辛普森一晚上杀了他的前妻与前妻的朋友，整个证据链完整，从他在哪里买的德国刀到他留在现场的脚印（他穿的鞋是特制的，全世界只有二百多双）现场留下的他的血液到DNA鉴定，可以说证据完整到了无懈可击地步，只能用铁证如山来表达。然而，收集这些证据的负责人是洛杉矶警察局的警官福尔曼。辛普森的辩护律师团队就搜集这个福尔曼的历史资料，发现他曾经在多年前的采访过程中称黑人为“你哥”，待福尔曼把所有的证据在法庭上陈述给陪审团后，辩护律师当即说福尔曼此人对黑人歧视，表现在他称黑人为“你哥”（黑鬼），福尔曼当即反驳说他从来都不会如此称呼黑人，这是对他的栽赃。辩护律师当即拿出录音带播放，他竟然四十多次称呼黑人为黑鬼。辩护律师问陪审团：这么个骗子谎话连篇在法庭上当即撒谎，那他搜集的所谓的证据哪里有可信度？别说其它的方方面面的辩解，比如DNA鉴定有一亿分之一的错误概率，不是绝对准确，那个血手套由于血液干燥后发生收缩而辛普森一直吃药最近停药后关节处增大的副作用导致手套戴进去时比较费劲等旁枝末节，就是福尔曼当庭撒谎这一条就无法令陪审团认同骗子搜集的证据是可靠的。
在法庭上辩论时任何一方只要有说谎的证据被抓到，那就彻底完蛋。
接下来说梁警官与检方到底是谁说了谎。一位陪审团成员审案对梁警官判决有罪后公开说,梁警官的可信度受到质疑(没说他是骗子). 我把陪审团和纽约时报的报道关于陪审团为何给梁警官定罪的几个原因概括一下.
总起来讲有两方面:一是梁警官的事后解释不可信.二是他见死不救.主要还是因为他的解释受到了陪审团的质疑.
梁警官的说法是否可信主要在于以下几点:
1. 梁警官自认他的枪走火时他没有遇到任何恐惧,不是朝向目标而射杀，所以在子弹打出来的那一刻是枪走火了,他不知道为何就走火了.
对于这一点,陪审团认为梁警官的说法不能令他们认可.扳机那么紧需要超过11磅才能打响,法庭认为梁警官开枪时是指向目标的.
2. 关于梁警官只顾保护自己不被炒鱿鱼而对受害者见死不救.关于被杀黑人的女友说她一直在大喊救命,梁警官说没听到. 如果说枪声把梁警官的耳朵给震到临时听不见的地步,可枪响后他的同事立刻斥责他”你开他妈的什么枪时”他当即回答说是走火了.然后他俩就如何给上级汇报而对话4分钟.显然梁警官的耳朵是能听到声音的.
这里,华人应该考虑帮梁警官找大律师状告梁警官的同事和警察局:他俩到底听没听到楼下的喊叫声.如果听到了,他同事为何也不去搭救?警察局是怎么培训警察的?培训出的两个警察都是见死不救的人,警察局让这样的俩人上岗,这不是草菅人命吗?如果俩人都真的没听到,那说明女孩的证词不可信.不可信的证词在法庭上来说就是伪证,其它所有此人的证词都不可采信.
3. 在五楼前去搭救的居民邻居作为法庭证人说梁警官与他同事二人在被害人旁边对伤者不闻不问毫不关心的指控.说梁警官“在旁边走并下楼了”,并说此时梁警官并未情绪失控到“大哭,站立不住”地步.
对此指控是否属实,梁警官的律师应该抓住这个证人是否是可信之人.如果证人曾经是个说谎之人,那此证据就不足信.而且假如梁警官的同事也没搭救,也袖手旁观,那他也是跟梁警官一样渎职.
4. 关于梁警官的律师布朗说”事实上梁警官曾打电话给受害者求助了”.根据报道,法庭把电讯记录查了出来,梁警官打电话报案时未提到要救护车给受伤者救助.那么,这就引出是梁警官欺骗了他自己的律师,还是警察局造假隐瞒了电话内容?
