ppl like bailey go after police because their client is clearly guilty. bailey even as a young man wouldnt last a day as a cop. lawers love to dissect essential workers decisions in the field but i get it, they have to in order to get their rapists and murderers off. he was so ridiculous and condescending up there Rossi shouldve said dont call me if you need police assistance u pompous ass
Witness: "Say again. Bear with me sir, I been working since 10 o'clock last night." Attorney Lee Bailey: "I understand, so have I waiting for you so were even. Now...."😭😂😂😂 I love F. Lee
what surprises me is that these lapd witnesses are still made to work what is a difficult job all night and then show up to court to get put on trial by OJ's million dollar lawyers? ridiculous on the part of the lapd
F. Lee Bailey is maybe the greatest litigation lawyer to ever be in a trial court room. He is fantastic and should to this day be used in training for trial lawyers on how to twist any witness no matter their rank station or duty’s. This man could take on the highest ranking officer and make him out to be a private in a matter of minutes. Rest In Peace legend.
His voice stays with you.after cross examining me i would definitely check into a hotel drink a lot of whiskey and smoke a couple kilos while grunting about the next day.
I was once interrogated by my dad about a cigar he found in the bath. he did not stop until I confessed I smoked it. even now I have nightmares about it
Stephen Sipek....my adrenaline is overflowing....I have severak books written by investigative journalist. One of whom is Joseph Bosco who was there every single day ( Book: A Problem of Evidence: How The Prosecution Set Simpson Free)...I need to pull away for awhile
@@keithy4129 So is his coughing into the mic 🤢🤮 He _should_ really turn his head, put his hand in front of his mouth, and _then_ proceed to cough up a lung.
Vee Sea I agree. I feel like I need to clear my throat when he speaks. He is so wonderful, he was disbarred and spent six weeks in prison for contempt. Fitting, no? Lol.
You can say that again. I think this is about the time it became clear that the Los Angeles police department was desperately in need of evolution..... scrutiny accountability professionalism possibly less racism and more transparency. Yeah. Looks like this was an indication... .
It didn`t occur to the sargeant to ask OJ Simpson`s `nine year old daughter for her father`s phone number. He tried to get the alarm company to give him OJ`s telephone number instead. How stupid is this guy ! He seemed to sleep walk through the crime scene.
S.L.S do you know they didn’t ask her if she knew her dad’s number? No. You don’t. Someone at the cop shop maybe did ask, but you cannot interrogate distraught children, so they probably didn’t want to distress them anymore than they already were. The children were upset, tired and scared. “What is your dads number, as we cannot find it” would surely distress them more.
@@pommiebears Asking Sydney "What's your dad's phone number?" is hardly an interrogation and certainly wouldn't make any nine year child distressed. Actually just the opposite, they need it to contact him to make arrangements to take them out of police station.
@BH I hope you continue watching this trial. Watch Bailey's competence in cross examining William Bodziak the FBI shoe print expert. Cochran and Simpson wouldn't let him have any more witnesses after that debacle.
@@terryleddra1973 -There are several cases in which the perpetrators of crimes would change the soles of their shoes to point in the opposite direction.A scientist in Texas murdered his wife ,walked away in the snow with the soles on backwards.
Poor Marsha, she got stuck with poorly trained police and detectives. If all defendants got F. Lee Bailey services the state would have big problems convicting people.
she did not prep the witnesses properly, I am shocked how incompetent was forensic Fung. if any of my students knew so little about DNA they will fail the class
@@amandaplease3007 not when they make up "facts" or plant evidence and state under oath what "they" have found. Today with body cameras, if it's been turned on the citizen has a chance, they some times turn them off.
"do you know how rocket propulsion system works?" "no sir, i don't need to know that" "does popeye outrank captain america?" "exsuse me?" "you really have no competence to be a police officer, do you?"
Bailey chomp chomp, wipe mouth. Mic drop. Lordy these cops would rather play dumb than admit they rushed to judgement. They didn’t rush they were zero to 60 when furman got there and u know he said OJ did it
Fuhrman was right wasn't he. Of course they rushed to Simpson. History was really against him with the abuse and everything. The police can not be blamed. They did everything right expect some details. They gathered the most important proof and that should have been enough if it wasn't for the prosecution putting everyone up on the stand for the defense to create reasonable doubt.
@@NeverGiddy -Last time ,the photo of Fhurman pointing at the Bundy glove were taken past 7.30 am after he allegedly found the Rockingham glove.No evidence a glove existed before.
