Mark Fuhrman ???

[Leila]

I just read Furhman's book.

It is worth reading but nothing was said about Caylee's case that hasn't been said here. It was like he had taken notes off of the posts from WS's Caylee forum. He thinks KC is guilty...without a doubt guilty.

Thanks Jolynna! I haven't had a chance to get Furhman's book yet, but hope to soon.

 

[cecybeans]

The problem I have with MF's conversation with the Anthonys is not his credibility but theirs. Any information we have about the pool supply box is simply hearsay from a very poor source that has no outside corroboration. GA and CA were already in High Coverup Mode by the time they picked up the car. The fact that the JBP story can be traced back to them makes me think the pool story can too. When they mentioned it as a possibility to KC in jail she did not sound impressed. However, I think it is interesting that CA admitted to him about the fight and then she denies it in her depo and elsewhere.

I find it fascinating to follow how the Anthony's stories evolve over time and am always curious as to why they change, because the changes appear to be calculated for specific effect or outcome.

 

[Just Jayla]

The problem I have with MF's conversation with the Anthonys is not his credibility but theirs. Any information we have about the pool supply box is simply hearsay from a very poor source that has no outside corroboration. GA and CA were already in High Coverup Mode by the time they picked up the car. The fact that the JBP story can be traced back to them makes me think the pool story can too. When they mentioned it as a possibility to KC in jail she did not sound impressed. However, I think it is interesting that CA admitted to him about the fight and then she denies it in her depo and elsewhere.

I find it fascinating to follow how the Anthony's stories evolve over time and am always curious as to why they change, because the changes appear to be calculated for specific effect or outcome.

Once again I am left thinking abuot how Caylee did not stand a chance-I want to vomit and am :furious:

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I watched all the links provided in the start of this thread. MF has certainly refined his demeanor in front of the camera. I think he did a good job in the videos that were provided. I still remember the OJ trial and the big hoopla over the Furhman tapes. Listening to those tapes was very, very disturbing. Prior to those tapes I thought MF was a real boy scout. Those tapes permanently changed my opinon of him forever. As for the videos at the beginning of this link I do think he did a good job, but I will never trust him, the Mark Furhman Tapes were far too damaging. They revealed the truth about him in my opinion. I don't believe for a minute that he is no longer a bigot. I do believe he is much much better at concealing that fact now. Even if he has changed and I admit seems to be doing a pretty good job now, I would definately not put him on the stand, now or ever.

 

[BeanE]

For reference, here's a link to the document with the notes from Mark Fuhrman's OCSO interview on Aug 7, 2008. This is from the 700 page doc dump on Nov 26, 2008.

http://www.wesh.com/download/2008/1126/18155437.pdf

PDF page 49

Document page 2499

There are 3 paragraphs. The pool ladder info and the fight between Cindy and KC are mentioned.

Significantly (to me), the notes say that MF provided *additional* information to OCSO on the referenced date. I've never been able to find any discovery documentation with whatever the previous info he provided to OCSO was.

 

[Leila]

For reference, here's a link to the document with the notes from Mark Fuhrman's OCSO interview on Aug 7, 2008. This is from the 700 page doc dump on Nov 26, 2008.

http://www.wesh.com/download/2008/1126/18155437.pdf

PDF page 49

Document page 2499

There are 3 paragraphs. The pool ladder info and the fight between Cindy and KC are mentioned.

Significantly (to me), the notes say that MF provided *additional* information to OCSO on the referenced date. I've never been able to find any discovery documentation with whatever the previous info he provided to OCSO was.

I've been intrigued by the mention of "additional information." It's vague and leaves a big question mark. The implication is that there's some details the OCSO has not released.

 

[The World According]

Mark now works for Fox news. So, with Baez commenting on Haliegh's case on Geraldo...it looks like he wants to follow in his footsteps.

At the time of the OJ trial everyone thought he was ruined. He has had best selling books and a wonderful career , since. So, maybe Baez wont be in the you'll never work again in this town mode...after all.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Sorry, but thats BS. This man perjured himself on the stand- doesn't matter how underhanded the defence was- they didn't force him to lie under oath! There's no integrity in that.

But back to this case:

MF's questioning and investigation of the Anthonys in the beginning revealed the supposed fight, but more importantly the open side gate of the anthony home, and that the pool supply box had been moved that day, or somewhere around that time.
He stated to LE it was the pool supply box that was pushed up against the pool's edge....no mention of a ladder.

Page 2499 in the docs states...




But when MF appears on Greta in Aug 09 he only mentions the ladder- not the supply box. :waitasec:

So I'd have to think that:
1. The pool supply box has some significance in the case.
OR
2. MF was incorrect when he made the pool supply box statement.(and if he was wrong- then how much weight should we put into the mans statements?)

