This page was initiated 21 December 1995
Last update: 29 September 1996

Marcia Clark

Portrait of a dishonest Prosecutor

SHAPIRO: ... the essence of what our case is about, and that is credibility, and that is what we have stressed from day one.

Let me clear this up, You don't support perjury, you don't use witnesses you know are lying. But you certainly go after the key prosecution witness who's a virulent racist. I mean, is that so hard for people to understand?"
Johnnie Cochran - interview, reported as TRIBNET article #10017, 27 September 1996

Christopher Darden wrote in his book, "IN CONTEMPT, that he and Clark knew Fuhrm,an would commit perjury prior to calling him as a witness.

    The sequence of events is fixed:
  1. Hear Noise and see picture move.
  2. Ask Rachel if they just had a quake.
  3. Talk to Rachel for another three minutes, indicating repeatly how scared he is.
  4. Find small pocket flashlight.
  5. "SO I'M RUNNING DOWN THIS SIDEWALK"
  6. "AND I SEE THAT THERE IS A LIMO OUT IN FRONT"
  7. "IT'S DARK; I SEE NO ONE IN IT"
  8. "AND THE DOG, CHACHI -- THAT'S A BLACK CHOW -- IS SOMEWHERE HERE IN THE DRIVEWAY."
  9. go down the driveway
  10. Lift broken gate to open it.
  11. Go behind house, on to south walkway.
  12. Come back out to be seen by the driver at 10:54 - Allen Park.
    At the same moment, Allen Park sees OJ Simpson.
    No opportunity for Simpson to have made the Noise.
    Kaelin was on the walkway BEFORE Simpson was seen.
  13. Open the gate for the Limousine.

With the resulting fact that the Golf Bag had been placed outside.


20 CLARK: WHEN YOU -- OKAY.
21 SO WHEN YOU FIRST WALKED BACK TOWARDS THE LIMO
22 DRIVER TO LET HIM IN, YOU NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A GOLF BAG
23 IN THE FRONT AREA?
An action consistant with Simpson having emerged from inside
Clark

Prosecutor Marcia Clark

Her own argument discloses that she is a woman with her eye on a 4.2 million dollar prize, exercised her fine legal and logical mind to distort, misrepresent and mislead.

Knowing what Mark Fuhrman was, and is, she realized that the case was lost when the Fuhrman Tapes were found. She also realized that she had a global audience to sell to. On August 29th, 1995 she presented an impassioned argument in defense of Fuhrman -- the logic of which is still quoted by those holding to the notion of Simpson's guilt. This page addresses the logic of that argument, as she presented it. Those wishing to examin the text within the context of the transcript, need only click on Marcia's Picture, for the link for the Walraven 08/29/95 Transcript.

The rules of our examination of CLARK CRIMINAL LOGIC are simple.
  1. Identify the underlying principle.
  2. Universalize application of that principle.
  3. Identify the factual basis as appied to Fuhrman.
  4. Identify the factual basis as applied to Simpson.

On the 29th of August, 1995, Lead Prosecutor Marcia Clark was caught in a role reversal situation. The following text is from the transcript in which Clark tries to prevent introduction of "Fuhrman Tapes" segments.

MARCIA DEFENDS DETECTIVE MARK FUHRMAN:

You have to look at the facts that we have.
And what are those facts?
  1. It is a fact that we have a number of police officers already at Bundy before Detective Fuhrman ever got there.
  2. It is a fact that those officers saw one glove at Bundy before Detective Fuhrman ever got there.
  3. It is a fact that Detective Fuhrman was never alone outside around the evidence where he could have gotten the glove to take to Rockingham.
  4. And it is a fact that we have thumps against Kato's wall right where the glove appears.
    What are the "FACTS"
  1. All of the officers at Bundy, before 2:00 AM -- when Fuhrman arrived -- were Uniformed. Their job, which they were doing, was establishing the perimeter. They had nothing to do with the actual crime scene.
  2. Kneeling down by the mailbox, Officer Riske observed a glove and cap. There after, every detective knelt in the same location and made the same observation. With the exception of Mark Fuhrman, at 4:00 AM, no detective approached the bodies from within the caged area.
  3. This is an outright LIE. The photographs {#34 & #35} and testimony of Rolf Rokahr establish that Mark Fuhrman was alone, at the bodies, when Rokahr shot photos #36 thru #40. Clark lied about having a photo log -- which provides the means of establishing the sequence, and relative timing of the photographs.
  4. It is a fact that Kaelin reported an "earthquake" noise occurred around 10:40 to 10:45 on the night of the murders. It is also a fact that the glove was found on the opposite side of the wall associated with that noise. But, it is also a fact that Mark Fuhrman -- who was alone when he found the glove -- was the only detective who knew about the noise prior to his going alone to "find" the glove.

