From: Jasper
Date: 22 Jun 2008
Time: 05:16:16 PM
Bob – I don’t know what the statute of limitations is on perjury in California. I do know that it is a “crime” so seldom punished in California that the legal talking heads were amazed that perjury charges were even filed against Fuhrman in the O.J. murder trial. You have to remember that several prosecution witnesses were caught lying on the witness stand. ....................Phil Vannatter gave demonstrably false reasons for going to Rockingham and entering O.J.’s property without a warrant. Denise Brown claimed that when she left O.J. outside the school he was in a dark mood when a video taken by a passerby showed him laughing with her father and Denise hugging him and giving him a kiss on the cheek. ...................Others, like Marcia Clark, who was not sworn in but was already sworn to tell the truth as an officer of the court, also told demonstrable lies under oath. ...................Fuhrman and Vannatter lied about the “suspicious way the Bronco was parked with the rear end sticking out at an extreme angle (2-degrees). Michelle Kestler and Greg Matheson lied about not being able to tell whether or not there was blood on the socks found (by Fuhrman and Roberts) on O.J.'s bedroom rug when they first examined them. Dennis Fung lied about the envelope in Fuhrman’s pointing finger photo. He said that it hadn’t been moved hen an earlier photo showed that it had been moved. ................. The point that the legal experts kept making was that telling a lie under oath was not enough to be charged with a crime. The lie had to be “egregious” and “material” to the case. A mere misstatement of the facts is not perjury because it is not necessarily a lie. It could be a faulty observation (as was the case with Alan Park) or a false memory (Kato testified that O.J. wore a sweat suit to the airport – he didn’t). It can be argued that Tom Lange lied about the number of coins he saw on Nicole’s driveway (his notes say one thing, his testimony was different). Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden deliberately and consistently misstated testimony and misrepresented evidence. Police and prosecutors do such things in murder cases every day from sea to shining sea. .................. The charge of perjury for which Fuhrman was convicted was the least of his perjured testimony in the O.J. case. His alibi might not be considered perjury at all given the skillful way he combined “approximately 8:00 p.m.” with “just as the barbeque was starting.” It can be called a matter of interpretation or an honest mistake. It can also be shown to be “immaterial” if Pavelic for the defense had evidence he could present as “poof” that Fuhrman did have a “real” alibi. Fuhrman did not give his American Express Gold Card alibi under oath. He said nothing on the witness stand about Pomona. .............. Go here http://smartfellowspress.com/ and click on “Fuhrman” in the permanent links above Iago Discussion in Progress. A close study of the “Fuhrman Reports” will give you some idea of what we are up against in getting him in court. Many key questions that need answering in Fuhrman’s history of police misconduct are not in charges that were investigated but in the “unknown” NUMBER of files that were purge. –Jasper