ETA: Also note the first sentence of the quote from the docs. That he was providing additional information. But no reference to the content of the previous discussion with him. The key info could be in that???
Also as far as I know they have never provided a complete statement from him- they just paraphrase him.Which is a bit odd, imo, unless they are saving it for trial.
JMO

No, it certainly is not BS as you put it. His perjury had NOTHING to do with the fact that the defense was corrupt, dishonest and as bad as Casey's but better at getting away with it. He was put in a position he never should have been in.

 

[Bathbuddys]

I agree! The obsession with detail is prolly whet got him his good rep.

He was apparently a bit torqued when the apparent OJ weapon came up missing.

He said it was a Swiss Army knife, just lying on the edge of the bathtub.

lol that swiss Army knife was not the murder weapon....

 

[Bathbuddys]

Sorry, but thats BS. This man perjured himself on the stand- doesn't matter how underhanded the defence was- they didn't force him to lie under oath! There's no integrity in that.

But back to this case:

MF's questioning and investigation of the Anthonys in the beginning revealed the supposed fight, but more importantly the open side gate of the anthony home, and that the pool supply box had been moved that day, or somewhere around that time.
He stated to LE it was the pool supply box that was pushed up against the pool's edge....no mention of a ladder.

Page 2499 in the docs states...




But when MF appears on Greta in Aug 09 he only mentions the ladder- not the supply box. :waitasec:

So I'd have to think that:
1. The pool supply box has some significance in the case.
OR
2. MF was incorrect when he made the pool supply box statement.(and if he was wrong- then how much weight should we put into the mans statements?)

ETA: Also note the first sentence of the quote from the docs. That he was providing additional information. But no reference to the content of the previous discussion with him. The key info could be in that???
Also as far as I know they have never provided a complete statement from him- they just paraphrase him.Which is a bit odd, imo, unless they are saving it for trial.
JMO

Well now the pool supply box may be just the thing to tie this all up.
I think Caylee was in that back yard at least over night and drowned in the pool. Now I REALLY believe she was in the box as they are not small boxes and it seals so the Anthonys wouldnt think to look in there and this could be where the dogs hit by the pool as it was right next to the pool.
They could find DNA in the box a month later and also a very large plant was moved to another spot in the back yard, why? lye was put down (it masks odors) oh my the baby could have been in this box for one or two days?

 

[Bathbuddys]

Thanks, Brini, ITA. The OJ defense was clever in finding this bit of past info on Fuhrman, I guess that's the name of the game when your defending OJ in the trial of the century. The cultural implications of what Fuhrman said could probably be debated ad naseum in regards to the times, the verdict, racism, etc.

But one thing I do not forget about that time is that Det. Fuhrman had uncovered some very damaging evidence against OJ in his bathroom, items that were not allowed to be brought into evidence because Mark violated the search warrant. So yes, Mark is a top-notch sleuther, just maybe not such a good candidate for formalized detective work.

were you closed to santa monica and it sounds like you know Mark personally? If you lived close to this case you would know that Mark did nothing wrong, this case was lost due to money, politics and threats etc etc etc.

 

[mikeysmommom]

I wonder how Mark Fuhrman's credibility is these days. I remember him in the first OJ Simpson trial. IIRC, his behavior did not make him shine during that trial. Has he turned over a new leaf?

I watched that trial and the only thing that Fuhrman did wrong was say the N word.While it is not a nice thing to say A lot of people have and still do say it.What that had to do with the trial is still a mystery to me just lawyers getting a guilty man set free.He is a fantastic investigator his behavior is not much different from the majority of the world.Might not be politically correct but a lot of people do use the word and I suspect will continue to do so both Blacks and Whites.

 

[mikeysmommom]

Sorry, but thats BS. This man perjured himself on the stand- doesn't matter how underhanded the defence was- they didn't force him to lie under oath! There's no integrity in that.

But back to this case:

MF's questioning and investigation of the Anthonys in the beginning revealed the supposed fight, but more importantly the open side gate of the anthony home, and that the pool supply box had been moved that day, or somewhere around that time.
He stated to LE it was the pool supply box that was pushed up against the pool's edge....no mention of a ladder.

Page 2499 in the docs states...




But when MF appears on Greta in Aug 09 he only mentions the ladder- not the supply box. :waitasec:

So I'd have to think that:
1. The pool supply box has some significance in the case.
OR
2. MF was incorrect when he made the pool supply box statement.(and if he was wrong- then how much weight should we put into the mans statements?)