Spurious Argument

    And then, you know--so to say that he's going to plant evidence when he doesn't know what it's going to turn up, let alone what
  1. the blood typing will turn up--and that will get me into yet another of the Defense arguments which is beyond silly--is, you have blood evidence that comes back on the Rockingham glove to the Defendant, Ron Goldman and Nicole.
  2. Now, how can you plant the glove?
  3. What if the third party that comes up on that glove in that blood is someone other than the Defendant?
    Again, "by the numbers"
  1. The blood typing on a glove, taken from the feet of a murder victim -- in immediate proximity to another victim -- both of whom had had their throats slashed?
    Would it be beyond reason to expect the blood typing to match that of the victims? Clark is asserting the possibility Fuhrman would expect unrelated blood.
    When TWO gloves in close proximity, and under a bush -- as in the case at Bundy. That indicates the gloves were removed -- and discarded -- by the assailant.
    We know from Fuhrman's notes, he believed the dog had bitten the assailant. There was an absense of evidence for canine intervention at the crime scene. Therefore, any wound -- and resulting blood -- would not be associated with the glove.
    The defendants blood was undoubtly introduced when the glove was used to augment the defendants blood in his Bronco. Otherwise, it would be reasonable to expect traces of the defendants blood to be on BOTH gloves.
  2. "Planting" a glove is simply a matter of dropping, or throwing, in the desired location.
  3. Third Party Blood would be evidence of
    1. an injured confederate
    2. the killer's attempt to incriminate Simpson
    3. an unidentified third victim.
Then hasn't Detective Fuhrman completely messed up a murder scene?
If Simpson hadn't been tried: this would be the situation, only if explainations 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 above are refuted by the killer -- assuming the killer is captured.
Since Simpson was tried, all evidence has been contaminated -- or discredited -- and the LADA will never be able to obtain a conviction against anyone else.
He has dumped a glove where it doesn't belong.
Obvious statement of fact.
It will mean nothing when the glove evidence is finally analyzed except point the finger at him.
Only because Simpson was wrongly accused, and sufficient evidence of Means, Motive, and Opprtunity was developed at the trial.

Spurious Argument

And by the way, your Honor, while we're at it, if there's going to be evidence planted, why not plant a fingerprint? It's so simple. We don't have to worry about autorads and laboratory error rates and Dr. Weir and population genetics. Plant a fingerprint. So simple. No one thought to do that. If there was going to be evidence planted, I would think they would do a better job. But that's what's so silly about this.
Now, the Defense counters with the torture logic that of course the conspiracy had to involve more. And this is what you heard Mr. Uelmen argue. This is another glaring problem with the argument.

Illogical Argument

They would seek to bring in Mark Fuhrman's statements to swipe the entire police department, at least every police officer out there at Bundy.

Circular Logic

Our case is--if we took that Rockingham glove and threw it out, we'd have overwhelming proof of the Defendant's guilt. I mean, that's how strong this case is. That's how little this case relies on Detective Fuhrman. And I smile when Mr. Uelmen says--argues the point about Mr. Fuhrman being such a critical witness. He knows better than that. Mr. Fuhrman's not necessary to our testimony at all because we have Detective Lange, Detective Vannatter, Detective Phillips who all saw the glove in place.
Detective Fuhrman didn't even collect it. He saw it, he went and brought everybody back there, they all saw it and then Dennis Fung collected it.
    Note here how she again trusted that her audience did not understand causal logic.
    The act of Collection is independent from
  1. depositing
  2. finding
  3. viewing
  4. and bringing others to view.
    If this weren't true, one could build the argument that whoever collected the evidence is guilty of generating it -- because that is the locical principle she has asserted.

We don't need Detective Fuhrman, and he knows that.
Detective Fuhrman's view of whether he's an important witness or not has a great deal to do with the fact that he's trying to sell his role as a technical advisor in this screenplay to Mr. Flynn in the relevant passages.

