[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 6/27/03
Time: 6:22:31 AM
Remote User:
John,
Ridiculous.
The judge in the civil trial did not allow the defense to argue that the glove had been planted. He also outlawed anything the defense could say about Fuhrman’s possible involvement in a conspiracy to frame O.J. He did not allow the defense to argue that he was framed. The defense therefore tried to portray Kato as unreliable on key points that suggested O.J. dropped the glove. The plaintiffs tried to portray him as a possible accomplice to the murders. Petrocelli NEEDED him to be seen that way by the jury.
Kato caved in a little to the pressure and changed his story a bit here and there to be more accommodating to the plaintiffs. But all things considered (like a possible incitement for conspiracy to murder) he didn’t cave that much.
You have quoted Kato’s testimony – after Fuhrman had been convicted of perjury but before he published Murder in Brentwood. Kato had a free hand to put himself in the best light. He didn’t know what Fuhrman was going to write in his book. That’s the context. He was responding to Fuhrman’s questions.
There was no debate about that in any of the legal proceedings that Kato was a part of and therefore no reason for him to preface everything he said he did with that fact. He brought up everything he could think of to answer Fuhrman’s questions and the lawyers’. The only reason I can think of to ignore Fuhrman’s questions is win an argument.
You can cherry-pick evidence and testimony to portray anybody you target as guilty of whatever you want to charge them with. Marcia Clark did it. Dan Petrocelli did it. Nancy Grace did it. The National Enquirer does it all the time. –Jasper