根据电讯记录,警察局的确收到了梁警官的报案电话,但没提要救护车.对此,我没找到详细介绍,以后可能会有详尽的录音报道出来?如果梁警官给警察局打电话目的是给受伤者求助而非只是向上级报告自己的失误,那么这个电话是在伤者旁边打的,这跟他此时情绪失控到无法给伤者施救无法关心伤者的说法相违背.
梁警官的同事也说过梁警官打电话时要救护车,后来改口说梁警官电话里没提救护车.那么,为何他本人也没打电话要救护车?是不是他俩此时都知道救护车就要到了才没重新打电话要救护车?梁警官的律师没提此时梁警官已经知道救护车快到了他才没提救护车的事,而说是自己打电话要了救护车.梁警官的同事也没说他此时知道救护车就快到了他才没打电话叫救护车.这俩警察都太差劲了,明明知道还没人打电话要救护车他俩竟然面对血流不止的伤者不打电话呼叫救护车,也不过问伤者,都是典型的见死不救.如果梁警官和他同事二人都知道救护车快来了，那他说过梁警官在给911的电话里讲了要救护车的说法是不可靠的，救护车就快到了，还要救护车干什么？
辛普森案里连主持收集证据的人说了与案件毫无关系的谎言（说不定他早已忘记了过去的采访），都令陪审团无法不怀疑他收集的证据可靠性.如果梁警官连跟自己的律师都不讲真话，陪审团如何能信得过梁警官是诚实之人？如果他在电话里真的讲了要救护车过来,那么,就是警察局的录音被修改或被剪辑过才拿到法庭.这就是欺骗法庭行为.
在法庭上，谎言一旦被揭穿，其它所有的证据都无法被采纳了。英文有个单词叫 “perjury”，就是说在法庭上欺骗法官/陪审团的罪行,中文称为“伪证罪”,双方都不能欺骗法庭作伪证。在法庭上说谎的后果要比案件本身还重要。辛普森杀了二人，但在陪审团眼里，原告说谎则是对陪审团人员的羞辱，就更不能被容忍。这是程序公正高于事实公正的例子。从另一方面讲，人人心里都有一杆秤，人人都知道是辛普森杀了二人（除了只看旁枝末节被无良律师忽悠了的毫无判断能力的傻子之外，而这类傻子其智商还处在人与动物之间，依判断力水平来看，他们还不能被称之为人。），他才在后来的去旅馆拿东西那点小事上被判刑33年，从年龄上看等于死在监狱里的终生监禁，跟杀人犯的待遇差不多。这属于出来混总是要还的原理，使美国历史上不多的“事实不公正”案件在“程序公正”之后最终得到了“事实公正”。一般情况下，“程序公正”与“事实公正”是一致的，而“程序公正”是实现“事实公正”的唯一基石。当二者有矛盾时，“事实公正”必须给“程序公正”让路，否则，以后人人在法庭上谎话连篇，司法就成了笑话。在“程序公正”实现后，“事实公正”可以找另外机会弥补。如果失去了“程序公正”，那整个法律体系将面临坍塌。那些拿辛普森案事实不公正说事的，是不了解司法独立的真谛。诚然，“程序公正”的目的还是为了“事实公正”。导致辛普森案“程序公正”与“事实公正”相矛盾的是检方在用人时调查不彻底，用了个说谎的人主持司法调查。
梁警官的律师应该抓住对方证人在法庭上是否说谎尤其是是否删改了电话录音证据才是重中之重.
我没查到美国警察有因走火而杀了无辜的例子，如果依照美国军法，任何军人擦枪走了火而杀死了战友都必须坐牢.如果梁警官一开始就说听到了楼里有声音为了自卫而把手指放在了扳机上而走火，那他反而可以得到陪审团的认可，毕竟黑灯瞎火的在那不安全的地方听到声音而自卫把枪指向前方是可以理解的。但他还是需要枪响后先考虑是否会伤了人,最基本的做法是到了五楼发现伤者后当即给伤者施救,打电话呼叫救护车.这些事都没做,那也绝不能说谎。听到了声音后恐惧了就把手指不该放在扳机上时放在了扳机上而走了火,这样的走火是可信的说法,做错了事与说谎,后者更严重.陪审团12个人里能有一个人同情他,他就赢了官司.
