50 dumb hahahahas

You fail to see what's important...
A witness does not have to reveal there reason for taking the 5th; so there need not be any actual incriminating circustances. The witness can get away with taking the 5th simply to avoid a question or situation.
When a witness does that it is call strategy.

So if you get into court and get a question that will make you look like shit if you answer it you can cover your ass by taking the 5th or simply stating "I don't recall such a thing".

Furman choose to lie outright instead of saying "I don't recall any time in the last 10 years that I used that word towards anyone". Nobody could ever prove that he actualy did remeber at that moment during testimony.
If he had been called back to the stand after saying that and they produced that cassette with him saying the n word he could have said..."ok my memory is refreshed now, I remember that. The circumstances where I said that was.....(CYA)". No way to convict him of perjury for that.
He would have able to explain away the tape and still testify against OJ; but when he took the 5th he couldn't explain to the jury why he said that on the tape...in other words he became defenseless on that issue and since he had already lied he should have not taken the 5th and gone back on the stand and defened himself.

So the post is really about knowing when to take the 5th and not Furhman; note that the first person I mentioned in this post is Michael Jackson.

Furhman is mentioned because IMO he didn't use the 5th before he got on the stand knowing he would be questioned about race, if he had done that the jury would not have known about it and the lawyers could not even ask him about it. Then he took the 5th after it was clear to the jury that he lied but he should have taken the stand and at least explained his side and defened all his other testimony.

His strategy was all wrong!!!


I can see him on the stand after he had been proven to lie about the n word and it could have gone like this :

Lawyer: when you said you didn't use the n word, you lied didn't you.
Furhman: Sir I had to answer that question in front of the world and some would take my answer as being all that I am and consider nothing else...
Did I lie...Wouldn't you?

Tell me that would have not made a differrence....

Well, my clothes finished drying so I got to get ready to go out and get drunk for freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Take it from me...get a bullshit 4 hr a week job in a bar and go there on your nights off. Man do your co-workers ever hook you up!!!!
Infact do that over two years at 3 different bars like me and get fucked up all over town. hehehehehe!!!

Will I fuck a ugly bitch tonight??? "I take the 5th"


BRUHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

good night

Number one, no one is trying to "unconvict" him, No contest is guilty, it is just if there was a civil suit filed the conviction can not be used against him in the civil trial.

Number two, taking the 5th is preventing from incriminating yourself. You can't just say I don't want to answer the question, it can only be invoked if such testimony would require you to testify against yourself, and he wasn't on fucking trial, so how could he testify against himself?

LAPD fucked up because they are incapable of just telling the truth. They always have to enhance things. If you had ever read a police report where you are a character in the story, you would wonder where the hell you were when all this shit went down.

It is called creative writing, and they do it so often they would not know how to tell the truth if it was to save their lives. They always need to add a little fluff to try and make the case "air tight."

They fucked up this time. They did it with someone that could afford to prove that all was not as they said it was.

If they had just told it how it was, and played by the rules they would have convicted him.

Hey. Who is Furman, and why did someone take OJ to court. Did they choke drinking it?

Your lack of knowledge is amazing.

Besides, I can assure you that if he had said I do not recall, F. Lee would have had the ammo to refresh his memory right then and there

no contest - nolo contendo -

A plea made by the defendant in a criminal action that is substantially but not technically an admission of guilt and subjects the defendant to punishment but permits denial of the alleged facts in other proceedings.

:1orglaugh :thumbsup