Mark Fuhrman ???

[Brini]

Yes, he is a first rate detective, and well-respected by law enforcement. After reading a couple of his books, I think MF is more of an old-fashioned detective who doggedly pursues all the little details, an builds a case from there.

I too have heard he's a sexist.

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.

 

[Brini]

The OJ trail was lost because of possible LE planting of evidence and evidnece not handled correctly, etc, etc.. The ends does not justify the means.

Which is why when I hear his name, in relation to finding evidence.. I feel the same way as I do about Dr. Lee.

Well, Fuhrman was only on the case for about 30 minutes.

And, a lot of those allegations were posed by the defense, which ran wild after Ito threw away control of his courtroom.

Ito had a good rep, before that.

Then, the state blew the DNA demonstrations. All three DNA samples were found in the same blood pool! How inept does one have to be to screw THAT up? It's a smoking gun! Er, knife, ;-)

 

[Brini]

That was just the defense making hay out of anything they could to set their guy free. That he is haunted by it to this day is a grim testament to the inappropriate lengths some defense lawyers will go to in order to free a guilty man.

Yep! Two people learned lessons:

1) Furman-- Try to avoid acting like a complete a--hole in your personal life.

2) Ito-- Try to focus on your courtroom, not the cameras.

 

[Brini]

Great thread!

I didn't realize Mark Fuhrman had a new book out this month until I checked out the links here. I just downloaded it to my Kindle. Fuhrman's new book supposedly includes information about the Trenton Duckett case. Can't wait to get my Saturday chores out of the way so I can read.

I'm on it, too!

 

[panthera]

I remember that..............Mark knew and was the first to report about the June 15th fight.

This is a great thread, Leila! I'm now trying to think back also about what he reported on ~ and I remember most of it since I always listen to him ~ and think it may have to do with the fight on Fathers' Day. It could be something CA told him, maybe about the pool ladder, or what Casey did, but something related to that night. I don't think it's actual "physical evidence" if it was something months before Caylee was found. MOO

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I am sorry if this has already been asked. Is Mark F. on the DA's Witness List? I have not had a chance to catch up on reading or looking over the lattes list from the state. TIA

 

[Coldpizza]

The OJ case was the catalyst for me and sleuthing. I have to say back then I wasn't very fond of MF. I've since changed my point of view. I find he stays in the background, avoiding media and does his job. As far as his work on Caylee's case, early on was he not concerned
about the car in the garage and Cindy washing the clothes? Putting things away?

I may be way off base on that do to my over 50 memory, but that was the first thing that came to my mind.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Kimster]

The information he discovered may be something we already know. Chances are it is something he gleaned from comparing already known points of information. But he takes his obligation to LE serriously. So he will not discuss any of his conversations with them or anything that he has given them until after trial. He feels it is LE's place to determine how to best use any such info, not his. It is professional ethics in play, not some big secret we have not heard yet.

Forgive me if this was already said...I flew through this thread.

You make a great point. The other flip of the coin, however, is that we haven't see Furhman mentioned in any doc dumps that I recall, so perhaps his findings have not been disclosed.

 

[butwhatif?]

That was just the defense making hay out of anything they could to set their guy free. That he is haunted by it to this day is a grim testament to the inappropriate lengths some defense lawyers will go to in order to free a guilty man.

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...

"Mark fuhrman met with Orange county investigators and provided additional information regarding his conversation with George and Cindy Anthony. During the conversation Mark Fuhrman explained that the Anthonys openly discussed that on Tuesday June 17th they found that the side gate of the address was open. They also reported that the pool supply box had also been moved near the side of the pool. According to Mark Fuhrman, this information was very specific and no question of the date of occurrence existed.

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

 

[whiteangora]

Forgive me if this was already said...I flew through this thread.

You make a great point. The other flip of the coin, however, is that we haven't see Furhman mentioned in any doc dumps that I recall, so perhaps his findings have not been disclosed.

Actually MF was mentioned in one of the docs. It was handwritten at the bottom of a police interview, someone else must have seen it too, I hope so since I have no idea where it is.
He was talking about the fight and the shovel if I recall correctly.

 

[lonetraveler]

Yes, he is a first rate detective, and well-respected by law enforcement. After reading a couple of his books, I think MF is more of an old-fashioned detective who doggedly pursues all the little details, an builds a case from there.

I too have heard he's a sexist.

Being a sexist appears to be the norm in Law Enforcement. JMO.

 

[reeseeva]

Forgive me if this was already said...I flew through this thread.

You make a great point. The other flip of the coin, however, is that we haven't see Furhman mentioned in any doc dumps that I recall, so perhaps his findings have not been disclosed.

Actually MF was mentioned in one of the docs. It was handwritten at the bottom of a police interview, someone else must have seen it too, I hope so since I have no idea where it is.
He was talking about the fight and the shovel if I recall correctly.

It was in the " Supplemental Report" of one of the first Doc dumps! It's in the Report to LE/FBI of Cindy's statement of the fight, and her question to him if he thought Caylee was still alive............

 

[celticthyme]

This is a great thread, Leila! I'm now trying to think back also about what he reported on ~ and I remember most of it since I always listen to him ~ and think it may have to do with the fight on Fathers' Day. It could be something CA told him, maybe about the pool ladder, or what Casey did, but something related to that night. I don't think it's actual "physical evidence" if it was something months before Caylee was found. MOO

Panthera,
I have no idea where i was reading it today, and it might have come from one of the recent interviews he did about his book, but he did mention he had discussed the " fight" with George & Cindy, which shocked me, because I didn't know he'd ever talked with them nor would I ever imagine Cindy admitting that fight to anyone.

 

[lonetraveler]

That was just the defense making hay out of anything they could to set their guy free. That he is haunted by it to this day is a grim testament to the inappropriate lengths some defense lawyers will go to in order to free a guilty man.

I totally agree. Mark was used as a scapegoat so that defense could use the race card and totally destroy a man's career over a murderer of two people. It never ceases to amaze me what Defense Attorneys will do to free a client, even when they know he is guilty.

 

[Leila]

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

The information about the pool supply box may well be part of the additional information - additional to the information about the pool ladder, and other bits of information.

What's significant is that the documentation is left somewhat vague - page 2499 - "Mark fuhrman met with Orange county investigators and provided additional information regarding his conversation with George and Cindy Anthony."

We don't know the extent of what Mark Fuhrman told the investigators, and if there's some additional information that hasn't been released, it may be part of the additional information that he provided.

 

[MD MOMMY]

This may be coming out of left field and simply a guess. BUT maybe he uncovered the embarassing photos/not favorable etc that GA speaks of? Just a guess.

 

[Just Jayla]

Personal behavior was idiotic. But, apparently he's a first-rate detective. The books that I've read, of his, are worth reading.

Also, he's not really a racist. Even the guys he busted say he isn't. He was pillow-talking, apparently.

He is, however, a bit if a sexist, or so I've read.

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.

 

[Spangle]

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.

There was even some question if he actually uncovered it, or put it there. Which is why it was a big problem.

 

[Jolynna]

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.

 

[travelgal]

I have respected Mark for the way he has recovered from the OJ trial. Right or wrong I have always felt deep down that a very astute and skilled detective was dishonored by the OJ defense team. He has dropped the cocky attitude and become a very serious and thorough investigator. I was totally impressed by the Martha Moxley case he investigated. I look forward to reading his new book.

As for his quiet sleuthing of Caylee Anthony's case: I have a vivid memory of him "studying" the Amscot location where KC abandoned the car. Perhaps he came across something that hasn't been reported. I still believe that dumpster held evidence. Call me crazy - it's just a hunch!