Illogical Argument

And by the way, I should mention to the court that the Defense neatly steps around the excerpts where he vehemently denies planting any evidence in this case, where he vehemently asserts he was doing nothing more than his job in this case. He said, "You know, I've had many more interesting exciting cases where I had so much more involvement and really did some work. Here, I was just out there just doing my job, I happen to see this glove, end of line, and I get all this."
  • PRINCIPLE: Professing innocence affirms innocence
  • UNIVERSAL: Any perspective defendant who states they "didn't do it", didn't.
  • FUHRMAN: Stated he didn't plant the glove -- therefore he didn't.
  • SIMPSON: Stated he didn't kill Nicole & Ron -- therefore he didn't.

    Marcia Clark logic asserts, that the "Trial of the Century" should never have been.

Return to Circular Logic

But then, if only because of Defense tactics, Mark Fuhrman likely thought he became very important. That was his view and it may very well have to do with the fact that they've decided to make him a key aspect of their case. Nevertheless, he's not important to ours.
So we have a case that is so solid in its corroboration, all of the physical evidence, the DNA, evidence on {1} the Rockingham glove, on the Defendant's sock, we have--and at the Bundy walk. We also have the hair and trace evidence of very powerful magnitude showing the Bronco fiber on the hat, on the {2} Rockingham glove. We have the blue black fibers connecting the Defendant's sock to Ron Goldman's shirt and to the {3} Rockingham glove. We also have the Defendant hairs on Ron Goldman's shirt and in the ski cap.
    Three times Clark enumerates the Rockingham glove that she doesn't need.
  • Each piece of evidence is tied to, or derived from, the GLOVE.
      The exceptions,
    1. victim's blood in the Bronco -- obtainable from the glove.
    2. normal forensic residue, consistant with regular visitation to a location.
    3. the socks -- which Dr. Henry Lee established were tampered with.

Misrepresentation & Unsubstantiated Assertion
excellant soundbites

I mean, this is an extremely powerful case that requires no one witness for its proof, but many, Mark Fuhrman the least of which.

In this case, ... the defense in the beginning of this case has made many--gave a lot--did a lot of posturing about how they would show that the glove was planted at rockingham. Not only have they failed to do that, but their posturing has been exposed as baseless, as a sham.

See: Fuhrman's Opportunity

They can't. All of the evidence has proven conclusively and consistently that there was nothing planted in this case, that Mark Fuhrman had no opportunity to do so.
Whatever his attitudes, whatever his beliefs, whatever he would have liked to have done, he could not do it.
again see: Fuhrman's Opportunity
And the evidence has now demonstrated to this court that even under the third party culpability analysis, ... --where they say mere motive and opportunity is not enough to bring in evidence of a third party, in this case, we don't even have the opportunity, assume you have the motive.
Clark conceded Opportunity to maintain Credibility
then dismisses it as irrelevant
and role reverses.
So they don't even come close in this case. They have failed in their proof.
If they wanted to get in this kind of evidence, the kind of proof they should have brought to this court, the kind of evidence they should have been able to proffer is,
  1. "I was at bundy. I saw two gloves," or,
  2. "I was at rockingham. I saw Mark Fuhrman run behind there and drop something."
    Clark's concept of evidence:
  • PRINCIPLE: Eyewitness account is only evidence of guilt.
  • UNIVERSAL: Unless the accused is seen, they are innocent.
  • FUHRMAN: Was not seen, therefore is innocent.
  • SIMPSON: Was not seen, therefore is innocent.
Clark's conclusion applies to both
Simpson and Fuhrman
It never happened. No such thing ever happened. And in fact, what we have here--I mean, what's really kind of interesting is, for all intents and purposes, given the state of the evidence, your Honor, and what the officers testified to at Bundy, Mark Fuhrman may as well not have been there.
Then, she asserts, and
misrepresents the content of the testimony.

