You said that many times police commit perjury to obtain convictions. Keep on the subject bud. That's what I'm talking about and in that regard I am right and you are wrong. Now you sarcastically say police officers would never lie to get a conviction which is turning around your original words. You go on to make other "points" I never made. Which is a typical tactic when you have no arguments or facts to back up the original things you said which you just pulled out of thin air. I invite you to submit proof that "many times" police commit purjury to get convictions.
Like I said, for your statements to be true you would have to have DA investigators and prosecutors involved in helping the police convict innocent people. And even judges. So? Are all these people involved?
As far as Fuhrman? Like I said he was and is a good detective. He made a mistake and paid for it. I never said he was a saint or "a legal genius (sic)".
Did you pay for something too? Is that what this is all about? Have a little problem with the law yourself in the past? And that's what is really your problem here?
Obviously you do not understand sarcasm ,too bad. I wont try to explain it to you I doubt you would understand. as for me , your brilliant assumption that perhaps I have had problems with the law is laughable. As for police perjury just use google if you can handle that. It does exist and Mark Fuhrman copped a plea to it. Most GOOD detectives dont need it.