Mark Fuhrman Uncovers New Info In Caylee Anthony Case

[OuterSpace90]

I wonder if he is went into other people's houses without warrants and planted bloody gloves there

[OuterSpace90]

Marl furhman is dirt!

[WilliamMorgan32]

He is a liar, a racist, an connect to the CIA. He's a fucking traitor.

[brotherrapsuks]

@WilliamMorgan32 the CIA? omg, ignorance runs rampant and your imagination is incredible.

[omegajbmb]

hey thats that nigger guy!!!

[laf98z]

Seriously? Mark Fuhrman is a journalist?

[2993Jaz]

That's why Fox News have no crediabity with so many minorities. They hired racist like Fuhman and Sarah Palin to spew their hate.

[Grifinmod]

@Darkwolfhowlslak I saw an interview with him on Oprah...and she said if you could change anything..what would u have changed..he said..I would have never answered the phone the day I was called to the scene. And stayed completely out of it. Thats paraphrasing of course..if ya missed it..you tube Mark Fuhrman interview. It's a 7 part piece. He even says..The should have never went for Murder 1...OJ never went there to kill her. Which then..really kills the case. Glad we arent fighting too! :)

[Grifinmod]

@Darkwolfhowlslak Exactly...I mean..even ugly..if he told the truth about it...maybe it would have been a lil better..but lying and then the 5th over and over and over..of a star witness...was like..WOAH....what's going on here..?To be honest..The N word really got me at first...but the part where they asked about did you falsified police reports or if he planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case... and said I plea the 5th..just killed everything he said and did..

[Grifinmod]

@Darkwolfhowlslak But Yes I agree that it turned to a race issue... which worked great for OJ...at the same time..deciding to plea the 5th on if he ever falsified police reports or if he planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case...really didn't help either. I KNOW that it doesn't mean YES I DID....but is a far far cry from NO I DID NOT....it's a I refuse to answer that because I could purger myself. I'm sorry for acting a fool earlier..sometimes I let this get the best of me.

[Grifinmod]

@Darkwolfhowlslak That I will agree with. Had it been any other cop...that didn't have those kind of issues that he had..That may have not been possible. But I will disagree about the script part. They were taped interviews of his experiences..not something he was to read as a voice over..or as a character..these were his experiences he was talking about. How he would act while on the force. He was to be fired but chose resignation, but it's clear that he's not allowed to be a cop anymore.

[loupremo]

"You know these people here, we got all this money going to Ethiopia for what. To feed a bunch of dumb wild ape niggers that their own government won't even feed." Mark Fuhrman

(McKinny Transcript No. 1, p. 44)

[Grifinmod]

@Darkwolfhowlslak and if that wasn't enough.........WHY could he not answer this? " With the jury absent on September 6, 1995, the defense asked Fuhrman whether he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case. He invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination." SO argue some more...MOUTH...about FACTS....YOU HERO...is a LIAR...LIKE I SAID..and was found GUILTY of LYING. LEARN SOMETHING before you comment.

[Grifinmod]

@Darkwolfhowlslak Or you can even have a look here ...Youtube MSNBC on Mark Fuhrman @ Simpson Trial or even better... YOUTUBE The Mark Fuhrman Tapes or google Fuhrman: Play the Tapes Again! ... Google and read TESTIMONY OF LAURA HART McKINNY... It wasn't some fantasy character for a movie. it was INTERVIEWS about Women on the police force. Also..he accepted a plea deal where he can never work for law enforcement again and be on probation for 3 years..because he was found guilty of perjury.

[Grifinmod]

@Darkwolfhowlslak You want to argue facts...then KNOW what you are talking about. EDUCATE YOURSELF moron. I would tell you to google the tapes...but obviously you are too ignorant to do so. If you have heard the tapes and DON'T THINK he is racist..then you are more of an idiot than I thought. LOSER..I'll speak to you however I want ...you felt it ok to talk trash to me..I feel that same right.

