Post by mcnutt on Mar 13, 2017 16:31:54 GMT
What the police could have done:
1 Get rid of Mark Fuhrman. In 1983, he tried to get a disability pension. He admitted to making racist statements and torturing suspects but was denied the pension. I don’t think he had much of chance of getting the pension. He was denied because they though the was doing a good job. There is another potential POD, a fellow police officer said that when he married a Jewish women, Fuhrman painted a swastika on his locker. Fuhrman denied it but if it were true and he got caught doing it, hopefully he would have gotten fired. Without Fuhrman, there would have been no White police officers who worked on the Simpson case who would have been exposed as a liar and or a racist. The case against OJ would have had more credibility. Particularly important is the fact that Fuhrman found the bloody glove at OJ’s house. If he was not there then he would not have cast doubt on this particularly damming evidence to the jury.
2 The defense made an issue of the sloppiness of the people who collected the evidence. There was poor record keeping. There was problems storing the evidence. Blood on Nichole’s back gate was found three weeks after the murder. This created a scandal. The crime lab got a budget increase and by 1997, two years after the trail, the Los Angeles Police Lab won accreditation. The POD is that the scandal happens in 1990, when the accused murderer of a beloved movie star gets off by pointing to mistakes in collection of blood samples. ITTL the LA Police Lab wins accreditation in 1992. So ITTL the employees of the accredited crime lab don’t make those mistakes. The defense can’t complain about the evidence gathering.
3 They should have gotten a warrant before going to OJ’s house. The detectives who went there said they were there to tell OJ of his ex wife’s murder. Jurors had trouble believing that OJ was not a suspect from the beginning. The defense provided a witness who quoted one of the detectives saying OJ was a suspect when they went there the night of the murders. This hurt police credibility. The POD is that when neighbors discovered Nichole and Ron’s bodies, one of the neighbors is a good friend of Nichole’s and tells the police about her abusive ex husband. The police look up the record of OJ’s conviction for beating Nicole. OJ is immediately officially the prime suspect. I would give the police the ability to get a search warrant in the middle of the night. The judge who presided over O J’s beating trail is still on the bench. The police call and wake up the judge, who has search warrant forms and a fax machine at home. When the detectives arrive at OJ’s house he is the prime suspect and they have a search warrant.
What the prosecution could have done
1 One of the advantages of getting a search warrant by waking up a judge is that Marcia Clark does not become lead prosecutor. OTL the police at OJ’s house knew they would need a search warrant and the called the District Attorney’s office to ask for help getting the warrant. Clark took the call. She got the warrant and started talking to the press. She took over the case. The District Attorney could not remove her for reasons related to office politics. Before he had been elected District Attorney, he had been a supervising prosecutor. He had been sued by a women prosecutor for discrimination. The suit was settled but the plaintiff was a friend of Marcia Clark. Getting rid of her would endanger him of being accused of revenge. ITTL the District Attorney is free to choose the lead prosecutor. He wanted someone with more experience than Clark. I assume the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office started hiring Black prosecutors at least by the 60s. So there would have been a Black male prosecutor with 30 years experience.
2 in her first act of incompetence, Marcia Clark did not work with jury consultants. The consultants warned the prosecutors about the pro OJ constituency particularly among Black women. Clark thought that since Black women suffered such high rates of domestic violence, they would be sympathetic to the stories of OJ’s abuse of Nichole. She also had enjoyed success with Black women jurors during her career. The Jury consultant’s surveys found that they were the most forgiving demographic, when it came to domestic abuse. They also found that many Black women reacted negatively to Marcia Clark. She was seen as a bitch emasculating a prominent Black man. ITTL the veteran prosecutor has an open mind about jury consultants, With the knowledge of the attitudes of potential jurors, the forewarned prosecution could have prepared and asked the right questions to determine bias toward OJ. OTL Clark asked potential jurors if they thought OJ’s acquittal was pay back for Rodney King and no one raised their hands. A juror did say that after the trail. That juror didn’t admit that attitude publicly during the jury selection process but more desecrate questions could have exposed pro OJ attitudes. OTL the prosecution did not use all of their challenges. ITTL they do. On AH. Com I read that there were three jurors that were determined to find OJ not guilty even if it meant jury nullification. ITTL they are not on the jury.There is a more open minded jury.