I mean, when you look at it in an analytical sense, what they're looking to do is bring in a whole bunch of inflammatory material on a witness who had a very small part in this case, whose part they want to pump up as big as they can so they can make this issue as big as they can to totally divest the jury from this case. And the admission of this evidence is in essence telling the jury disregard the case, look somewhere else. I know that in--I do want to remind the court of the January 20th ruling--January 20th I think where the court ruled in its written ruling concerning the admissibility of Kathleen Bell. And the court at that time said that it found it to be relevant because there was adjusted position of two things; and that is the indication of racial animus, that is the willingness to focus on an inter-racial couple just opposed with fabrication of probable cause, that he would make something up in order to stop them. And it was the combination of those two factors together that made the court determine it to be relevant. Now, in this context that now that we have seen that Detective Fuhrman could not have planted any evidence, I would think that the standard would get even higher, but certainly, it would not get any lower than that.

In none of the excerpts that the Defense has proffered have we seen any evidence that Detective Fuhrman would fabricate or move evidence in order to frame someone because they are African American. And I wanted to read to the court in context the passages that Mr. Uelmen has stated he feels are relevant for that purpose because I think when you see them in context--let me see. Proffer 4. I won't have to waste the court's time. I won't read it.

Set PRINCIPLE for Summation
which she will violate
{**** link to 10:52 noise arguement ****}
But we do have a real problem with the accuracy. In a case where we are leaning on every word and every nuance and the context in which it's made to make arguments to a jury, it's extremely important that we have a very accurate transcript, one that gives the entire context in the most accurate manner possible. Obviously we don't have that in this case.

We know that police officers act on these hunches all the time. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong, sometimes what they do amounts to an arrest without probable cause in which case the case is thrown out. Sometimes it doesn't.

That's the problem that we have. We have a--we have a capital case here.
And the commission of perjury in a capital case that causes someone to get the death penalty--which Mark Fuhrman could not have known whether or not that would happen at the time he was out there at Bundy--if you perjure yourself in a death penalty case causing someone to receive the sentence of death, you yourself are sentenced to death.
Irrelevent Connection
A variation on Causal Logic
Forceful Clark "soundbite logic"

And that brings me to another point, which is, if the Defense were to be allowed to bring in this code of silence argument, ..., then in response, would the People be allowed to bring in all of the good officers who've done acts of heroism, acts of courage, saved lives to show the jury that that conspiracy stuff, you know, has a lot to do with comic books and nothing to do with the evidence in this case and there are good police officers out there too.

    Suddenly, evidence of individuals doing their job valiantly becomes proof that,
  1. people do not cover for their co-workers.
  2. people do not overlook illegalities & improprieties in the workplace.
  3. workers NEVER by-pass safety procedures in order to complete a task; and if they did, they would be immediately reported by their co-worker.
I mean, you want to talk about a mini trial? We'll be here til `97 proving all this stuff.
There has to come an end to this at some point, but we do have to use the rules of logic and the rules of evidence, and that's what the Defense is trying to prevent.
    This is a real CLASSIC:
    Accuse the other side of using your tactics.
  1. Clark attempted to iniate a spousal abuse trial.
  2. Selected witnesses of no probative value. {**** insert link to Stern, etal ****>
  3. here, threatens introduction of meaningless witnesses.
  4. later, threatens to force a mistrial. {**** insert Ito, in chambers, on wife ****}
Clark vouches to her followers
who avoid transcripts,
in favor of sound bites.
The very cross-examination previewed for this court by Mr. Uelmen shows you the way the admission of these tapes will derail this trial and all without any basis in the evidence. When you look at the passages that I've now shown to the court in context, you can see that the conduct they're talking about bears no relationship to the conduct that they are trying to prove, which never occurred in this case, which could not occur in this case.

I mean, that's what's so silly. Every time I get into arguing this, I say, you know, but it couldn't happen, it couldn't happen. I mean, that's really the bottom line here. We have a witness with a limited role whose credibility is at issue for the Defense, the Defense has sought to put it at issue, with respect to planting evidence. We have proven conclusively and consistently without any, any ability to refute it at all by the Defense that he could not do what they have been desperately trying to prove he did. Could not and did not. All right. So whatever he is--and as far as I can tell, none of it's good--but whatever he is, he couldn't do it. So what are we talking about? What are we going to bring in front of this jury?
Belittles significance of planted evidence
What is the theory of relevance here? What are we doing? ... In other words, we're inflaming the passions of the jury, introducing irrelevant or, at best, collateral evidence to distract them from their duty as to an issue that is resolved by other evidence. That's all we're doing.
To Clark, "collateral evidence" is anything that challenges her evidence.

