpson case, I am hopeful that James Ray does not have access to the same money/resources that Simpson did, and that the case will not attract so many people on the periphery who are opportunists.
I was bewildered by the Fuhrman/McKinney issue, and discussed the case at the time with my sister. I said, "Okay, so Mark Fuhrman called somebody a n***** ten years ago, so that means O. J. didn't do it?"
Obviously I'm over-simplifying, but the situation was absurd.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2010 02:24PM by Christa.