3 The prosecution was criticized for not providing enough evidence of the abuse OJ inflicted on Nichole. Judge Ito allowed 12 incidents of OJ abusing Nichole. OTL they used 6, ITTL they present a persuasive case of the abuse.
4 The prosecution DNA expert was criticized. ITTL the prosecution DNA expert does as good a job as the junior high science teacher who explained DNA to me. The jury understands the blood evidence.
5 ITTL the prosecution does not apologize as they did OTL. Marcia Clark said during jury selection: “You may not like me for bringing this case. Im not winning any popularity contests.” Christopher Darden said to the jury “ Nobody wants to do anything to this man. There is nothing personal about this but the law is the law.”
6 When the defense introduces race into trail. The prosecution introduces evidence of OJ’s lack of support for the Black community.
ITTTL the prosecution uses the following evidence that the OTL prosecution left out:
1 There was a witness who came forward saying the night of the murders, he saw O.J. at the airport standing by a trash can. Clark did not want to use him because he couldn’t be backed up. There was testimony that did support this witness. Kato Kailn said that as he helped OJ load his luggage into the limo, he reached for a small bad, OJ grabbed it and said I will take it myself. Those who saw OJ’s luggage after he returned did not see the small bag. ITTL the prosecution uses the airport witness and the backup testimony. They argue that the suitcase contained a bloody knife and shoes.
2 OTL the jury heard form the police officer who called OJ in Chicago and told him his ex wife had been killed, OJ shocked the officer. He did not ask any specific questions. The officer, a thirty year veteran, had performed that duty many times said that people always ask questions about how and when killed. According to Mark Partridge, the passenger who sat next to OJ on the flight home. OJ was well informed. He recalled that OJ told him that his ex wife and an another guy had been murdered in his ex wife’s garden. According to Partridge, that while OJ had only been told that his ex wife had been killed and killed usually means an accident and not been told about Goldman’s murder, Simpson not only knew that she and Ron Goldman had been murdered but where they had been murdered. In great act of incompetence, Clark did not call Partridge to testify. Once again,she did not like witnesses who could not be backed up. True, there was nobody who could confirm Partridge’s story, but OJ practically confessed to Partridge. Clark committed another act of incompetence after the defense called Partridge and asked him about OJ being upset on his flight home. Partridge had written eight pages of notes about his recollections of sitting next to OJ and gave them to the police. He, a copyright lawyer, copyrighted the notes. He did not publish them but wanted to make sure that no one used them without his permission. Clark in her cross examination, just asked Partridge about copyrighting his notes. In his testimony, he mentioned learning about the murders during the flight. Partridge’s brief comments came during a tedious discussion of copyright, it would have been hard for the jury to grasp the importance of what Partridge said. ITTL Partridge is a star prosecution witness. They can argue, how would OJ know what had happened, unless he was there?
3 When he arrived in Los Angeles, OJ went to Police Headquarters and gave a statement that the police video taped. In another act of incompetence Clark did not show the video tape. ITTL the prosecution shows the video tape. In that statement, OJ claimed that he didn’t know what had happened. That on the fight back he had made phone calls but no on could give him much information. That would make sense. When a police officer called him in Chicago ITTL the jury will hear OJ say he was ignorant of the murder during his taped statement to the police. The police officer who told OJ about murder will testify and tell the jury that he never heard anyone not to ask how killed before talking to OJ. Then they will hear from Partridge that OJ knew all about the murders. That will show OJ was a liar. In the statement OJ also said during the time of the murder he was getting ready to go to Chicago. OTL the jurors heard from the limo driver who took OJ to the airport. Who testified that after ringing OJ’s buzzer starting at 10:20 he finally got an answer at 10:55 and that apologized saying he overslept and just got out of the shower. The prosecution can point to the two different stories and expose OJ once again as a liar. They can make the argument that OJ was lying both times and he was committing a murder at the time. In that statement the police asked OJ about the bandage on his left hand. He said he got a cut the day before, the day of the murders. He said he didn’t remember how he got the cut. The prosecution can call OJ a liar. They can ask the jurors don’t you remember when you hurt yourself? They can also point out that the glove found at the murder scene was a left glove and that there were drops of blood by the bloody footprints. They can argue the murdered lost his left glove and bleed from the left hand. They can point to the cut on the left hand as a sign of guilt.
4 OTL the prosecution did not show the jury pictures and videos of OJ wearing the gloves. They did introduce the receipt of Nichole's purchase of the gloves. The defense pointed out that the receipt did not mention the size and color of the gloves. ITTL the prosecution will show the pictures and videos. After introducing into evidence the sales receipt for Nichole’s 1990 purchase of two pairs of Aries Isotoner Light leather gloves, the prosecution can say that, while the receipt did not list the size and color, we have photos and a video of the defendant wearing them. This way they can stop a defense argument.
6 I don’t know about California jury instructions in 1995. When I did jury duty, one of our instructions was that flight was a sign of guilt. I have read that that is a standard instruction in many states. On June 17, 1994, the day OJ was charged with the murder. He was ordered to surrender at 11 AM. He did not do so. At noon that day, he and his friend AC Cowlings disappeared. The prosecution did not mention this. ITTL tells the jury about OJ’s flight and tells the jury it is a sign of guilt.
7 When he left, OJ left behind a suicide note. When the police finally caught up to Simpson and Cowlings. Cowlings got on his cell phone and told the police that OJ had a gun pointed at his head. I think being suicidal is a sign of guilt, particularly when you are accused with killing your children’s mother. The prosecution did not tell the jury OJ was suicidal. ITTL they do. The also say that when OJ surrendered they found a gun in his possession.
8 When he gave up OJ was carrying other incriminating evidence. In addition to socks, underwear and shirts, he had his passport. That shows he was thinking about leaving the country. He also had a disguise, a fake goatee and glasses. The prosecution could argue that OJ was not one to wear a disguise. They could provide testimony on how OJ loved to be recognized. He also had the receipt for the disguise, which dated right after Nichole had returned his birthday gifts and told him their relationship was over. OTL the prosecution argued that OJ had premeditated the crime, without providing any evidence. The receipt could be used to show that OJ had planned to do something to Nichole. Another indication that they were thinking about escaping was that AC Cowlings had $8,750 in his pockets. OTL the jury was not told about any of this. ITTL the prosecutor uses this evidence to back up they idea that OJ’s was running away.
Two Other Prosecution mistakes
1 In addition to using the evidence the OTL prosecutors did not use, ITTL the prosecutors will not allow the glove demonstration to happen. OTL after the damage was done and the jury saw OJ struggle to put on the gloves. Christopher Darden had a glove expert testify that gloves had shrunk. ITTL the expert is used to convince Judge Ito not allow the Simpson to put on the gloves.
2 The plaintiff’s lawyers in the OJ law suit did a much better job than the prosecutors. In addition to using all the damming evidence that the prosecutors left out, they were much more efficient. The OJ criminal trail began on January 24, 1995, and the prosecution rested their case on July 6, 1995. The civil trail began on October 23, 1996, and the plaintiffs rested their case on December 9, 1996. If the prosecutors had been as efficient as the civil trail lawyers were and the defense took their same as OLT time the case would have gone to the jury in the second week of June instead of the beginning of October. The jury would have endured less of a burden. Also the defense would have taken almost twice as long as the prosecution.
What Judge Ito could have done.
Ito was accused of favoring the defense. The biggest damage he did to the prosecution came in one ruling. A Deputy Sheriff came forward and said that he heard OJ say something incriminating. Ito held a hearing and the Deputy testified that he was supervising a visitors room when Rosey Greet, the football star who is an ordained minister. Greer was visiting O.J. to offer him counseling. The two of them were separated by glass wall and were talking through phones. This was a confidential conversation. The Deputy testified that as long as they were talking in a normal voice, he could not hear them. He further said that O.J. slammed down the phone and shouted something incriminating. He later told a tabloid that OJ shouted “I am sorry. I didn’t mean to do it.” In the hearing, he did not say what O. J. said. If he had been allowed to testify, the prosecution would have asked the Deputy what OJ said. The law is clear. If your having a confidential conversation and then you speak in a voice loud enough so that someone not eavesdropping can hear, you have given up your right of privacy. Ito ruled that while O.J. had waived his right of privacy, he had an expectation of privacy. He did not allow O.J.'s then unknown statement to be heard in court. Ito's ruling defied the law and defied logic. Why would O.J. expect privacy if he was shouting ten feet away from a Deputy Sheriff, who could clearly hear him. If the jury heard what was basically a confession, this would have been a great help to the prosecution case.