...the People have offered in their moving papers and we reiterate the offer now, to stipulate that between `85 and `87, Detective Fuhrman used the racial epithet in question. And that's the value of that evidence. That's it, your Honor. That's it. It is collateral impeachment of a non-material point in the witness' testimony as to--a witness whose testimony the court has seen.
If this were true -- that this was "collateral impeachment" -- the prosecution could have granted limited immunity to Fuhrman, so he could admit -- on the stand -- that which the prosecution was willing to stipulate. But again, this was a "sound bite" concept.
If granted immunity -- even "limited" -- Fuhrman could admit to planting the glove with out fear of prosecution. This principle was established when the Ole North conviction was overturned.
Are we to turn a case on its head because a witness who has a small part of the case has a lurid past?

Clark Concedes
Stipulation, Summation & Instruction

The People will have stipulated that Detective Fuhrman lied. That's a lot. That's not a little. They will stand up with the Caljic argument--the Caljic instruction that I know the court's aware of, a witness willfully false, and they can argue everything they need to argue from that with the People's stipulation to the fact that he used that racial epithet. And that is the attention and the time at most that this issue deserves.
  • STIPULATION: Fuhrman lied under oath.
  • SUMMATION: Defense can argue Fuhrman lied to cover the motive for having planted the glove.
  • INSTRUCTION: The Jury is told they can disregard all evidence associated with someone who lied under oath.
      EFFECT:
    1. The Jury could then proceed to acquit -- freeing Simpson.
    2. Clark would have a media spin akin to the nullification spin currently being espoused.
    3. Less attention focused on Fuhrman.
    4. No cloud over LADA, or LAPD
    5. No potential political fallout.
    6. Clark gets her MILLIONS.

Credibility Resolved?

But to turn this into the mini trial of Mark Fuhrman in the context of a murder case where his credibility has already been resolved as to the issue that the

Credibility Resolved?

There is nothing good that can come of the interjection of a very serious social issue into a murder trial ... it is not the way to prove a murder case and it's not the way to defend a murder case.

Form over substance argument ignors
establishing "Chain of Evidence"

It is nothing but the very blatant attempt to inflame..., distract..., mislead..., confuse... and make sure do not look at the proof and the properly admitted evidence in this case. (Brief pause.)

...I beg the court to keep us on track and to allow the jury to pursue that search for the truth based on evidence that is properly admissible in this case and relevant to that determination.

Inconsistancy is recognized by the Court

THE COURT: Miss Clark, you say that the court shouldn't split the baby here and that the court should come down on one side or the other, and you urge me of course to come down on the side that you would prefer me to land on. But in the same breath, you also say that you're willing to stipulate that Detective Fuhrman used the term numerous times and you're willing to agree to the 2.21 instruction that a witness willfully false. So aren't you splitting the baby there yourself in your argument?

To those who believe Clark "Honest"

Did Clark really want to win this case?

Marcia Clark's First Lie:
To establish time of Murder she selected witnesses to distort the time:

Neither witness can fix an EXACT time, or close approximation, for the Akita barking. Only Eva Stein can specifically associate the barking with Nicole Brown Simpson's Akita -- but, having been asleep, she has no way to judge the time. In the absence of better witnesses, this testimony would have to surfice. But there were better witnesses; and had the defendant been represented by a Public Defender, they would have gone ignored.

Witnesses an ethical DA would have presented:

Robert Heidstra takes his two dogs for walk at 10:15 -- and checked his clock. He has been following he same approximate route for fourteen years. He knows dogs in the area, the sounds, and the times between various locations. He hears the Akita bark between 10:30 and 10:45.
Marcia Clark knew about him on: June 21st

Denise Pilnak , a bona fide time freak -- she knows exactly how long her routine activities take and consults multiple timepieces during the course of her day. She establishes the time of the Akita barking as 10:33 to 10:35.

Marcia Clark knew about her shortly after the murders.

Clark on Fuhrman's importance:{March 14th - sidebar}

MS. CLARK : I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. THE JURY IS NOT GOING TO MAKE A FINDING THAT {Fuhrman}'S A LIAR, MR. BAILEY. THEY MAKE A FINDING OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE AS TO YOUR CLIENT, NOT AS TO THIS DETECTIVE. SO THAT OUTCOME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS LAWSUIT,...

