Poll: Will you buy Mark Furhman's New Book in which he identifies who killed JBR?
- Thread starter Sophie
- Start date
Okay, I'm just going from testimony from the OJ trial. Take it for what it's worth. I know many LA cops, been in the background for many years -- too many years to count on what happens behind the blue code of honour. It's not only African Americans that are abused, but Hispanics, dealers, or anyone who doesn't cooperate with them. I believe MF said these things, and after all these years, people choose to forget about it.
The defense produced four witnesses to establish that Fuhrman had used the word "
" more recently; as well as an audiotape contradicting his testimony. This testimony eventually resulted in a perjury conviction. In one 1985 recording, Fuhrman gave a taped interview to Laura Hart McKinny, a writer working on a screenplay about female police officers. In another interview, Fuhrman talked about gang members and was quoted as saying, "Yeah we work with and gangs. You can take one of these , drag 'em into the alley and beat the **** out of them and kick them. You can see them twitch. It really relieves your tension." He went on to say "we had them begging that they'd never be gang members again, begging us." He said that he would tell them, "You do what you're told, understand, ?"[3]
Only limited excerpts of the tapes were admitted as evidence in the Simpson trial, but the content of the admitted portions were strong enough to cast doubt on Fuhrman's motives and credibility with the jury.
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.
After the trial, there was widespread pressure on Los Angeles County district attorney Gil Garcetti to bring perjury charges against Fuhrman. Garcetti initially refused, saying that the "" quote was "not material to the case"– a major element of proving perjury.[4] However, many members of Garcetti's office made public statements on the issue, and Garcetti, citing the great degree of emotionalism in his office about the Simpson case, opted to tender the decision to prosecute to Attorney General Dan Lungren to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.[5]
Read more here:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman[/ame]
The defense produced four witnesses to establish that Fuhrman had used the word "
" more recently; as well as an audiotape contradicting his testimony. This testimony eventually resulted in a perjury conviction. In one 1985 recording, Fuhrman gave a taped interview to Laura Hart McKinny, a writer working on a screenplay about female police officers. In another interview, Fuhrman talked about gang members and was quoted as saying, "Yeah we work with and gangs. You can take one of these , drag 'em into the alley and beat the **** out of them and kick them. You can see them twitch. It really relieves your tension." He went on to say "we had them begging that they'd never be gang members again, begging us." He said that he would tell them, "You do what you're told, understand, ?"[3]Only limited excerpts of the tapes were admitted as evidence in the Simpson trial, but the content of the admitted portions were strong enough to cast doubt on Fuhrman's motives and credibility with the jury.
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.
After the trial, there was widespread pressure on Los Angeles County district attorney Gil Garcetti to bring perjury charges against Fuhrman. Garcetti initially refused, saying that the "
" quote was "not material to the case"– a major element of proving perjury.[4] However, many members of Garcetti's office made public statements on the issue, and Garcetti, citing the great degree of emotionalism in his office about the Simpson case, opted to tender the decision to prosecute to Attorney General Dan Lungren to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.[5]Read more here:
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrman[/ame]
Tell me, something, mgardner:
even if all you say is true, (and I have good reason to doubt that) how does it figure into this case? We're not talking about some black or Hispanic street hustlers. We're talking about a rich, white socialite couple with ties to the government and the local power elite. And yet they, along with their supporters, still use that same 1960s, cops-are-pigs, Black Panther bulls***. I still can't figure that one.
even if all you say is true, (and I have good reason to doubt that) how does it figure into this case? We're not talking about some black or Hispanic street hustlers. We're talking about a rich, white socialite couple with ties to the government and the local power elite. And yet they, along with their supporters, still use that same 1960s, cops-are-pigs, Black Panther bulls***. I still can't figure that one.
He is telling you the truth Dave. I am not going to say that Mr. Fuhrman is not a good person deep down. But the dream team tarred and feathered him. I heard the audio of using the "n" word and roughing up thugs. Don't fight this one.
In one 1985 recording, Fuhrman gave a taped interview to Laura Hart McKinny, a writer working on a screenplay about female police officers. In another interview, Fuhrman talked about gang members and was quoted as saying, "Yeah we work with
Darden asked Laura one question that should have been the pivotal issue in putting the whole tape controversy into its proper context. Darden asked Laura, "Did Mark Fuhrman talk this way when you were not taping for the screenplay?"
