Mark Fuhrman

[William Kelly]

Mark Fuhrman's A Simple Act of Murder (Harper, William Morrow, 2006) was pretty much ignored by JFK Assassination buffs and the mainstream media, but I found a good, cheap copy and some of what he has to say interesting.

In a compact 232 page paperback Fuhrman says pretty much the same thing that Vincent Buglosi crams into his mammoth dictionary length treste that adds little more than what Fuhrman says quite distinctly, however wrong they both are.

As I expected, Fuhrman concentrates on the hard evidence in the case, but then he stumbles badly when he gets to the motive, a necessary ingrediant in the conviction of the guilty.

(p.88)

Motive

"Motive is a secondary consideration, especially in an assassination, where, like serial killing or mass murder, the motives are primarily psychological and therefore not essential to connecting the suspect to the crime. In a rage-based killing motivated by jealousy, for example, it is helpful, even necessary, to link the suspect with the victim. (Sometimes that link exists only in the suspect's imagination.) However, in an assassination, where the victim is murdered to satisfy the psychological urges and/or political beliefs of the suspect, motive is not only unnecessary for the solution of the case but often a question that will forever remain unanswered and may distract investigators from other subjects more pertinent to the solution of the crime."

WHAT?

"...We can speculate endlessly without reaching any real conclusion..."

So even though there's no motive, we have our man, and there's no reason to speculate as to possible motives, even though the lack of one indicates that there's more to this than meets the eye, except when Mark Fuhrman's on the case, when it's okay if we can just let it go and not bother with all the psychology and motive stuff, which isn't really essential to connect the suspect with the crime.

Fuhrman's a slacker whose too lazy to bother to complete the investigaiton, tie up loose ends and figure out the real truth.

BK

[Terry Mauro]

Mark Fuhrman's A Simple Act of Murder (Harper, William Morrow, 2006) was pretty much ignored by JFK Assassination buffs and the mainstream media, but I found a good, cheap copy and some of what he has to say interesting.

In a compact 232 page paperback Fuhrman says pretty much the same thing that Vincent Buglosi crams into his mammoth dictionary length treste that adds little more than what Fuhrman says quite distinctly, however wrong they both are.

As I expected, Fuhrman concentrates on the hard evidence in the case, but then he stumbles badly when he gets to the motive, a necessary ingrediant in the conviction of the guilty.

(p.88)

Motive

"Motive is a secondary consideration, especially in an assassination, where, like serial killing or mass murder, the motives are primarily psychological and therefore not essential to connecting the suspect to the crime. In a rage-based killing motivated by jealousy, for example, it is helpful, even necessary, to link the suspect with the victim. (Sometimes that link exists only in the suspect's imagination.) However, in an assassination, where the victim is murdered to satisfy the psychological urges and/or political beliefs of the suspect, motive is not only unnecessary for the solution of the case but often a question that will forever remain unanswered and may distract investigators from other subjects more pertinent to the solution of the crime."

WHAT?

"...We can speculate endlessly without reaching any real conclusion..."

So even though there's no motive, we have our man, and there's no reason to speculate as to possible motives, even though the lack of one indicates that there's more to this than meets the eye, except when Mark Fuhrman's on the case, when it's okay if we can just let it go and not bother with all the psychology and motive stuff, which isn't really essential to connect the suspect with the crime.

Fuhrman's a slacker whose too lazy to bother to complete the investigaiton, tie up loose ends and figure out the real truth.

BK

Fuhrman seems to have a fixation on the Kennedy's. "Rage based" killing based on jealousy? Would'nt that make jealousy the motivation for the murder?

Edited September 10, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[Jack White]

The "real killer" was Jason, and OJ covered for him. He was infatuated with his step-mother,

and she had "stood him up", not showing for a scheduled meal where he was to wait on her.

He was the one with the "uncontrollable rage and jealousy."

When she did not show for the reservation he made for her, he left the restaurant without

notifying anyone. I once was able to ask Dershowitz about this, and his reply was curious:

"Well, he is the only one WITHOUT AN ALIBI for the time of the murder."

Jack

Edited September 10, 2008 by Jack White

[Terry Mauro]

The "real killer" was Jason, and OJ covered for him. He was infatuated with his step-mother,

and she had "stood him up", not showing for a scheduled meal where he was to wait on her.

He was the one with the "uncontrollable rage and jealousy."

When she did not show for the reservation he made for her, he left the restaurant without

notifying anyone. I once was able to ask Dershowitz about this, and his reply was curious:

"Well, he is the only one WITHOUT AN ALIBI for the time of the murder."

Jack

I find your theory difficult to accept given that OJ Simpson pleaded innocent and fought like the dickens for his freedom. The case is still open meaning Jason is no more safe then prior to OJ's arrest. Had OJ wanted to take the rap for his son he would have pleaded guilty and worked out some kind of deal.

The Bundy murders were likely a satanic ritual killing of the type well known to Hollywood since the Manson killings, the Cotton Club killings in the 1980's etc. Hollywood has had this problem for a long time. And after all it was the Hollywood that made the Simpson trial the most popular soap opera of all time. The case itself lacked any real substance and the not guilty verdict was appropriate given the lack of evidence against OJ Simpson. It was a nothing case against OJ Simpson. No murder weapon, no witness, no motive and no means to commit the crime. One thing for certain, there was more than one killer involved.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Terry Mauro

[William Kelly]

Fuhrman's A Simple Act of Murder is about the JFK Assassination.

