Jump to content
The Education Forum

The cop who tried to frame OJ...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What a title. Why didn't he call it "Just Another Homicide"?

I assume it's an LN book. Otherwise I would like to know what was "simple" about the JFK conspiracy, which is still unsolved after 43 years.

BTW Fuhrman intimated years ago that he was going to write a book on the Vince Foster murder. I guess something dissuaded him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the OJ Simpson case is an area I feel pretty confident in my knowledge and "expertise".

All I will say about Fuhrman is that I wouldn't buy anything that bozo is selling. It is almost laughable that he gets published with these "solve the case" books he puts out. Now he will be on TV discussing his new book on JFK?????

This is unbelievable.......well, actually, these days it doesn't surprise me.

It's one thing that there is an insinuation about Fuhrman's activities in the OJ case that would make him a risky personality on TV, but there is no doubt that he did lie under oath.

That is enough to not listen to him. Networks that air him have let me down, and I like FoxNews.

But then again, lying under oath doesn't seem to bother some people as much, even when it is a President. It certainly doesn't hurt their careers or keep networks from putting them on TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is almost laughable that he gets published with these "solve the case" books he puts out.

Since one of his books led directly to the solving of the Martha Moxley murder, I wouldn't say that all of his books are laughable. That said, this new one looks like nothing but a poor man's Posner. Here's the Publishers Weekly review (from the Amazon.com site):

Neither Warren Commission supporters nor conspiracy theorists are likely to be satisfied by this latest true crime effort by notorious ex-LAPD detective Fuhrman, who joins a long list of authors attempting to settle the controversies surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy once and for all. Despite Furhman's long-held belief that the president was the victim of a plot, his examination of the forensic evidence—the recovered bullet fragments, the autopsy reports and the legendary Zapruder film—leads him to adopt the lone gunman theory (although he thinks that previous proponents of that position erred in believing one of Lee Harvey Oswald's shots missed its mark). This clunky, lightweight effort is unlikely to change many minds and does not begin to approach the careful, reasoned analysis of Gerald Posner's Case Closed, which also defended the first official inquiry's lone gunman theory of the murder. Nor does Fuhrman fully address the many questions raised by serious conspiracy scholars such as Anthony Summers or Robert Blakey; for example, he completely ignores arguments that Jack Ruby's connections with organized crime bear further study. Whatever the truth of the matter, readers will not be convinced by his case for the thesis that this was a "simple murder." Photos and illus. (Apr.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just googled it. Sure sounds like one to avoid. Apparently he used to believe in conspiracy but his research lead to LN conclusions. Gee I cannot imagine HOW. You'd think just his familiarity with weapons would prove conspiracy. Wonder whose payroll he's on

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the OJ Simpson case is an area I feel pretty confident in my knowledge and "expertise".

All I will say about Fuhrman is that I wouldn't buy anything that bozo is selling. It is almost laughable that he gets published with these "solve the case" books he puts out. Now he will be on TV discussing his new book on JFK?????

This is unbelievable.......well, actually, these days it doesn't surprise me.

It's one thing that there is an insinuation about Fuhrman's activities in the OJ case that would make him a risky personality on TV, but there is no doubt that he did lie under oath.

That is enough to not listen to him. Networks that air him have let me down, and I like FoxNews.

But then again, lying under oath doesn't seem to bother some people as much, even when it is a President. It certainly doesn't hurt their careers or keep networks from putting them on TV.

I am glad you agree with me that Fuhrman is a bozo.

I consider myself an "expert" on the case, since I saw every minute of the

trial on TV...and reached the same conclusion as detective Bill Dear long

before he wrote his book.

Many things convinced me that the murder was committed by Jason Simpson

and OJ was willing to take the fall for his son. He was guilty only of being

an accessory after the fact.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder whose payroll he's on

Maybe he wanted to beat Bugliosi to the punch and show him up, by "proving" in 240 pages what it will take Bugliosi two volumes to prove.

I'm looking forward to all the money I'm going to save by not buying these books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the OJ Simpson case is an area I feel pretty confident in my knowledge and "expertise".

All I will say about Fuhrman is that I wouldn't buy anything that bozo is selling. It is almost laughable that he gets published with these "solve the case" books he puts out. Now he will be on TV discussing his new book on JFK?????

This is unbelievable.......well, actually, these days it doesn't surprise me.

It's one thing that there is an insinuation about Fuhrman's activities in the OJ case that would make him a risky personality on TV, but there is no doubt that he did lie under oath.

That is enough to not listen to him. Networks that air him have let me down, and I like FoxNews.

But then again, lying under oath doesn't seem to bother some people as much, even when it is a President. It certainly doesn't hurt their careers or keep networks from putting them on TV.

I am glad you agree with me that Fuhrman is a bozo.

I consider myself an "expert" on the case, since I saw every minute of the

trial on TV...and reached the same conclusion as detective Bill Dear long

before he wrote his book.

Many things convinced me that the murder was committed by Jason Simpson

and OJ was willing to take the fall for his son. He was guilty only of being

an accessory after the fact.

Jack

I don't like Furhrman but don't think he framed OJ either. And the DNA was OJs, not his son's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I'll probably buy it, if only to find out what Fuhrman's evidence is for Oswald hitting all three shots. It may be worth it if he argues against the SBT. If he does argue against the SBT, it may signify a retreat by the LNers from their prized pet. Much of what I've learned has come from discovering credible bits in otherwise incredible theories. The JFK Myths was especially helpful.