所以,目前法庭上到底是谁说了慌,尚需追究.尤其要抓住梁警官的同事对梁警官是否在打电话时提到救护车的关键问题上前后矛盾这一条。前提是：1.梁警官二人都不知道此时救护车已经快来了；2.梁警官的确在电话里说了要救护车。
也说明梁警官的辩护律师水平有限，无法在陪审团面前抓住对手的破绽不放。除非他本人都怀疑梁警官是否骗了他。
下面是摘自美国媒体的报道.大家看看,案情还没有搞清楚到底是谁说了慌:
On Monday, the trial of Officer Liang began before Justice Danny K. Chun, and Ms. Lopez was called as the second witness. Officer Liang, 28, is charged with manslaughter in the fatal shooting of Mr. Gurley, 28, who was walking unarmed with Ms. Butler in the stairwell of the housing project in Brooklyn.
The prosecution argues that Officer Liang was reckless and violated his training by having his gun out, pulling the trigger with no reason, and neglecting to help Mr. Gurley once he realized the man had been shot. The officer was “worried only about himself,” Mr. Fliedner said, adding, “Instead of calling for help he just stood there, whined and moaned about how he would get fired.”
The defense says that Officer Liang was working in a dangerous housing project, and that he was already upset when he accidentally fired his gun. When he realized he had hit someone, he was so shocked that he had to be taken to the hospital.
It is, however, standard procedure for New York City officers to be taken to the hospital after they fire their guns.
梁警官的律师下一步需要搞明白的是在叫救护车一事上到底是谁在说谎:
“[Liang] thought he was going to be fired. I said no you're not, it's just an accidental discharge,” Landau said. “I told him to call, and he told me to call. He says 'you call.' I said 'you call',” Landau testified in court on Feb. 3. Liang eventually radioed the incident in after seeing Gurley’s bloody body lying on the fourth floor staircase. But Liang only reported their location, “Pink House One” and did not specify what had happened, Landau told the court.
In his cross examination, Liang’s defense attorney, Robert Brown, called Landau's account into question. He noted that Landau had previously told NYPD investigators that Liang gave a more detailed account of what happened on the radio, including that there had been an accidental discharge, a male had been shot and that an ambulance was needed.
以上梁警官的律师认为是梁警官的同事曾经说过梁警官提到要救护车来,而法庭审理后(纽约时报的报道),法庭录音证据梁警官在电话里没提救护车:
His lawyer, Mr. Brown, said in his closing arguments that Officer Liang had in fact radioed for help the night of the shooting. A recording of a police radio call introduced into evidence by the prosecution shows that while Officer Liang did transmit a radio report of the shooting, he did not ask for an ambulance.
现场证人指出的说法报道(摘自纽约时报)说梁警官并没有情绪失控到无法对伤者施救的地步:
She saw two police officers arrive on the landing; one was Asian, she said. (Officer Liang is Chinese-American.)
Mr. Fliedner asked if Officer Liang was crying or having difficulty standing. Ms. Lopez said, “No.”
Mr. Fliedner played a recording of the 911 call, where Ms. Butler can be heard screaming in the background, “He’s not breathing!”
“Was the Asian officer there when she said that?” Mr. Fliedner asked.
Yes, Ms. Lopez said.
“What did he do?” Mr. Fliedner asked.
“Nothing. He didn’t do nothing the whole time,” Ms. Lopez said. “I didn’t see neither one of them do anything.” (In opening statements, Mr. Fliedner said that New York police officers are trained in CPR and required to offer it when necessary.)
Asked if Officer Liang spoke to or touched either Ms. Butler or Mr. Gurley, she again said, “No.”
“He walked around them and came down the stairs,” she said.
