Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: churchillbuff

Why is Mark Fuhrman someone we should take seriously?


13 posted on 06/28/2005 8:10:02 PM PDT by FauxBlonde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: FauxBlonde

Why is Mark Fuhrman someone we should take seriously?



Very smart analyst. Very methodical detective. Very savvy student of human nature. Very astute judge of human character.


14 posted on 06/28/2005 8:14:15 PM PDT by John Robertson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: FauxBlonde
Why is Mark Fuhrman someone we should take seriously?

Because his research and writing of another book resulted in a Kennedy going to jail? And thus gives him chops to write about another controversy?

46 posted on 06/28/2005 9:28:40 PM PDT by ikka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: FauxBlonde
Why is Mark Fuhrman someone we should take seriously?

Why would we believe anything from a blond, especially a faux blond? :-)

Fuhrman was railroaded in the O.J. case and has come back to prove himself the best of the bunch. His book Murder in Greenwich exposed the sloppy police work concerning the Kennedy cousin, caused the trial to be reopened and Skakel was convicted for the murder he committed.

Murder in Brentwood lays out the clear case against OJ and shows how the LA cops and the DA's office blew the case.

54 posted on 06/28/2005 10:05:25 PM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: FauxBlonde

Why is Mark Fuhrman someone we should take seriously?




Is that a blonde joke?


55 posted on 06/28/2005 10:10:37 PM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: FauxBlonde

Ask a Kennedy.


73 posted on 06/29/2005 6:26:09 PM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

To: FauxBlonde
Why is Mark Fuhrman someone we should take seriously?

We shouldnt. Fuhrman was someone who took the 5th ammendment upon cross examination, on the grounds that he might incriminate himself if he answered any of O.J.'s lawyers questions.

The case against O.J. was lost when it was proved that the prosecution was lying in its case against O.J.

(we might have guessed that O.J. was probably lying, but we KNEW the prosecution was lying)

165 posted on 07/03/2005 6:40:31 PM PDT by SandyB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson