[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
T1:
Category 3: Category 1
Date: 11 Aug 1999
Time: 18:22:55
Remote Name: dyn1-tnt7-112.detroit.mi.ameritech.net
Kat,
I did read Fuhrman's plea agreement (I wish I could remember where).
What blew me away was the court's focus on the n-word and the apologetic way in which the decision was handed down. ONE BAD WORD IS NOTHING to convict a man for perjury for lying about. But that was all he was tried for and all he was asked about. Not event the context in which he used the word came into the decision. He was never even investigated by O.J.'s defense as a possible suspect (because Singular's planted glove and planted blood story gave him a perfect alibi). The prosecution did only enough investigation of him (that's Marcia, not the police) as a suspect to cover his ass where it was badly exposed.
The timeline Marcia constructed for the murders was a crucial part of the cover up. It made it impossible for him to have committed the murders because: 1) he gave the impression that he was over two and a half hours away (if you believe he left La Quinta "at" 8:00) and the murders happened between 10:15 and 10:25. Marcia Clark asked the only questions (seven of them) that established under oath where he said he was and when he said he got home. He didn't actually say he left "at" 8:00, he said "before" 8:00. That could have been five hours before 8 and he would not have committed perjury if he'd been called on it because people just ASSUMED the he meant a minute so before 8:00. But that's not what he said.
He said that he got home at 10:30. He said that his wife was home when he got there. In California a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband. That is to say, Fuhrman had no alibi and no one called him on it. He didn't have to lie about it in court. What he said on television and left out of his book doesn't' count. --Jasper