@@philipwilliams1754 - Welcome to the law Philip . . . I thought you knew everything. "In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact" First Riske, then every other police witness who testified after provided the evidence of the existence of the glove at Bundy, starting as early as 12:20 am or so. Evidence Philip. You don't know what evidence is, do you? And remember from your other post, Riske doesn't lie. His testimony is evidence. ~
Bailey's interrogation of the police is incredible, my the police officer is so arrogant that the cop wore his uniform to the court house. They've been so stupid for so long they think their the law, until there confronted by the law. And the lying or I don't know or I don't understand what you mean by that 🤡🤡🥕
Perhaps you should learn to spell: It's INTERROGATION. And it's spelled LYING, not "lieing". 🙄 And... Learn correct grammar: "THEY ARE" or "THEY'RE" *_not_* "their" and likewise with "there"...again it's "THEY ARE" or "THEY'RE"... *_Before_* *calling others "stupid"...* 🤤
@@kennethcharles1386 Yyyyeah, I'm not American. So please don't assume ONLY Americans watch RU-vid. And in my country we actually convicted the sports hero who murdered his significant other...so there's that.
@@veesea8889 really sad that you feel that way about life, it's just a matter of celebrating Americas Birthday 🎂 do you have to be Amercian 🇺🇸 to show respect.
I watch so many REAL LIFE crime dramas...the first 48, dateline, etc and I have NEVER EVER seen FOUR detectives 2 of whom weren't even on the case go to make a death notification. Normally it is only 2 detectives
Rainey J...I think you're the only one who has brought this up..That opens up another whole can of worms. Also, it makes it more obvious that their minds were already made up...
The children were at the police station. Their next of kin is OJ. So......it sort of makes sense that they’re going to want to inform him asap as his young children are scared and alone. No??
@@moniquefrey-jackson3977 Fuhrman plead the fifth when he was asked about his use of the N word, then every question he was asked thereafter. The defence realised this so they asked him specifically about planting the glove
I've watched this whole trial over the last 2seeks. I Thot this dude did this...but after watching the whole trial I don't think he did this...AFTER ALL THESE YEARS OF THINKNG HE DID....smh
the cops did a sloppy job because they did not know who was the victim until Fuhrman arrived. whether it was frame job I am not sure, but for certain were incompetents.
@@IanP1963 I think that they saw some pictures with OJ in the house and they realized that it is his wife. Fuhrman knew for sure that she was his ex wife because he went to the house when she called the cops after he was violent
@@roc7880 Does it really matter if cops know or don't know who the victims are or were, it's the protection of the crime scene and evidence that initially matters ????
@@IanP1963 you are correct. the cops who entered the crime scene said there were not trained in handling evidence and I think is plausible. the LAPD was in a bad shape in the 90s poorly trained and supervised.
30:28 Right there and then, and the questions leading up to it, and the succeeding ones were a direct example of Irving's Commandments of Cross-Examination (specifically 3. Always ask leading questions; 4. Don't ask a question to which you do not know the answer; 5. Listen to the witness's answers; 9. Don't ask the "one question too many";) I know there are other examples blotted throughout the hour, but this was a shining example to my non-lawyer self.
F Lee Bailey is a phenomenal cross examiner and defense lawyer. The brutal truth though, is it ethical to do your job as well as he does even though he knows that his client is guilty? I don’t believe so!
A client is guilty only when she/he confesses in court to the judge of having commited the crime OR , via a trial, when a jury convicts the person charged with the crime. Those two are the only legally-accepted, Constitutionally-sanctioned scenarios for a client to be recognised as officially “guilty”. If you have a defense client who pleads not guilty, then you have to work with that, and take her/his word for it, and devise a defense plan that works in the best interest of the client and one that is unassailable as possible. Aren’t we all in this republic protective of the legal principle that a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court of law or when she/he confesses in a court of law? After all, the person you’re defending is your employer as well as your client.
It absolutely is ethical according to the professional rules of ethics. It's unethical not to zealously represent your client to the fullest, end of sentence. The job is to test the government's case. Hold them to the high bar of proving every element of every offense beyond a reasonable doubt... the system works because defense attorneys do that. Even if there is video evidence of your client committing the crime, you have an obligation to defend that client. Bailey is well within the ethical bounds here. Lawyers represent clients every day where there is far more evidence than there was against OJ, believe it or not.
I totally agrre!! It is absolutely RIDICULOUS for lead to detectives to leave the crime scene and go to notify someone of a death...they were full of bs...i feel in my heart and soul Fuhrman planted evidence. OJ may or may not be guilty but those assholes planted evidence!! No doubt!
Yes there is Brian Russell. Under oath he pled the 5th after being asked if he planted evidence in this case. That is all the evidence, and then some that one needs to understand he was a poor and worse yet crooked detective.