1 Get rid of Mark Fuhrman. In 1983, he tried to get a disability pension. He admitted to making racist statements and torturing suspects but was denied the pension. I don’t think he had much of chance of getting the pension. He was denied because they though the was doing a good job. There is another potential POD, a fellow police officer said that when he married a Jewish women, Fuhrman painted a swastika on his locker. Fuhrman denied it but if it were true and he got caught doing it, hopefully he would have gotten fired. Without Fuhrman, there would have been no White police officers who worked on the Simpson case who would have been exposed as a liar and or a racist. The case against OJ would have had more credibility. Particularly important is the fact that Fuhrman found the bloody glove at OJ’s house. If he was not there then he would not have cast doubt on this particularly damming evidence to the jury.
2 The defense made an issue of the sloppiness of the people who collected the evidence. There was poor record keeping. There was problems storing the evidence. Blood on Nichole’s back gate was found three weeks after the murder. This created a scandal. The crime lab got a budget increase and by 1997, two years after the trail, the Los Angeles Police Lab won accreditation. The POD is that the scandal happens in 1990, when the accused murderer of a beloved movie star gets off by pointing to mistakes in collection of blood samples. ITTL the LA Police Lab wins accreditation in 1992. So ITTL the employees of the accredited crime lab don’t make those mistakes. The defense can’t complain about the evidence gathering.
3 They should have gotten a warrant before going to OJ’s house. The detectives who went there said they were there to tell OJ of his ex wife’s murder. Jurors had trouble believing that OJ was not a suspect from the beginning. The defense provided a witness who quoted one of the detectives saying OJ was a suspect when they went there the night of the murders. This hurt police credibility. The POD is that when neighbors discovered Nichole and Ron’s bodies, one of the neighbors is a good friend of Nichole’s and tells the police about her abusive ex husband. The police look up the record of OJ’s conviction for beating Nicole. OJ is immediately officially the prime suspect. I would give the police the ability to get a search warrant in the middle of the night. The judge who presided over O J’s beating trail is still on the bench. The police call and wake up the judge, who has search warrant forms and a fax machine at home. When the detectives arrive at OJ’s house he is the prime suspect and they have a search warrant.
What the prosecution could have done
1 One of the advantages of getting a search warrant by waking up a judge is that Marcia Clark does not become lead prosecutor. OTL the police at OJ’s house knew they would need a search warrant and the called the District Attorney’s office to ask for help getting the warrant. Clark took the call. She got the warrant and started talking to the press. She took over the case. The District Attorney could not remove her for reasons related to office politics. Before he had been elected District Attorney, he had been a supervising prosecutor. He had been sued by a women prosecutor for discrimination. The suit was settled but the plaintiff was a friend of Marcia Clark. Getting rid of her would endanger him of being accused of revenge. ITTL the District Attorney is free to choose the lead prosecutor. He wanted someone with more experience than Clark. I assume the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office started hiring Black prosecutors at least by the 60s. So there would have been a Black male prosecutor with 30 years experience.
2 in her first act of incompetence, Marcia Clark did not work with jury consultants. The consultants warned the prosecutors about the pro OJ constituency particularly among Black women. Clark thought that since Black women suffered such high rates of domestic violence, they would be sympathetic to the stories of OJ’s abuse of Nichole. She also had enjoyed success with Black women jurors during her career. The Jury consultant’s surveys found that they were the most forgiving demographic, when it came to domestic abuse. They also found that many Black women reacted negatively to Marcia Clark. She was seen as a bitch emasculating a prominent Black man. ITTL the veteran prosecutor has an open mind about jury consultants, With the knowledge of the attitudes of potential jurors, the forewarned prosecution could have prepared and asked the right questions to determine bias toward OJ. OTL Clark asked potential jurors if they thought OJ’s acquittal was pay back for Rodney King and no one raised their hands. A juror did say that after the trail. That juror didn’t admit that attitude publicly during the jury selection process but more desecrate questions could have exposed pro OJ attitudes. OTL the prosecution did not use all of their challenges. ITTL they do. On AH. Com I read that there were three jurors that were determined to find OJ not guilty even if it meant jury nullification. ITTL they are not on the jury.There is a more open minded jury.
