Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
In my opinion, it was the glove that swayed the jury. In that, the prosecution was caught flat-footed!
How no one on the Prosecution realized what a bogus demonstration that was, has stunned me since the day it happened.
For many years I raced motorcycles. I raced Enduros which are 75 to 120-mile races, cross country, on a trail you don't know following arrows stapled to trees, through water, steep hill climbs, over logs, whatever. You wear leather gloves, they get wet from water and sweat. When you put them on for the next time you were riding, they had shrunk. WOW. Before you put them on, you had to work them like a baseball glove to loosen them up before putting them on and you had to work them to get them on your hand.
Blood on the gloves would even be worse, plus, putting on a pair of latex gloves before attempting to put on the murder gloves guaranteed that it was impossible for them to be put on.
Your statement is in-coherent.....what are you trying to say?
You must be an idiot if you think the glove episode was more impactful than the fact that the Furhman was a racist that planted evidence. I dont know one Black person that hasnt witnessed cops planting evidence on Black people in the past.
False. It has everything to do with the "facts" being lies. When Furhman pleaded the 5th and the jury heard him using racial slurs, every Black person in america knew he had planted evidence.You must be an idiot if you think the glove episode was more impactful than the fact that the Furhman was a racist that planted evidence. I dont know one Black person that hasnt witnessed cops planting evidence on Black people in the past.
Furhman may have been a racist, so what, that has nothing to do with the facts.
That he MAY have planted evidence in the past or falsified a police report was never heard by the jury.
So all the black people you know have convicted criminals for friends and relatives. Who knew? Maybe you should start associating with a better class of people!
False. It has everything to do with the "facts" being lies. When Furhman pleaded the 5th and the jury heard him using racial slurs, every Black person in america knew he had planted evidence.
False. It has everything to do with the "facts" being lies. When Furhman pleaded the 5th and the jury heard him using racial slurs, every Black person in america knew he had planted evidence.
That was not said with the jury present.
Using racial slurs has nothing, whatsoever with whether or not something if true or false. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
??what?Whites waged 2 of the most devastating and deadly world wars in human history -- for what?you just proved my point hahahhahahahahit's UNDENIABLE that blacks vote [ riot/burn/protests ] based on skin color, not policies or evidence/facts..also they graduate at lower ratesSo the white jurors are OK?Black jurors are not noted for their intelligence and in some cases of a technical nature that is a huge problem.
The predominantly black jury in the o.j. case had another problem....overly sympathetic to a fellow black being charged. They all wore black to protest.
MAJORITY-BLACK JURY SELECTED IN O.J. SIMPSON MURDER TRIAL
the whites are more fair/graduate at higher rates
per all the cop shootings and:
You stupid fuck, Blacks typically vote around 80% to 90% for Democrats.
They voted over 90% for HHH. You think he was black?
Your racism is quite obvious.
.....the whites ARE more fair and try to logically think out things --instead of IMPULSIVELY getting violent BEFORE thinking/getting the facts:
the white votes are more evenly spread out
But yea, those Watts riots were much worse.
That was not said with the jury present.
Using racial slurs has nothing, whatsoever with whether or not something if true or false. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
HA-HAA !!Markle said:So all the black people you know have convicted criminals for friends and relatives!
No, but the jury did hear Fuhrman planted the glove from the defense; which was reasonably believable given Fuhrman’s racist past which the jury did hear.You must be an idiot if you think the glove episode was more impactful than the fact that the Furhman was a racist that planted evidence. I dont know one Black person that hasnt witnessed cops planting evidence on Black people in the past.
Furhman may have been a racist, so what, that has nothing to do with the facts.
That he MAY have planted evidence in the past or falsified a police report was never heard by the jury.
So all the black people you know have convicted criminals for friends and relatives. Who knew? Maybe you should start associating with a better class of people!
You seem like a retard. You obviously have no idea how being a racist will provide reasonable doubt.False. It has everything to do with the "facts" being lies. When Furhman pleaded the 5th and the jury heard him using racial slurs, every Black person in america knew he had planted evidence.
That was not said with the jury present.
Using racial slurs has nothing, whatsoever with whether or not something is true or false. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
You seem like a retard. You obviously have no idea how being a racist will provide reasonable doubt.False. It has everything to do with the "facts" being lies. When Furhman pleaded the 5th and the jury heard him using racial slurs, every Black person in america knew he had planted evidence.
That was not said with the jury present.
Using racial slurs has nothing, whatsoever with whether or not something is true or false. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
You lost the debate the moment you tried to tell a Black man that a racist white cop wouldnt give me reason to doubt he was a liar.You seem like a retard. You obviously have no idea how being a racist will provide reasonable doubt.False. It has everything to do with the "facts" being lies. When Furhman pleaded the 5th and the jury heard him using racial slurs, every Black person in america knew he had planted evidence.
That was not said with the jury present.
Using racial slurs has nothing, whatsoever with whether or not something is true or false. Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.
Why did the jury wear all black?
Christopher Darden on O.J. Simpson 2006 Interview: ‘He Confessed to Murder’
We don't have all the evidence the jury did.
Pahleese....
You have a body and a confession and most probably a DNA match. In the mind of a BLM juror WLDM.
Pahleese....
You have a body and a confession and most probably a DNA match. In the mind of a BLM juror WLDM.
Confessions can be coerced and DNA can be planted.
Again, none of the coverage on this story explains what the defense strategy was.
If this was one juror holding out, then you might have a point.
If this was half the jury saying, "Wait a minute, we have doubts about what the cops are telling us" that's another thing. I'd love to hear from the jurors in this case, to see what their thinking was.
You're assuming, and you know what that means.We don't have all the evidence the jury did.
Pahleese....
You have a body and a confession and most probably a DNA match. In the mind of a BLM juror WLDM.
Jo