THE COURT: MISS CLARK, DO YOU HONESTLY -- EXCUSE ME. DO THE PEOPLE HONESTLY TAKE THE POSITION THAT SOMEBODY WHO IS REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL WHO HAS WRITTEN LETTERS TO TARGET SEVERAL LAWYERS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE SUING DOESN'T HAVE ANY BEARING ON SOMEBODY'S CREDIBILITY AS THEY TESTIFY IN A LAWSUIT THAT'S RELATED TO IT? I MEAN, IS THAT YOUR POSITION?...
WE'RE NOT GOING TO TRY THAT LAWSUIT HERE...
BUT THE FACT HE IS GOING TO MAKE CLAIMS AGAINST CERTAIN PEOPLE CONNECTED WITH THIS CASE, THAT'S RELEVANT TO CREDIBILITY, BIAS, INTEREST, MOTIVE.

MR. DARDEN: ACTUALLY SINCE MR. COCHRAN GOT TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER? MY CONCERN IS, IF THE JURY LEARNS HE'S SUING MR. COCHRAN, THE LEAD ATTORNEY ON THE CASE, THAT ADDS A WHOLE NEW DIMENSION TO THIS CASE AND THE JURY COULD -- THAT COULD VERY WELL AFFECT THEIR ASSESSMENT OF THIS WITNESS' CREDIBILITY.

THE COURT: IT CERTAINLY DOES. IT CERTAINLY DOES ADD NEW DIMENSION TO THE CASE. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT AT ALL.

The Basis and result of these comments?
Mr. Bailey: Detective Fuhrman, for what purpose did you retain your lawyer, Robert Tourtelot?
Fuhrman: I was defamed in the media for planting evidence in a Capital Crime.
Return to negociation process

Clark Justice: {March 21st}

Marcia Clark argues that Vannatter's "reckless disregard" for the truth in his sworn Search Warrant request is "not material" for the purposes of impeachment. She goes on to assert:
WHAT IS PUT INTO A SEARCH WARRANT AFFIDAVIT IS NOT RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR A JURY TO HEAR.
It didn't concern her that Search Warrant constituted the only notes recorded by that detective with regard the murders. Effectively, she argued that a detectives notes become previldged, if they are made in the form of a Search Warrant. She expressed this with the statement:
DETECTIVE VANNATTER RESISTED THAT DEFINITION BECAUSE IT REALLY DID NOT COMPORT WITH WHAT HIS DEFINITION OF NOTES WERE.
So. By Clark's concept of law, a detective can define that which can be used to show he lied -- and the fact that the lie constituted perjury, is material in evaluating credibility.

But what is Vannatter's theory on "notes" -- the memorialization of facts?

Darden: AND DID YOU MEMORIALIZE SOMEHOW WHERE AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND?
Vannatter: IT IS MEMORIALIZED IN THE FOLLOW-UP REPORT. IT IS MEMORIALIZED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND IT IS MEMORIALIZED BY THE CRIMINALIST WHO I DIRECTED TO PROTECT AND RECOVER THE EVIDENCE.
In fact, Shapiro asked Vannatter {March 20th}:
IS A SEARCH WARRANT NOTES?
Vannatter: YEAH.
Shapiro: YOU CONSIDER THOSE NOTES, OKAY.
Vannatter: WELL, IT WAS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT I WROTE A SEARCH WARRANT ON, YES.
Shapiro: SO THAT'S PART OF YOUR NOTES. AND THEN YOU HAD NOTES ON THE STATEMENT WITH KATO KAELIN?
Vannatter: YES.
So Vannatter does in fact, consider the Search Warrant part of his notes. If Darden knew this, why didn't Clark? Or was she trying to surpress evidence? She certainly misrepresented the facts to the Court.

When Did Marcia Begin her LIES ?

At Grand Jury, Clark is already covering for FUHRMAN. Fuhrman had Lange's role & authority first. Fuhrman and Phillips were the Investigating Detectives at 2:10 AM on the 13th. It wasn't until their arriveal at 4:30 AM that Vannatter and Lange took on that role. Yet Clark misleads the Grand Jury.
The implication -- Fuhrman and Phillips did not "detect". But we now know, as Clark knew prior to the Grand Jury convening, Rokahr had taken photographs of Fuhrman in the crime area. Yet, here is Marcia Clark telling the Grand Jury that only Vannatter and Lange were allowed inside to view the evidence and victims.