[Grifinmod]

@Darkwolfhowlslak When the man gets up and answers he has NEVER said the N word in his life and is on tape speaking not only the N word but how he pulled black people over for driving an expensive car JUST BECAUSE he was black..is a far cry from someone in the courtroom saying it. and NO he wasn't on trial..he was a witness that swore to tell the truth and when he was found to have lied..did he say..oh that was a character for a movie..no he said I plea the 5th and never answered anything else.

[pinkyt67]

Wow there is a great book written about the Simpson trial by former Charles Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi called Outrage. It is very enlightening and written by a brilliant man. He cites many mistakes made by prosecutors, judge Ito and even defense lawyers. The murders took place in Brentwood yet the jury pool came from a low class community where surely race and wealth would come into play. Mark Fuhrman was the least of there problems. Check it out it's worth the read.

[nworicardo]

Thumbs up if you would tap Casey Anthony's hot @ss :) Not guilty not guilty not guilty :)

[Grifinmod]

@Darkwolfhowlslak Really? So I guess that's why YOUR MOVIE THEORY was addressed in court....really? A movie? You are a joke...send me ANYTHING...ANYTHING...even if YOUR DUMB ASS WROTE it..back then..that says he only used the N word for a movie script. You are so stupid...

[jetsonic69]

oj killed caylee anthony

oj kidnapped , raped and killed natalie holloway :(

oj kidnapped and killed laci peterson

OJ FUNDED THE 9/11 TERRORISTS . oj shot president kennedy :) OJ shot lincolin :) hahaha blame it all on oj PROBLEM SOLVED :)

[jetsonic69]

MARK FURHMAN SHOULD SAY ....OHH I know who killed that poor girl :(

OJ?? :) just kidding

[Grifinmod]

So why does anyone believe the Racist liar Mark Furman? He's not even just a little racist he's HUGELY racist...and don't mind swearing an oath in court..and LYING.

[kasala111]

@Grifinmod Hey! you idiot as almost all the liberals are writing. Your mind is like the stupid jurors in this case.

And of course probably black, you guys can't go forward and grow, always are keeping hate.

[Grifinmod]

@kasala111 LOL WOW...How wrong can you be. You are so ignorant not only do you call white black and make racist statements yourself. You show it's YOUR hate towards black people that keeps growing. Maybe you should go back to the oj case and learn a little something about Mark before you run your mouth dumbass. Then after you learn a lil knowledge..maybe you should point out something in this case that shows evidence of 1st degree murder..ohh whats that? YOU CANT...Grow up. learn the law. 

[Apoptosis89]

If someone really doesn't want their child anymore. Even if they think the baby is ruining their life or preventing them from doing what they want, why not just put them up for adoption? A lot easier than murdering your child.

[europeandancer]

And I think he had blown the Simpson case.. Yes a good guy but made mistakes and huge mistakes in past that costed Simpson to go free.. Sad.

[MrGrevy]

@europeandancer He didn't really blow the case - the shallow thinking, insipid jurors were led to think with emotion - that because Fuhrman was a racist - he must have framed oj. It was total nonsense. Adolf Hitler could have worked the case, and OJ would still have been guilty.

[europeandancer]

@MrGrevy And as u say it so well.. Because he was a racist hence HIS PAST - he had blown the case and turned up against the prosecution..

[MrGrevy]

@europeandancer Well no - the jurors' perception of him and their inability to think critically blew the case. Fuhrman being a racist did not mean OJ was innocent. Hence, Fuhrman did not blow the case. He is a racist and he is an excellent detective. OJ jurors were far more racist than he could be, by the way.

[europeandancer]

@MrGrevy lol Well I desagree but to each his own am guessing.

[europeandancer]

@MrGrevy And as u say it so well.. Because he was a racist hence HIS PAST - he had blown the case and turned up against the prosecution..

[KerryGrl]

He may have made some mistakes in judgement in the past, but this man is a great detective and deserves some respect for that. His books are very enlightening and well written.

[guyNbluejeans]

God bless you Mark Fuhrman! Sorry you have to live your life under the cover of darkness ... .:-(

Hey Mark, how come that lady that told the world about your comments about blacks for her screenplay didn't go straight to your supervisor the next day with what you said? Could it be that she knew you weren't being serious, that they were nothing but hyperbole?? To my knowledge no one asked her about it.