"No."
...
F. Lee Bailey asked asked me if I had ever used the "N" word in addressing a person. I could truthfully answer that I had not.
Murder in Brentwood
-Mark Fuhrman
I did - I own a copy. It spells out that Darden has a chip on his shoulder.
Yeah, I agree with that. And hey, I think the Dream team played dirty pool but Fuhrman was a hot shot with a chip on his shoulder too. It was him that said those things and they had other witnesses as well. I don't think it should have meant a dang thing at OJ's trial. Darden and Fuhrman were meant for each other.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
I'm not properly attuned to this debate so I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent.
Do Fuhrman's actions in the OJ case really matter for present purposes? Even if he were guilty of all that is said of him, would that render him ineligible to opine on the role of the media in criminal cases and to describe the media attention to the JBR case? He actually says pretty much nothing new about the case. He just gives a wonderful encapsulation of our own ambivalent and inchoate views on the media's role in this case.
Do Fuhrman's actions in the OJ case really matter for present purposes? Even if he were guilty of all that is said of him, would that render him ineligible to opine on the role of the media in criminal cases and to describe the media attention to the JBR case? He actually says pretty much nothing new about the case. He just gives a wonderful encapsulation of our own ambivalent and inchoate views on the media's role in this case.
Well...a cop making racist comments, especially if he is putting on an act, doesn't make him a bad cop or bad detective. It isn't reflective of his skills- it is merely reflective of his prejudices.
We ALL know OJ was guilty. Even the jury knew it. That particular jury was NEVER going to convict him. They used those racist comments to let a guilty man go free.
Those comments were a blow to the case, to be sure, but I don't think it should negate his professional expertise or negate his opinions about THIS case.
We ALL know OJ was guilty. Even the jury knew it. That particular jury was NEVER going to convict him. They used those racist comments to let a guilty man go free.
Those comments were a blow to the case, to be sure, but I don't think it should negate his professional expertise or negate his opinions about THIS case.
azwriter
Sister Mary Wanna
Got the book from my husband for Christmas and finished reading it in one day.
I was interested because of my background in the media. I found myself disagreeing with Furhman in many of his opinions on the media's coverage of crime. But agreeing with him in other instances.
As for his take on the JonBenet case, I agree with his Who Done It.
I like reading his books. He has a very clear writing style but uses a lot of ten cent phrases.
But I do admire the knowledge and skill he has in crime solving. Lots to learn from him in the art of sleuthing.
I'd recommend the book just to learn how he views the behavior of suspects.
jmo
I was interested because of my background in the media. I found myself disagreeing with Furhman in many of his opinions on the media's coverage of crime. But agreeing with him in other instances.
As for his take on the JonBenet case, I agree with his Who Done It.
I like reading his books. He has a very clear writing style but uses a lot of ten cent phrases.
But I do admire the knowledge and skill he has in crime solving. Lots to learn from him in the art of sleuthing.
I'd recommend the book just to learn how he views the behavior of suspects.
jmo
That's not really what I asked, Roy. I asked how does any of that apply to this case? I have yet to hear an answer.
I have not yet BEGUN to fight!
While I wait, there was something else.
In recent years, it's become typical for people suspected of murder to try and pin it on popular boogeymen, the kinds of things that regular Americans greatly fear, even though the chances of them happening are extremely remote.
OJ is a good example. He and his Dream Team actually conjured up two popular fears. Firstly, he claimed that the murders were committed by assassins working for South American drug cartels, similar to those sent by Alex Sosa to kill Tony Montana at the end of Scarface. Then, during his trial, he appealed to the distrust certain people have for cops.
More recently, Scott Peterson tried to blame Laci's death on a Satanic cult. While it sounds ridiculous, it was not so long ago that America was gripped with panic over the supposed epidemic of Satanic child abuse.