BK

[Jack White]

The "real killer" was Jason, and OJ covered for him. He was infatuated with his step-mother,

and she had "stood him up", not showing for a scheduled meal where he was to wait on her.

He was the one with the "uncontrollable rage and jealousy."

When she did not show for the reservation he made for her, he left the restaurant without

notifying anyone. I once was able to ask Dershowitz about this, and his reply was curious:

"Well, he is the only one WITHOUT AN ALIBI for the time of the murder."

Jack

I find your theory difficult to accept given that OJ Simpson pleaded innocent and fought like the dickens for his freedom. The case is still open meaning Jason is no more safe then prior to OJ's arrest. Had OJ wanted to take the rap for his son he would have pleaded guilty and worked out some kind of deal.

The Bundy murders were likely a satanic ritual killing of the type well known to Hollywood since the Manson killings, the Cotton Club killings in the 1980's etc. Hollywood has had this problem for a long time. And after all it was the Hollywood that made the Simpson trial the most popular soap opera of all time. The case itself lacked any real substance and the not guilty verdict was appropriate given the lack of evidence against OJ Simpson. It was a nothing case against OJ Simpson. No murder weapon, no witness, no motive and no means to commit the crime. One thing for certain, there was more than one killer involved.

Terry...have you read:

O.J. IS GUILTY...

...BUT NOT OF MURDER

By William C. Dear

Dear is a private detective who spent 6 years investigating the case.

Because there is no statute of limitations on murder, the case is officially still open.

So OJ must continue the coverup.

I followed the entire case on Court TV, and there was no doubt IMO that OJ was innocent

and that someone else was guilty. All signs pointed to Jason. Dear reached the same

conclusion.

IMO, Fuhrman is a lying scumbag.

Jack

Edited September 10, 2008 by Jack White

[Jack White]

Fuhrman's A Simple Act of Murder is about the JFK Assassination.

BK

Sorry Bill, but Fuhrman's credibility/fame rests on the OJ case. He lied about

that case, so it stands to reason that he would lie about the JFK case.

Jack

[Christopher Hall]

Mark Fuhrman's A Simple Act of Murder (Harper, William Morrow, 2006) was pretty much ignored by JFK Assassination buffs and the mainstream media, but I found a good, cheap copy and some of what he has to say interesting.

In a compact 232 page paperback Fuhrman says pretty much the same thing that Vincent Buglosi crams into his mammoth dictionary length treste that adds little more than what Fuhrman says quite distinctly, however wrong they both are.

As I expected, Fuhrman concentrates on the hard evidence in the case, but then he stumbles badly when he gets to the motive, a necessary ingrediant in the conviction of the guilty.

(p.88)

Motive

"Motive is a secondary consideration, especially in an assassination, where, like serial killing or mass murder, the motives are primarily psychological and therefore not essential to connecting the suspect to the crime. In a rage-based killing motivated by jealousy, for example, it is helpful, even necessary, to link the suspect with the victim. (Sometimes that link exists only in the suspect's imagination.) However, in an assassination, where the victim is murdered to satisfy the psychological urges and/or political beliefs of the suspect, motive is not only unnecessary for the solution of the case but often a question that will forever remain unanswered and may distract investigators from other subjects more pertinent to the solution of the crime."

WHAT?

"...We can speculate endlessly without reaching any real conclusion..."

So even though there's no motive, we have our man, and there's no reason to speculate as to possible motives, even though the lack of one indicates that there's more to this than meets the eye, except when Mark Fuhrman's on the case, when it's okay if we can just let it go and not bother with all the psychology and motive stuff, which isn't really essential to connect the suspect with the crime.

Fuhrman's a slacker whose too lazy to bother to complete the investigaiton, tie up loose ends and figure out the real truth.

BK

This was a waste of money.

I am glad you picked it up cheap.

Most of us have forgotten more about the JFK assassination that Furman will ever know.

[Pat Speer]

Fuhrman's book on the assassination was not as bad as it could have been, and is unique among Oswald-did-it books in that it devotes a significant amount of time to debunking the single-bullet theory.

While Fuhrman screwed up the case against O.J. by lying, it should be noted that the only lies that were proven were his lies about saying the N-word. Claiming he has no credibility because of that lie is like saying Bill Clinton has no credibility because he lied about Lewinsky, or Sarah Palin has no credibility because she lied about the bridge to nowhere. People are complicated, and sometimes they lie.

Telling one such lie does not make one a sociopath.

[Jack White]

Fuhrman's book on the assassination was not as bad as it could have been, and is unique among Oswald-did-it books in that it devotes a significant amount of time to debunking the single-bullet theory.

While Fuhrman screwed up the case against O.J. by lying, it should be noted that the only lies that were proven were his lies about saying the N-word. Claiming he has no credibility because of that lie is like saying Bill Clinton has no credibility because he lied about Lewinsky, or Sarah Palin has no credibility because she lied about the bridge to nowhere. People are complicated, and sometimes they lie.

Telling one such lie does not make one a sociopath.

You did not follow the trial...he lied about several things, including the finding of a glove and where he found it.

It is not unusual for scum cops to falsify evidence when they think a suspect is guilty.

Jack