[starsfound]

This man got a bum rap in the Simpson trial. He found Simpson's bloody glove at his house that night. I believe every word of his story. It` was unfortunate that the screen writer had to expose those tapes cuz it had nothing to do with the fact that he found that glove.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

Before they can even submit a request for a wiretap, they have to have already developed some kind of case against the suspect. There has to be an indication that the suspect in fact guilty.

Also, wiretaps are useful for gaining more information about things someone is known to be guilty of, like trafficking. The cops may have already have enough evidence to convict one guy. But with a wiretap on this guy, they can learn the schedules and logistics of his operation, and who he's dealing with.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

Wiretaps are different (I'm talking pre-patriot act). To initiate a wiretap, the law enforcement agency has to present a case before a judge, who decides if the case has merit. If he dcides it does, he grants them an order to wiretap, with various restrictions, like how long they can listen at a time and such. It is only with the judges approval that statements can be collected as evidence.

[Facebook289]

@jfrsnjhnsn well yeah tapes can also be admissable in court as long as it can be authenticated. The credibility of what the person is saying is entirely a matter of fact for the jury to decide not the judge to adjudicate on it as a matter of law

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@Facebook289 all evidence, tapes or otherwise, has to be reviewed by both parties before it can be admitted. It doesn't get decided if it's relevant by a jury during a trial.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

Because unless statements have been made under oath after having your rights read to you they are hearsay. They might be a good starting point for an investigation, but that's all, a starting point. They can't be evidence on their own without evidence that the things said actually happened. That's why Joran Van Der Sloot keeps telling people how he killed Natalie Holloway and telling it differently every time.

[Facebook289]

@jfrsnjhnsn that's not a true statement. I mean people get wiretapped all the time (the Mob) for making incriminating statements and they weren't made under oath. Guess what those statements made by those men were admissible into court. None of it was dismissed as entrapment because the criminal or suspect was predisposed to commit the crime and make the statement in the first place. If what you're saying is true then the government has been perpetrating a fraud before the American people

[Facebook289]

ever since wiretapping was invented.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

part 1. OK i see. What I'm talking is people's habit of believing Mark Fuhrman was proven guilty of corruption and malicious wrongdoing as a police officer. None of that was proven. The only thing against him were things he said on a tape to a female writer he was trying to impress. That was hearsay. So, for people to say he is all of these bad things and did all of these bad things and that all of this was proven is wrong.

[Facebook289]

@jfrsnjhnsn very good point. but how can it be hearsay when its on tape and the woman was there to corroborate the statement. And believe me thats not the only time he made derogatory statements against people of minority descent. There were 41 tapes that demonstrated him dreaming of rounding up African-Americans and then burning them. Or his idea of Justice is framing up people. Granted that doesn't prove that he did that in this particular case.

[thedarthflagger]

jonbecaylee

cayleebenet

[playthefield21]

Mark Fuhrman: "People there don't want niggers in their town. People there don't want Mexicans in their town. They don't want anybody but good people in their town, and anyway you can do to get them out of there that's fine with them. We have no niggers where I grew up."

^and then people ask why his racism was made an issue in the case....

Please do some research on who you're defending.

[playthefield21]

A letter from Kathleen Bell, sent to Simpson's defense team, described what Fuhrman had told her: "When he sees a `nigger' (as he called it) driving with a white woman, he would pull them over. I asked, would he have a reason, and he said that he would find one."

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn Please explain how this man is innocent when in total there were 18 examples selected by the defense (that he admitted to on tape) and admitted in court as evidence that he used illegal use of deadly force, beating suspects to extract confessions, planting evidence, framing innocent people and lying or covering up the misconduct of other cops?