Well, whomever wrote the ransom letter (LETTER!) seemed to be trying the same trick. Except they went for the superfecta. Allow me to quote from chapter three:
While the child's body was done up to suggest a sadistic-control pedophile, the ransom note contains elements of ransom kidnappers, extreme leftist revolutionaries and Islamic radicals. These are all popular bogeymen, the kind that cause people to take leave of their senses. While the odds of actually being victimized by any of these forces is very low, the media makes them seem to be around every corner, especially when spurred on by opportunistic politicians. In turn, people will often rely more on their emotions than their good sense and take great measures to protect themselves. Let's face it, if people were not afraid of pedophiles and the idea of random kidnappings, television programs like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit and To Catch a Predator would not be as popular as they are.
Make no mistake: when I say low, I mean LOW. The chances of a child under eleven being kidnapped by a stranger are 1 in 1,605,620.
In short, the note seems to be an attempt to play on popular fears, much the way Susan Smith tried to play on popular fears of young black men in the South when she described the man who supposedly carjacked her and took off with her sons as little more than a racist caricature of a jive-talking gangsta. Patsy Ramsey, during the New Years Day CNN plea, certainly stirred up plenty of those fears when she told all mothers across America to "hold your babies close. There's a killer out there."
In recent years, it's become typical for people suspected of murder to try and pin it on popular boogeymen, the kinds of things that regular Americans greatly fear, even though the chances of them happening are extremely remote.
OJ is a good example. He and his Dream Team actually conjured up two popular fears. Firstly, he claimed that the murders were committed by assassins working for South American drug cartels, similar to those sent by Alex Sosa to kill Tony Montana at the end of Scarface. Then, during his trial, he appealed to the distrust certain people have for cops.
More recently, Scott Peterson tried to blame Laci's death on a Satanic cult. While it sounds ridiculous, it was not so long ago that America was gripped with panic over the supposed epidemic of Satanic child abuse.
Well, whomever wrote the ransom letter (LETTER!) seemed to be trying the same trick. Except they went for the superfecta. Allow me to quote from chapter three:
While the child's body was done up to suggest a sadistic-control pedophile, the ransom note contains elements of ransom kidnappers, extreme leftist revolutionaries and Islamic radicals. These are all popular bogeymen, the kind that cause people to take leave of their senses. While the odds of actually being victimized by any of these forces is very low, the media makes them seem to be around every corner, especially when spurred on by opportunistic politicians. In turn, people will often rely more on their emotions than their good sense and take great measures to protect themselves. Let's face it, if people were not afraid of pedophiles and the idea of random kidnappings, television programs like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit and To Catch a Predator would not be as popular as they are.
Make no mistake: when I say low, I mean LOW. The chances of a child under eleven being kidnapped by a stranger are 1 in 1,605,620.
In short, the note seems to be an attempt to play on popular fears, much the way Susan Smith tried to play on popular fears of young black men in the South when she described the man who supposedly carjacked her and took off with her sons as little more than a racist caricature of a jive-talking gangsta. Patsy Ramsey, during the New Years Day CNN plea, certainly stirred up plenty of those fears when she told all mothers across America to "hold your babies close. There's a killer out there."
JMO, I hate to say I laughed at anything posted about this case but what you said above was, to be blunt, funny. :innocent:
It amazes me to think anyone would seriously think an Intruder wrote that note. :snooty:
Precisely the point I sought to make.
JMO8778
..at the beach!
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 5,554
- Reaction score
- 42
can you imagine John trying to field that one??
"We don't know who this Mohommed is,but.."
"We will go through every Mohommed on the planet if we have to in order to find him..", ..and then aka OJ style,he goes out to play golf.
"We don't know who this Mohommed is,but.."
"We will go through every Mohommed on the planet if we have to in order to find him..", ..and then aka OJ style,he goes out to play golf.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 58
And later claim to be looking for anyone suspicious named Mohommed on the golf course.
Im not too crazy about him, neither is Marsha Clark lol
He really screwed up the OJ case.
She ASKED him before the trial if he had anything to hide and he lied and said no. wow, no wonder the almost all black jury despised him. The tapes were pretty rough to listen to.
He also took the 5th it was like he had somehing to hide. I really don't understand why people think hes so great. Im surprised he still has a career and making lots of money off the books.
Online statistics
- Members online
- 131
- Guests online
- 3,144
- Total visitors
- 3,275