3 The prosecution was criticized for not providing enough evidence of the abuse OJ inflicted on Nichole. Judge Ito allowed 12 incidents of OJ abusing Nichole. OTL they used 6, ITTL they present a persuasive case of the abuse.
4 The prosecution DNA expert was criticized. ITTL the prosecution DNA expert does as good a job as the junior high science teacher who explained DNA to me. The jury understands the blood evidence.
5 ITTL the prosecution does not apologize as they did OTL. Marcia Clark said during jury selection: “You may not like me for bringing this case. Im not winning any popularity contests.” Christopher Darden said to the jury “ Nobody wants to do anything to this man. There is nothing personal about this but the law is the law.”
6 When the defense introduces race into trail. The prosecution introduces evidence of OJ’s lack of support for the Black community.
ITTTL the prosecution uses the following evidence that the OTL prosecution left out:
1 There was a witness who came forward saying the night of the murders, he saw O.J. at the airport standing by a trash can. Clark did not want to use him because he couldn’t be backed up. There was testimony that did support this witness. Kato Kailn said that as he helped OJ load his luggage into the limo, he reached for a small bad, OJ grabbed it and said I will take it myself. Those who saw OJ’s luggage after he returned did not see the small bag. ITTL the prosecution uses the airport witness and the backup testimony. They argue that the suitcase contained a bloody knife and shoes.
2 OTL the jury heard form the police officer who called OJ in Chicago and told him his ex wife had been killed, OJ shocked the officer. He did not ask any specific questions. The officer, a thirty year veteran, had performed that duty many times said that people always ask questions about how and when killed. According to Mark Partridge, the passenger who sat next to OJ on the flight home. OJ was well informed. He recalled that OJ told him that his ex wife and an another guy had been murdered in his ex wife’s garden. According to Partridge, that while OJ had only been told that his ex wife had been killed and killed usually means an accident and not been told about Goldman’s murder, Simpson not only knew that she and Ron Goldman had been murdered but where they had been murdered. In great act of incompetence, Clark did not call Partridge to testify. Once again,she did not like witnesses who could not be backed up. True, there was nobody who could confirm Partridge’s story, but OJ practically confessed to Partridge. Clark committed another act of incompetence after the defense called Partridge and asked him about OJ being upset on his flight home. Partridge had written eight pages of notes about his recollections of sitting next to OJ and gave them to the police. He, a copyright lawyer, copyrighted the notes. He did not publish them but wanted to make sure that no one used them without his permission. Clark in her cross examination, just asked Partridge about copyrighting his notes. In his testimony, he mentioned learning about the murders during the flight. Partridge’s brief comments came during a tedious discussion of copyright, it would have been hard for the jury to grasp the importance of what Partridge said. ITTL Partridge is a star prosecution witness. They can argue, how would OJ know what had happened, unless he was there?
3 When he arrived in Los Angeles, OJ went to Police Headquarters and gave a statement that the police video taped. In another act of incompetence Clark did not show the video tape. ITTL the prosecution shows the video tape. In that statement, OJ claimed that he didn’t know what had happened. That on the fight back he had made phone calls but no on could give him much information. That would make sense. When a police officer called him in Chicago ITTL the jury will hear OJ say he was ignorant of the murder during his taped statement to the police. The police officer who told OJ about murder will testify and tell the jury that he never heard anyone not to ask how killed before talking to OJ. Then they will hear from Partridge that OJ knew all about the murders. That will show OJ was a liar. In the statement OJ also said during the time of the murder he was getting ready to go to Chicago. OTL the jurors heard from the limo driver who took OJ to the airport. Who testified that after ringing OJ’s buzzer starting at 10:20 he finally got an answer at 10:55 and that apologized saying he overslept and just got out of the shower. The prosecution can point to the two different stories and expose OJ once again as a liar. They can make the argument that OJ was lying both times and he was committing a murder at the time. In that statement the police asked OJ about the bandage on his left hand. He said he got a cut the day before, the day of the murders. He said he didn’t remember how he got the cut. The prosecution can call OJ a liar. They can ask the jurors don’t you remember when you hurt yourself? They can also point out that the glove found at the murder scene was a left glove and that there were drops of blood by the bloody footprints. They can argue the murdered lost his left glove and bleed from the left hand. They can point to the cut on the left hand as a sign of guilt.