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@playthefield21 As far as your 18 examples, you claim "the defense". Again, all they had were the tapes. no physical evidence, no eyewitness accounts, nada. He was not on trial.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

I wouldn't read summaries of the books if you can get your hands on the actual copies. A well stocked library sshould have them. They are both good reads, as is Fuhrman's "Murder in Greenwich", about the murder of Martha Moxley.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

As far as "Is he or is he not a racist", that question has no bearing on his conduct in the OJ case, and it is ridiculous that Judge Ito allowed it to become an issue. But then, Judge Ito acted disgracefully in general throughout that trial.

People grow and change and learn from their mistakes. The tapes were recorded years before the trial. They do indicate that at that time, he entertained ugly racist fantasies. They do not speak to his character at any time after they were recorded.

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn Of COURSE the issue of his racism had a bearing on the OJ case! These were times of high racial tension, proof of NYPD, LAPD, and other cops planting evidence to frame 'niggers' was cropping up all over the country. Fuhrman arrived early to the scene and even entered the estate illegally, wouldn't you wonder why a racist cop would do that for a murder case involving a black man?

The tapes presented were from 1985-1994, more than enough evidence to establish his racist character.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@playthefield21 No, it doesn't. Law is a science. It is not a mater of emotion. You can't say, "This man harbors negative feelings toward black people, so he must never have anything to do with them or be in a job that involves dealing with them". How someone feels one day or another day is not something that can be quantified or measured. How you feel today may not be how you feel tomorrow. It would be wrong for me to say that you will never like ice cream because you hated it last week.

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn Law is not a science, forensics is a science, laws are just rulings with loopholes. It's always a matter of emotion when a jury is concerned, if they like the guy he goes free, if he doesn't he goes to jail. The racism has to do with motive, so it is a valid topic. The defense had physical evidence and Fuhrman's testimony that he entered the estate early and illegally.

[playthefield21]

@jfrnsjhnsn As for eyewitness accounts, are you referring only to the OJ Simpson case or his overall career. If you mean he didn't do any wrong during his whole career why don't you just ask his victims, the women on the police force he bullied and harassed, as well as people he gave interviews to?

Also, if Fuhrman ever had anything worthwhile reading is his books, why didn't he use such arguments during the trial?

[Facebook289]

@jfrsnjhnsn No its not.....Law is dictated by moral and standards of society of yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@Facebook289 you forgot special interest groups and superstition. What was your point?

[Facebook289]

@jfrsnjhnsn well there you go you just made my point for me. If law was all about science then why is there hardly any objectivity to it. It puts up a facade that it is but in reality its prejudiced by eyes of the beholder. The law is used by whoever is in power to fulfill whatever need they have at the moment.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@Facebook289 OK that's fine, but I still don't know what you're trying to say. I don't know what you were replying to to begin with.

[Facebook289]

@jfrsnjhnsn "Law is a science" that quote you made

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@Facebook289 Part 2. I'm not someone who thinks that the laws or the judicial system are infallible. However, amid all of the shortcomings and failures of the system, a system is yet in place that holds a prosecutor to proving things happened and using logic to determine what is evidence and what is not. Therefore information that is inflammatroy or prejudicial has to have relevance in order to be allowed in as evidence.

[Facebook289]

@jfrsnjhnsn however it does show his overt inclination to not only bend but break the rules in order to fulfill his form of Justice. Especially when it comes to people of minority descent. I agree that O.J. Simpson got off but it wasn't because of the defense. It was the prosecution's ineptitude, police demonstrating appearance of corruption by not documenting all the evidence on time, and the criminalists inability to conduct a crime scene. All of it was fruit of the poisonous tree.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@Facebook289 Part 3. The point of this rambling is that Mark Fuhrman was not proven in a court of law to have done anything except make racist comments and lie about doing so. To say that he must have really done all of these things without any actual evidence is a determination made absent of any of the logic or procedure of the system by which we find someone guilty.

[Facebook289]

@jfrsnjhnsn oh yeah he also stated that he framed other people in the past....I mean the man collected Nazi Medals for a hobby your going to tell me that isn't relevant when he's on the police force and investigating a man who happens to be African-American?

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@Facebook289 PArt 4. I feel that making these kinds of leaps and connections is dangerous, and is the kind of thing the legal system is ideally set up to protect people from having happen to them.