ETA: Also note the first sentence of the quote from the docs. That he was providing additional information. But no reference to the content of the previous discussion with him. The key info could be in that???
Also as far as I know they have never provided a complete statement from him- they just paraphrase him.Which is a bit odd, imo, unless they are saving it for trial.
JMO

I wonder if they put OJ jury on the stand and asked why they voted not guilty if any of them would perjure themselves.Where is the integrity of letting a man go free of slaughtering 2 people just because he has the same color skin as you do?:waitasec:

 

[LambChop]

I wonder if they put OJ jury on the stand and asked why they voted not guilty if any of them would perjure themselves.Where is the integrity of letting a man go free of slaughtering 2 people just because he has the same color skin as you do?:waitasec:

I don't have the same color skin as OJ but I had a hard time believing he would do such a thing because he is OJ. He seemed so laid back and, well, just OJ. So if he was a hero, and I'm sure he was to some of the jurors, I can see how hard it would be to believe he slaughtered 2 people, one his ex-wife and then left his two children alone in the home to possibly come out in the morning and discover this scene. BUT, had all the evidence been presented at trial I think that would have convinced anyone of his guilt. JMO

 

[KenoshaKid]

were you closed to santa monica and it sounds like you know Mark personally? If you lived close to this case you would know that Mark did nothing wrong, this case was lost due to money, politics and threats etc etc etc.

Wasn't felony perjury involved?
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case63.htm

 

[steadychick]

Wasn't felony perjury involved?
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case63.htm

Not trying to downplay the seriousness of his perjury, but this was about his past use of the "n" word, not about any facts of the case. Can't blame him for wanting to not appear prejudiced about OJ's race, knowing that this might affect whether or not the jury believed his finding of the evidence. But lying about it was misguided and wrong.

 

[Just Jayla]

were you closed to santa monica and it sounds like you know Mark personally? If you lived close to this case you would know that Mark did nothing wrong, this case was lost due to money, politics and threats etc etc etc.

Nope, I live thousands of miles away....I did not make a personal assessment of Mark, so I don't need to know him personally, I suppose. My quote was regarding:

-the defense in the OJ case was clever
-Being clever, they were able to take Mark's words (which may or may not have been racist, inflammatory, etc., that's up to you to judge) and use them to divide and conquer both the community and the jury
-Mark finds great evidence, however crucial evidence was not admitted in the OJ case because the defense was able to show that the evidence was not legally obtained.

And finally, as a result of the things above, regardless of how they came to be (politics, threats, etc.), it was time, IMO, for Mark to leave the public sector and begin to work on his own. He is talented, and skilled and seems to work better outside of the framework that he was confined to with the police department.

ETA-I live a stone's throw away from D.C....you don't have to remind me about politics and corruption! I take it into consideration, but it does not effect the intent of my original post.

 

[JBean]

were you closed to santa monica and it sounds like you know Mark personally? If you lived close to this case you would know that Mark did nothing wrong, this case was lost due to money, politics and threats etc etc etc.

I thought Mark perjured himself didn't he? I am not sure one can say he did nothing wrong, but I will double check. I don't think he was the deal breaker in the case at all, but he did commit a crime IIRC.

ETA: ok I see Kenosha kid posted the link already, thank you.

 

[beach]

I thought Mark perjured himself didn't he? I am not sure one can say he did nothing wrong, but I will double check. I don't think he was the deal breaker in the case at all, but he did commit a crime IIRC.

ETA: ok I see Kenosha kid posted the link already, thank you.

Exactly. I remember it like it was yesterday. I felt a wave of nausea overcome me when Cochran & Co. played those tapes. Not only was the dialogue totally offensive, but those tapes enabled the defense to attack with vengence every.piece.of.evidence. and testimony that remotely involved Mark Furman (which was a LOT of evidence/testimony). That said, I don't know that it was THE deal breaker, either.

 

[JBean]

The whole Fuhrman -LAPD debacle was a mess. This investigators screwed up, Fuhrman screwed up and Ito never took control of the case. OH this trial was certainly one for the books.

but IIRC MF took the fifth when it came to falsifying evidence questions and he did not get any support from his colleagues because his credibility was destroyed by his own doing.

Some of the stuff he said on those tapes was really bad and it only became worse when he lied about it.
It was more than just using racial slurs as in name calling, it was some bad stuff.
It cast a doubt on much of the proceeding and no one really was sure what was BS and what was real.

With that said, I think he has found a niche for himself after losing the ability to be LE with his felony conviction. he does serve a purpose that is generally accepted to be honorable as well as productive and he is respected. I think that it is impressive that it did not shut his life down and he was able to go on and reach an impressive standing in the investigative world.