4 OTL the prosecution did not show the jury pictures and videos of OJ wearing the gloves. They did introduce the receipt of Nichole's purchase of the gloves. The defense pointed out that the receipt did not mention the size and color of the gloves. ITTL the prosecution will show the pictures and videos. After introducing into evidence the sales receipt for Nichole’s 1990 purchase of two pairs of Aries Isotoner Light leather gloves, the prosecution can say that, while the receipt did not list the size and color, we have photos and a video of the defendant wearing them. This way they can stop a defense argument.
6 I don’t know about California jury instructions in 1995. When I did jury duty, one of our instructions was that flight was a sign of guilt. I have read that that is a standard instruction in many states. On June 17, 1994, the day OJ was charged with the murder. He was ordered to surrender at 11 AM. He did not do so. At noon that day, he and his friend AC Cowlings disappeared. The prosecution did not mention this. ITTL tells the jury about OJ’s flight and tells the jury it is a sign of guilt.
7 When he left, OJ left behind a suicide note. When the police finally caught up to Simpson and Cowlings. Cowlings got on his cell phone and told the police that OJ had a gun pointed at his head. I think being suicidal is a sign of guilt, particularly when you are accused with killing your children’s mother. The prosecution did not tell the jury OJ was suicidal. ITTL they do. The also say that when OJ surrendered they found a gun in his possession.
8 When he gave up OJ was carrying other incriminating evidence. In addition to socks, underwear and shirts, he had his passport. That shows he was thinking about leaving the country. He also had a disguise, a fake goatee and glasses. The prosecution could argue that OJ was not one to wear a disguise. They could provide testimony on how OJ loved to be recognized. He also had the receipt for the disguise, which dated right after Nichole had returned his birthday gifts and told him their relationship was over. OTL the prosecution argued that OJ had premeditated the crime, without providing any evidence. The receipt could be used to show that OJ had planned to do something to Nichole. Another indication that they were thinking about escaping was that AC Cowlings had $8,750 in his pockets. OTL the jury was not told about any of this. ITTL the prosecutor uses this evidence to back up they idea that OJ’s was running away.
Two Other Prosecution mistakes
1 In addition to using the evidence the OTL prosecutors did not use, ITTL the prosecutors will not allow the glove demonstration to happen. OTL after the damage was done and the jury saw OJ struggle to put on the gloves. Christopher Darden had a glove expert testify that gloves had shrunk. ITTL the expert is used to convince Judge Ito not allow the Simpson to put on the gloves.
2 The plaintiff’s lawyers in the OJ law suit did a much better job than the prosecutors. In addition to using all the damming evidence that the prosecutors left out, they were much more efficient. The OJ criminal trail began on January 24, 1995, and the prosecution rested their case on July 6, 1995. The civil trail began on October 23, 1996, and the plaintiffs rested their case on December 9, 1996. If the prosecutors had been as efficient as the civil trail lawyers were and the defense took their same as OLT time the case would have gone to the jury in the second week of June instead of the beginning of October. The jury would have endured less of a burden. Also the defense would have taken almost twice as long as the prosecution.
What Judge Ito could have done.
Ito was accused of favoring the defense. The biggest damage he did to the prosecution came in one ruling. A Deputy Sheriff came forward and said that he heard OJ say something incriminating. Ito held a hearing and the Deputy testified that he was supervising a visitors room when Rosey Greet, the football star who is an ordained minister. Greer was visiting O.J. to offer him counseling. The two of them were separated by glass wall and were talking through phones. This was a confidential conversation. The Deputy testified that as long as they were talking in a normal voice, he could not hear them. He further said that O.J. slammed down the phone and shouted something incriminating. He later told a tabloid that OJ shouted “I am sorry. I didn’t mean to do it.” In the hearing, he did not say what O. J. said. If he had been allowed to testify, the prosecution would have asked the Deputy what OJ said. The law is clear. If your having a confidential conversation and then you speak in a voice loud enough so that someone not eavesdropping can hear, you have given up your right of privacy. Ito ruled that while O.J. had waived his right of privacy, he had an expectation of privacy. He did not allow O.J.'s then unknown statement to be heard in court. Ito's ruling defied the law and defied logic. Why would O.J. expect privacy if he was shouting ten feet away from a Deputy Sheriff, who could clearly hear him. If the jury heard what was basically a confession, this would have been a great help to the prosecution case.