I don't like to see guilty people go unpunished. I don't like racism, or racist comments. I don't think the judicial system is perfect or even adequate. However, I appreciate the safeguards in place to protect people from being convicted on rumor and hearsay.

[Facebook289]

@jfrsnjhnsn Can't trust the message if you can't trust the Messenger now can you?

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn The point isn't that the tapes had anything to do with the trial directly, they were part of the defense's effort to discredit Fuhrman's credibility, and the strategy worked. Once he was effectively labeled as a racist (as he rightfully should have been) his credibility was dashed, and that's why OJ went free.

People who are prone to racist comments are racist, there's no better evidence for it. It's like trying to say Mel Gibson doesn't hate Jews and blacks.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@playthefield21There is no evidence he acted wrongly as a police officer in any case. Even with the media frenzy, no one involved in the hundreds of cases he had been involved in has come forward with any accusations that he didn't properly do his job, not one person in the past 15 years.

Had he really done the things he talked about on the tapes, there would have been a line of people selling their stories to the media, or bringing formal charges against him. This never happened.

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn "Had he really done the things he talked about in the tapes..." so now you're going to make the ridiculous suggestion that he didn't actually commit the crimes he admitted to own tape? He hasn't been a cop in the last 15 years, and there is a huge difference between proving he did wrong and saying he did wrong, many have said it, few have proven it.

Fuhrman didn't even enter the Simpson estate legally. This is a man who belonged to an organization called "Men Against Women".

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn Historical commentators on the case say that it was Fuhrman's racist attitude that discredited him enough to have the jury take OJ's side. As for his 5th amendment invocation, i read that he invoked it first when being asked about planting evidence not about his racist attitude. His lying about the use of the word 'nigger' however was what got him convicted of perjury.

I know he wasn't being charged for what he said on the tapes, but they were admitted as evidence of his racism.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

Earlier, you wanted to use what he said on tape as evidence that he had done the things he talked about on the tape.

It could not be used that way if he had been on trial, accused of doing any of those things. Which he never was. He was never charged with doing any of the things he talked about on the tape.

What I said was that the tape could not be used as evidence that he had ever been involved in wrongdoing as a police officer. It is hearsay.

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn I don't understand how people can say he didn't do anything wrong on the job when he admitted to it in the tapes. If you listen to his interview with Mckinny, he clearly says he used to take the 'niggers' out to the back of an alley and beat on them for fun as a form of stress relief, even after they begged him to stop and swore out of desperation not to be criminals anymore.

I don't have access to those books, do you know if there are detailed summaries of them online?

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn As we know the LEGAL definition of 'evidence' varies from state to state, but what is considered evidence is quite agreed upon universally by laymen and juries through common sense and reasonable deduction.

To make your argument you're going to have to explain to me what definition of evidence you are working with here and reference where you're getting it from. 

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@playthefield21 as far as the fifth amendment issue, again, i suggest you read his book MURDER IN BRENTWOOD. You will get his account of that, as well as everything else. I'm not trying to be evasive on that point, but I don't have the book on hand. Basically, the question he had to invoke the 5th on had to do with making racist statements (the tape) and how he'd denied ever doing so before the tape was brought to the court. But check this out for yourself, because I'm going solely on memory.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@playthefield21 the reason I suggest the Bugliosi book is that in addition to being a very good analysis on the OJ trial, Bugliosi makes it clear that he believes that Mark Fuhrman was someone prone to having a racist attitude and saying racist things, but he also believes that Fuhrmann didn't do anything wrong on the job as a police officer. So, he's pretty objective on this point.

[playthefield21]

"With the jury absent on September 6, 1995, the defense asked Fuhrman whether or not he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case. He invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination." - yeah, i'm sure he was a great cop.

[TheGoodMajor44]

Isnt this the cop that siad he enojyed breaking the law could commit murder with impunity? 

[playthefield21]

Mark Fuhrman is one of the most blatantly infamous racist bastards in the US. This idiot should be given no credibility AT ALL. Have any of you ever actually read what he said about black people?