This is a perfect example of Marcia Clark's talent misrepresentation, while technically telling the truth. Simply start your "truth" after the fact in question. Do not ask about a prior investigation team. Lie by omission. The Grand Jury never heard about, or from, detectives Fuhrman and Phillips.

Marcia Clark's Character

One could always assert that her willfull misrepresentation of facts were associated with "the heat of battle". So let us examine her behavior in the context of here personal life.

California is a community property state. This means that any assets accrued during a marriage are to be divided equally between spouses -- regardless of who earned the monies to acquire those assets. Included in those assets would be revenues derived from sell the rights to work begun during the marriage. These rights would include the movie or book rights and royalties derived therefrom.

As an attorney, and previously divorced individual, Marcia Clark was fully aware of the financial ramifications of getting divorced in California. Knowing them, and intending to dump her second husband, she filed divorce after she obtained an indictment against Orenthal james Simpson, but before the actual trial began -- and community property rights were vested.

How do we know that Clark expected enormous financial gain from the Simpson Trial? At the same time she hired one attorney to handle her divorce, she hired a second one to handle the negociations for the movie and book rights. There, within a month of the verdict, Marcia Clark was able to sign a $4.2 million book deal --- and not have to share it with her ex.

To show the kutzbah of this woman, we might recall the fact that:
During the trial, Marcia Clark brought her espoused husband to court seeking additional "child support". Her reason? The cost of her clothes for the trial were very high, and placed an undue financial burden on her.

Marcia Clark was earning $96,000 as lead prosecutor for the City of Los Angeles; twice that earned by her espoused husband. Yet she asserted that it was his responsibility to subsidize her clothing expenses -- while not sharing in the financial benefit from the activities that imposed those expenses.

I have no doubt that there are those, so irrational as to find Marcia's logic acceptable. After all, they argue in it's support -- while ignoring all evidence refuting it. But than the defendant is a popular, reverent -- possibly handsome -- successful, rich black man, who once accepted responsibility for striking his white wife.

Return to negociation process

Evidence withheld:

MR. SCHECK:
As the court probably recalls, the Defense has been requesting for several months in this case, really from the beginning, contact sheets of the crime scene photographs. We have never had a photo log in this case and we never had contact sheets indicating the order in which pictures were taken. Yesterday, we saw for the first time big beautiful color contact sheets of crime scene photographs. We saw those because Mr. Bodziak of the FBI had requested negatives and prepared contact sheets apparently in anticipation of assisting the Prosecution in the cross-examination of Dr. Lee and calling Mr. Bodziak as a rebuttal witness in this case. Examination of those contact sheets reveal that the picture of Mark Fuhrman pointing to the glove at Bundy appears to have been taken at night because the pictures to our eyes at this point prior to and subsequent to the Fuhrman picture, pointing at the glove, revealed that to be taken at night. Now, this has very serious implications. The Prosecution turned over a long time ago a statement of a photographer named Rolf Rokahr who initially told investigators, Detective Luper, that he had arrived at the Bundy scene sometime after midnight, had waited for the arrival of Detective Phillips and Fuhrman. When they arrived, he was then directed by them to go take individual pictures of evidence. Prior to their arrival, he had taken some overall shots.

{feb 9} MS. CLARK: NO, THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS THAT THIS CRIME SCENE WAS HANDLED APPROPRIATELY.

Cochran to Court: YESTERDAY, MISS CLARK, AS SHE IS WANT TO DO, MADE SOME MORE SPECIOUS CHARGES. SHE ACCUSED MR. SHAPIRO OF HAVING -- QUOTE: "I'VE BEEN INFORMED BY OUR MEDIA RELATIONS DIRECTOR THAT MR. SHAPIRO HAS BEEN TELLING REPORTERS THAT OUR FUTURE WITNESSES HAVE BEEN WATCHING TELEVISION."
HOW PROPHETIC. NOW -- IT'S VERY PROPHETIC THE WAY IT TURNED OUT, WASN'T IT?
HOWEVER, MR. SHAPIRO NEVER DID THAT. BUT HERE'S WHAT MARCIA CLARK HAD TO SAY ABOUT THAT: "THAT IS FALSE AND IT IS UNFAIR AND IT IS THE KIND OF SMEAR CAMPAIGN TACTICS THAT WE OBJECT TO STRENUOUSLY." THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID YESTERDAY UNTIL HER WITNESS GETS ON THE STAND AND TELLS US HE'S WATCHING TELEVISION. "WE HAVE REFRAINED FROM THAT SORT OF THING. WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO ORDER MR. SHAPIRO NOT TO MAKE THESE FALSE REPRESENTATIONS TO THE PRESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENGAGING IN FURTHER SMEAR CAMPAIGN TACTICS.