B Trimble - If you understand what pleading the 5th means, he has to plead the 5th to everything he's asked. If they'd asked him if he was the second gunman behind the grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza he would have pleaded the 5th. Doesn't mean he was the gunman. You have to plead the 5th to everything, you can't be selective. It isn't an admission of guilt to plead the 5th. No evidence was presented he planted any evidence in any case. If he was such a bad cop and planted evidence, why did no one contact the defense on their 1-800 number and tell their story. Cochran would have put them on the stand. Cochran didn't, because no one called, because he'd never framed anyone before this case or during this case. ~
He did not "have to" plead the 5th on everything. That was a choice, to me the burden of proof is gone, reasonable doubt is established and one can assume evidence was at least tampered with, if not planted. He was not required to plead the 5th on every question, that was a choice to cover his lying ass.
no. if the cops mishandled evidence, which they did, there is enough space for reasonable doubt. which it was. remember it is up to the state to prove guilt not the accused
They really messed up why didn't they prepare the witness before they make them testify,and why when the crime was reported why did they send a rookie he didn't even take notes
@@roc7880 plz had they done there job instead of relying on all they evidence they had,all the witnesses they put on the stand got played by the defense team
The only mistake they made is not foreseeing F Lee Bailey and Johnny Cochran would be handling the case. 99.9% of other attorneys would not have drawn out and highlight the mistakes made.
24:45 Bailey argues with him about the location of the walkway that runs along the house, and says both doors are accessible from it. The cop plays dumb and says you can't reach the doors from the walkway. They argue about this for two or three minutes, then the cop stipulates that while you can get to the door from the walkway, you have to walk on a short piece of walkway to get to the door. This has clearly frustrated Bailey. Cop - "I thought you were talking about the walkway on the side of the house" Bailey - "The walkway on the front starting at the gate, runs beside the house, all the way to the walkway in the back, doesn't it sergeant?" Cop - "It also leads off to the front door".... Bailey finally gives up, and says "Let's move on, they went in through the garage at any event.... you never entered the house, you may not even know where the doors ARE, is that fair?" LOL amazing
So basically, Mr. Bailey blurts out what he WISHES happened, not what ACTUALLY happened. When the Judge sustains an objection about that he says "oh, I thought somebody said that…" You can't play the befuddled and confused old man in a court of law Sir... Well, apparently *he can but it shouldn't be allowed. I've witnessed so many gross mind games and manipulations throughout this trial. The defense played this jury like a fiddle; they stupidly fell for every ounce of it...
The reason Rossi looked so much like a fool is because he was lying and F. Lee Bailey ( a seasoned lawyer) could smell a cover up a mile away. There was a stink on this case that OJ's dream team could smell. Rossi was part of the cover up that blew up in the face of the prosecutors.
F Lee Bailey is of course amazing but also it’s so sinister they way they defend him. Idk I agree with the idea that we shouldn’t be able to just throw ppl in jail and the burden of proof falls on the government but you gotta know that those lawyers knew he did it and to watch them poke holes In the prosecutions case it’s hard to watch at times
According to the defense. You should levitate in the air to process a scene. I can't believe the prosecution let them get away with this crap. A certain amount of evidence gets disturbed when processing a scene. Its a fact that you just properly document. Riske's answer to most questions should have veen " not my job"
Pure grasping at straws. I get a kick out of all these comments saying how great Bailey was. Think about this: all of his questions (taken collectively to all witnesses) imply BOTH a frame job AND the LAPD incompetence. How do those 2 things coexist? And doesn't that actually mean there was a legit investigation here? And if that is the case.......doesn't that mean that some of the evidence is legit? And (finally) if it is.......doesn't that mean he is guilty beyond any doubt? If ONE drop of that blood evidence is legit.....he did it (without question). If I was on the jury, I'd consider this an insult to my intelligence.
The frame job was the rogue racist detective planting evidence by himself. Or let's put it this way Furman took one for the team while the other detectives milked the la taxpayers.
Good grief! That was an exhausting INTERROGATION! 😪🥵🤪😵 I'm knackered and can only imagine how Sgt Rossi felt after that, almost...thraping. Hostile and belligerent! I thought lawyers were meant to object to hostility towards and badgering of a witness on the stand 🤯
She has too, it’s her only hope, she got dealt a bad hand by the lackluster lapd. On top of that she is up against top notch lawyers, F.Lee Bailey and Johnnie Cochran being legends.
But it's perfectly ok for Johnnie to do it to her, to not shut up, to interupt or object every 5 minutes during her questioning??? LOL! Alrighty then...
criminalist fung photographed and collected the evidence of OJ's blood on and in the bronco and at both crime scenes before OJ even got back to Los Angeles that morning, so they flew on OJ's air plane, took blood from him invisibly while he wasn't even back in Los angeles yet LOL and my cat flies and dances
F. Lee Bailey. . . . . Prime example of when arrogance is mistaken for intelligence. His "skills" are based on being able to question individuals that are required to answer his questions in a courtroom.
OJ paid his lawyers millions to ensure everyone else was on trial except him. in hindsight he couldve gone cheap and hired a better call saul because the jury was never gonna convict him anyway as several have admitted. revenge for rodney king
F Lee Bailey may be a great lawyer, but he had his #1 Fan, Lance Ito for a Judge in this case. That helped Bailey look good here. It seems to me Ito showed a little bit of favoritism the whole Simpson trial.
Lol imagine that? One of the prosecution’s most key witnesses to the whole murder investigation invokes his fifth? The case would fall apart quicker than it actually did. 🤣