He is one of the main reasons OJ got acquitted. If it wasn't for his stupid racist beliefs casting doubt on his "evidence" maybe OJ would be behind bars.

[APRIL62318]

oj is behind bars just 14 yrs late

[playthefield21]

Will it be for life though?

[666JESUSWILLBURN666]

@playthefield21 SO FOR HIM NOT LIKING BLACK PEOPLE HES BAD?

FUCK BLACK PEOPLE

[playthefield21]

@666JESUSWILLBURN666 Yeah, that makes him bad, it makes him a racist prick. You're also a racist prick and i hope you burn along with Jesus.

[ChrisIIIcube]

Fuhrman is the man.

[tokingmadd]

In truth, he's a cunt though.

[lostindiancamp]

that's a contradiction in terms.

[Krkrkillr]

Wahatwhat!! Fur-man! WTF is this racist asshole doing here!!

[davia55]

Krkrkillr, wow do u live in the past!!! Mark has gone on to do some fabulous work since Juice Man. Get with the times bud

[ali123allie]

Fantastic work like what?

[Facebook289]

such as?

[davia55]

Murder in Greenwich, he investigated the then-unsolved 1975 murder of Martha Moxley and presented his theory that the murderer was Michael Skakel, nephew of Ethel Kennedy]. Skakel was subsequently convicted of murder in June 2002. ].He has appoligized for his behavior in the OJ Simpson trial. Lets face it, OJ was a guilty man set free, so get over Furmans remarks.

[Facebook289]

it aint his remarks dumbass. its his prior acts of framing people and claiming he wants 2 burn minorities into oblivion. Disgracing his profession by committing perjury. Listen I dont care how skilled you are as a cop.Once you circumvent the law in order to enforce the law you can no longer call yurself a cop. This guy is a bigot and it was because of him a guilty man got free. And I dont accept his apology because he was far less than sincere in it.

[davia55]

There are white people, and white trash, there are black people and niggers. Just ask a black person and they too will agree. OJ was a wealthy man, but he was also a nigger. Furman said he hadn't used that word in ten years, and as it turns out, that was a lie. It really isn't up to you to accept his apology.

[Facebook289]

so its okay for me 2 call white people crackers? And first of all your implication is that Mark Furhman used the N word in the appropriate context as 2 whos trash and whos not is absolutely false because he called all blacks Niggers. And as far as OJ being the N word, it really doesnt matter how u spin it. He was a man who was acquitted regardless of what you think. And you didnt even address the points I made about Mark Furhman. U just brought up a bunch of generalizations which have nothing 2

[davia55]

If someone is a cracker, then call them that, I don't care. If you were black, you would know they call each other nigers all the time. I believe I did address all your points.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

Facebook289: Bullshit. He never framed anyone. After the OJ trial all of his cases were scrutinized and no evidence of wrongdoing was ever found. As far as perjury goes, he said he never used the word in the course of his duties. It was never proven that he did, the tapes were unrelated to his duties.

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn Clearly you know nothing about the man at all. Have you ever heard what he said to Laura Heart Mckinny during his interview? He's a racist prick and convicted felon who is banned from ever being an office in most of the states within America. Witnesses were produced during the OJ trial and confirmed he did use the word on the job. In the audio interview with Mckinny he even admits it.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@playthefield21 I've never condoned what he said in the tapes. He said he was trying to impress a girl by acting like a badass. That's not cool, but it is believeable.

We have never heard the tapes in their entirety, just the selected snippets.

There has never been any evidence of any wrongdoing on his part, in any situation, other then saying some insulting things. There is more than enough evidence that he was an excellent and diligent police officer and is a fine investigative jornalist.

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn He said he beat the 'niggers' until they begged him for mercy and even then didn't stop. He'd say things like 'you do what you're told to understand that nigger?' There is more than enough evidence that he was a pathetic excuse for a cop, the tapes have him admitting to racist discrimination and beating on blacks for the fun of it, how can you say that isn't evidence of wrongdoing?

The tapes were played in their entirety during the case, although it's hard to find them now.