MR. DARDEN: ...LET ME REFEREE THIS ONE FOR YOU, OKAY. WE APOLOGIZE, BOB.

Marcia Clark's Final Lies:

In her summation, Clark deliberately attempts to mislead, by misrepresenting testimony she, herself, elicited from her own witnesses. Having established that Brian Kaelin had heard the "thumps" at 10:40, and was on the Rockingham driveway at 10:50, she misrepresents to the jury --- but, more specifically to the public who had not watched the actual testimony --- that the "thumps" were at 10:52.

There is no defense against a prosecutor who deliberately lies to a jury in this manner -- except, an alert and intelligent jury. Fortunately for Simpson, he had such a jury.

Marcia Clark's behavior in this case was totally unethical, and a violation of her resposibilities to the people of Los Angeles, and an affront Judicial System of the Nation. In her own words, as a prosecuting attorney, her obligation is:

This is a search for the truth, but it's a search for the truth of who committed these murders, your Honor. Not whom Mark Fuhrman is. That truth will be sought out in another forum.

Her own words, she tells us that her distortion of the evidence was intentional -- the question of Fuhrman must be in another forum. The question of reliability of evidence -- the foundation upon which all cases are built -- must be discussed in another forum.

Return to Clark lied

Think about Clark's Summation.
Did she really expect a jury to convict after she states that her key witness is unfit to be a police officer?

Is Fuhrman their "key witness"?

With the exception Officer Riske and crime scene photographer Rokahr, every representative of the LAPD served only to obfuscate Fuhrman's actions on the morning of June 13th. Even Officer Riske was used to imply that the only photographs of Fuhrman were taken around 7:00 AM -- after he returned from Rockingham. Of course, unable to distort their content, Clark claimed tha Rokahr's contact sheets -- his photo log -- did not exist.

Consider, the Witnesses that Marcia Clark had, but did not call:

Consider, The problems Marica Clark introduced:

Did Clark really want to win this case?
If so
Why is Clark repeatedly invoking the King Case to a Black Jury?
MS. Clark: AND BY THE WAY, SERGEANT COON, IS HE RELATED IN ANY WAY TO THE OFFICER THAT TESTIFIED IN THE RODNEY KING CASE?
Riske: NO.
MR. COCHRAN: OBJECTION. ASKED AND ANSWERED.
THE COURT: SUSTAINED THREE TIMES.
MR. COCHRAN: THREE TIMES.
THE COURT: THREE TIMES YOU'VE ASKED THAT QUESTION.
MS. CLARK: I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T REMEMBER, YOUR HONOR.

Did Clark really forget that she had asked that question on three seperate occassions?
Or was she trying to impress the Rodney King Case on the minds of the jury?
Did she want the jury to think in terms of institutional racism within the LAPD?

Did Clark really want to win this case?

Clark

"We have a--we have a capital case here. And the commission of perjury in a capital case that causes someone to get the death penalty -- ... -- if you perjure yourself in a death penalty case causing someone to receive the sentence of death, you yourself are sentenced to death."

"The People will have stipulated that Detective Fuhrman lied."

Great speech - but this wasn't a capital case, and the defendant wasn't, nor was he going to be, executed.

Just another Clark misrepresentation.

Home

Note: All Transcript and Image Material used in this presentation is available on the WEB.

Our servers are provided by Geopages to whom we are exceedingly grateful.


Our thanks to: Source Interactive Network, LLC, for the use of their HTML & Graphics editing facilities.

© 1995  William Lawrence Schreck Jr.   © 1995 Source Interactive Network, LLC.

All rights reserved.
VISIT OUR HOST
1900 block of Times Square BHI's CapitolHill
Of course, unable to distort their content, Clark claimed tha Rokahr's contact sheets -- his photo log -- did not exist.