He was proven, in the '95 case, to have planted evidence, to be a racist, and a liar. But, I shouldn't be that surprised. After all, it is Fox News.
2007-09-19 08:45:13 · 9 answers · asked by Orange Jetsam 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Mark Fuhrman is an idiot, but leave it Fox to find an "expert" that is so totally "unfair and unbalanced"! For him to even comment on anything to do with OJ is a joke! He was made out to be all the things you said, and there is no way he could be impartial in this instance. He keeps saying he doesn't want the media to tie the previous case in with this one, and in the next sentence he comments on the first trial!
Fox has really made their position clear on this one. They even showed an argument between Fuhrman and OJ's friend
challenging him to a debate about the 1st trial, and Fuhrman says he won't discuss it! No doubt, he would look like an idiot all over again! How you go from being totally disgraced and proven to be a liar to a Fox TV "expert" just goes to show you that ratings are more important than being "Fair and Balanced" to Fox. They really need to change their slogan.
2007-09-19 09:00:08 · answer #1 · answered by Havasoo 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Leave it up to "fair & balanced" Fox news to use a source (Mark Fuhrman) that is probably the most prejudist man in the world against O.J. to do unbias commentary.
After all he was made to look like a racist fool in the first trial.
2007-09-19 09:18:40 · answer #2 · answered by Karl N 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He was not proven to have planted evidence, period. Johnny Cochran and the rest of the "all star" defense team planted those seeds in the minds of the gullible public (does that strike a nerve) as a trial tactic. It seems to have worked. The only thing he was found guilty of was daring to use the word "*** ger" and not admitting it in court. That's it.
I can't think of a source who knows any better than Mark Fuhrman about what a murdering creep O.J. really is.
Edit: Gawd I hate Yahoo's little "bad words" censor thingy.
2007-09-19 08:55:35 · answer #3 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's all about the ratings. Dig up the old people from the prior OJ trial...and it's been over 10 years. Personally, I really don't care what OJ is up too. There are too many missing children and adults, unsolved murders, etc. to be concerned with a man accused of attempted robbery to get his stuff back. It's a waste of TV time and the public should grow up and show the media how much we really care. Quit following the crap.
2007-09-19 08:57:41 · answer #4 · answered by debz81 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Very reliable . He has extensive experience with criminals like O.J. Simpson . Just because O.J.Simpson played the "race card" to escape scott-free from a brutal double homicide ,it has nothing to do with Fuhrman's credibility . Plus , he's not so bad to look at on TV .
2007-09-19 11:11:49 · answer #5 · answered by missmayzie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The very advice that the glove grow to be planted is absurd. i'm a former public defender and prosecutor, so i know rather approximately technique. by the point Fuhrman arrived on the crime scene, it has already been secured by a minimum of 20 officers for over 2 hours. a number of those officers arranged comments of their findings and observations. no longer one officer suggested extra beneficial than one glove. If there have been 2 gloves on the scene earlier Fuhrman allegedly pocketed one to plant someplace else, how come not one of the different officers observed 2. protection at homicide crime scenes is rather tight. that is rather no longer likely that Fuhrman might have pocketed a glove with out somebody else seeing him. besides the undeniable fact that Fuhrman grow to be initially named the lead detective, that identify grow to be short lived, as Fuhrman grow to be in user-friendly terms in value of the Simpson case for some a million/2 hour. Then, to his chagrin, he grow to get replaced by Lange and Vannatter of the LAPD's elite theft/homicide branch, who, at the same time and individually, had investigated over 500 homicides. After being taken off the case, Fuhrman did little extra beneficial than stand and pout interior the line exterior the fringe of the crime scene, waiting for the detectives from theft/homicide to reach. considering he grow to be no longer in value, Fuhrman had no clue as to how Lange and Vannatter might use him. In different words, he had no concept no rely if Lange and Vannatter might request Fuhrman to accompany them to OJ’s place of abode, or assign him yet another job. Why might Fuhrman pocket slightly data whilst he had no assurances that he might settle for the prospect to “plant” it on the Simpson place of abode, The crime scene had a super type of tangible data. to point that Fuhrman pocketed a glove that didn’t exist to confirm a conviction whilst there grow to be no reason to have self assurance the case grow to be no longer solvable, and whilst Fuhrman had no assurances he may well be asked to accompany the different detectives to the Simpson place of abode defies good judgment. the only data that Fuhrman planted data is his admission to the author that he had accomplished so interior the paste. And that hardly qualifies as data. that is bare and rank hypothesis.
2016-10-19 03:08:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they are interviewing everyone. I mean, my word, Marcia Clark was in the court room today. They will get around to interviewing anyone who has an opinion about OJ. I expect my phone to ring within the day and I was only 8 when it happened. ROFL
2007-09-19 08:50:38 · answer #7 · answered by Feivel 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Only on Fox
2007-09-19 10:11:33 · answer #8 · answered by remmering 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Mark Furman was one of the best cops in the LA Police Dept. He was unfairly accuse of racism and perjury. He is the one who nailed the Kennedy family member after he got away for murdering Martha Moxley 30 years ago. He was a great detective and it is shameful the way he was treated.
2007-09-19 08:53:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