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn He was convicted of perjury during the OJ case and is now banned from being a cop, what more evidence do you need? Do a simple wikipedia search on him and you'll see just how much of an ass he was.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@playthefield21 Even in a court of law, that would not be "evidence", it would be hearsay. Also, the tapes were NOT played in their entirety. As far as the fifth amendment, once you plead it for one question, you can no longer answer any questions. So, if F. Lee Bailey asked him if he murdered his own parents, he would have had to plead the fifth.

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn How is it hearsay when it's him admitting to it on tape? All of the relevant portions were played in their entirety, obviously they skipped on questions like 'where where you born?' because they had no relevance to the case at hand. If Bailey asked him if he murdered his own parents he would answer that he didn't unless he did or had something to hide in relation to such a question. Pleading the 5th to whether he ever falsified police reports is pretty much an admission.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@playthefield21 Once Fuhrman invoked the 5th on matters unrelated to police procedure, Bailey should not have asked him further questions, because he could not answer other than by pleading the 5th for any subsequent questions. Bailey knew that, which is why he asked him more questions. He knew Fuhrman could not answer. Hence my "murdered parents" analogy. Once you invoke the 5th, you're done answering.

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn I'm not discussing his further questioning after invoking the 5th, i'm saying that is invoking of the 5th to such a question is pretty much an admission of guilt. Why invoke the 5th when asked if you've ever falsified police reports unless you're hiding something? I'm not going to go into the technicalities with you, you and i both know guilty people slip through the courts all the time, but it's usually quite obvious even after they've gotten through that they're guilty.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@playthefield21 because the question we are talking about was asked AFTER he invoked the fifth on a PRIOR question.

the hearsay issue: telling someone something is not EVIDENCE, unless it's told to the cops after having had your rights read. Me telling you I stole a widget is hearsay, even if you tape it. It is not EVIDENCE of anything, by the definition of EVIDENCE.

Me telling Sipowicz I stole a widget after he and Jimmy Smits read me my rights can be admissable in court.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@playthefield21 or replace those names with tango and cash or crockett and tubbs or denzel washington and ethan hawke.

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn Which prior question are you referring to? As far as i know he invoked the 5th during that session only after being questioned about planting evidence.

How is the tape not evidence if admitted in court and used in such? During the trial, parts of the tapes were admitted as evidence, although other parts were not. You've got to reference the legal definition of 'evidence' you're working with and how it applied in that specific case.

[jfrsnjhnsn]

@playthefield21 I'm sorry you don't understand what I'm saying about what defines hearsay or how the 5th amendment works, but there isn't room here to go into it.

You should read Vincent Bugliosi's book OUTRAGE, as well as Fuhrman's MURDER IN BRENTWOOD, especially if you want to put so much effort into publicly condemning the man.

[playthefield21]

@jfrsnjhnsn I know how the 5th works, but i don't understand what you mean by hearsay when his taped confessions were played in court. Court witnesses also claimed he was lying about not being racist on the job, that along with the tapes is what discredited him enough to let OJ go, and it's what ended up getting him convicted of perjury.

[Facebook289]

do with what I was saying. Way 2 avoid the issue buddy

[davia55]

The reason he got in trouble in the OJ trial was because he said he didn't use the N word in over 10 years. They had proof he did use the word. THAT is why he got in trouble. If that disgraced his entire profession, then every profession should be disgraced. I am sure you can find someone in any job that has used that word.

[lostindiancamp]

I really like Mark Fuhrman. He is a very good detective.

[cafelattefuture]

When does casey get a date with the party needle at stark?

[fresita7baby]

where is the baby father

[fresita7baby]

how many years she have

[piszczeck]

Why would anyone think Bounce dryer sheets would be strong enough to overcome the odor of decomposition in the trunk? If she was trying to get rid of the odor, why didn't she dump baking soda in there? or Febreeze it?

[DoubleOBond]

true...there is no logic in dryer sheets...

[HatRatt]

George probably got rid of those bags (having previously been in LE) but he didn't think about the duct tape on the gas can.

[LeesSummitRealtor]

Good stuff. just another connection to the A's home huh. Were the trash bags two different ties?