What disturbs me about this book isn't so much that Fuhrman wrote it, but the possibility that he was PAID to write it. Dominick Dunne uncovered the evidence in the Skakel case, and his publisher convinced him to give it to Fuhrman to investigate. Did a publisher plant this book in Fuhrman's lap as well? If so, why are publishers HIRING people to write Oswald-did-it books, when they won't touch conspiracy books? Is it a coincidence that Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet are at the same time being re-run over and over on THC and Discovery? My concern is that there is a growing effort in the media (Mockingbird?) to close the book on the assassination. There is certainly an ongoing effort, via McAdams, Myers, Sturdivan, and now Fuhrman, to paint conspiracy theorists as fantasy-based and LNers as science and reality based. To do this, they generally promote the biggest fantasy of all--the SBT. I'm hoping Fuhrman dumps on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is excerpted from an interview with Alan Dershowitz that can be found on PBS's Frontline website:

What was the prosecution's theory?

The prosecution's theory was very simple: mountain of evidence. How can you explain the blood on the glove, the blood on the socks, the blood on the floor, the blood on the gate? It was a circumstantial case with overwhelming evidence, and a case that the prosecution easily could have won if they hadn't made so many mistakes.

Number one, they relied on lies. They overstated their case. They planted evidence. They didn't have to, but they did. They put on a policeman who was a Nazi lover and a perjurer and an evidence planter. That made our day, as the defense. And the defense decided to do something very simple: put on only truthful expert witnesses; put on no one who was in any way really controversial.

So the defense presented a credible case, [and we were] able to show that the prosecution's case was full of lies. That doesn't mean that ultimate truth was on one side or the other, but the defense got the jury to focus on the lies of the prosecution rather than on the innocence or guilt of the defendant.

What was the defense's theory?

The theory of the defense was when you find a certain amount of lying and evidence planting on the other side, you can't trust any of the evidence, so the mountain wasn't enough to convict if a few of the hills and valleys were corrupted. And it was summarized by our expert witness [Dr. Henry Lee], who said, "If you find a cockroach in a bowl of spaghetti, you don't look for another cockroach before you throw out the whole bowl of spaghetti." And the argument was, you couldn't trust anything these policemen said or did because we proved that they lied about certain things and planted at least some evidence.

Which evidence do you think was planted?

There is absolutely no doubt that the sock that was soaked in blood was planted. Why? First of all, the blood had EDTA on it, a chemical that's an anticoagulant that is not found in the human body; it's only found in tubes. So we were able to prove that the police had poured blood from the test tubes onto the sock.

Moreover, the splatter pattern on the sock was such that it was consistent only with blood having been poured on the sock, and not with blood having hit one side of the sock and then soaked through the leg in the middle and then hit the other side of the sock.

Third, there was a videotape of the house on the morning of the search which showed that the black socks were not on the white rug in the place where the police claimed they found them. So I think all the jurors concluded that the sock was planted. And once you conclude that the blood on the sock was planted, you begin to have doubts about all the rest of the evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Since one of his books led directly to the solving of the Martha Moxley murder, I wouldn't say that all of his books are laughable."

I am glad to see someone set the record straight. I had to smile when I read where Jack said that Furman was a bozo .... an odd comment coming from someone who helped make "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" the 'bozo handbook for JFK assassination researchers'. I also do not believe Furman ever tried to frame anyone in the O.J. case. O.J. got off because the prosecution got the cart ahead of the horse because they felt they had their man right off and could make a case after the fact.

Bill

Edited by Bill Miller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Dershowitz hits the nail on the head about the evidence planting and the fact that that blew the case. What he doesn't say, of course, and will never say, is that he knows OJ was guilty as hell.

What the case proved to the world is that LA cops are unbelievably corrupt. (As if the RFK assassination cover-up wasn't enough.) More or less corrupt than cops in other big cities? Who knows. But it's amazing that they figured they could conduct themselves in this high-profile case like any other, e.g. go around with a vial of the accused's blood in your pocket, pouring a little on the gate, a little on a sock, whever it might help get a conviction.

Stupid is not strong enough a word to describe it.

Ron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is excerpted from an interview with Alan Dershowitz that can be found on PBS's Frontline website:

What was the prosecution's theory?

The prosecution's theory was very simple: mountain of evidence. How can you explain the blood on the glove, the blood on the socks, the blood on the floor, the blood on the gate? It was a circumstantial case with overwhelming evidence, and a case that the prosecution easily could have won if they hadn't made so many mistakes.

Number one, they relied on lies. They overstated their case. They planted evidence. They didn't have to, but they did. They put on a policeman who was a Nazi lover and a perjurer and an evidence planter. That made our day, as the defense. And the defense decided to do something very simple: put on only truthful expert witnesses; put on no one who was in any way really controversial.

So the defense presented a credible case, [and we were] able to show that the prosecution's case was full of lies. That doesn't mean that ultimate truth was on one side or the other, but the defense got the jury to focus on the lies of the prosecution rather than on the innocence or guilt of the defendant.

What was the defense's theory?

The theory of the defense was when you find a certain amount of lying and evidence planting on the other side, you can't trust any of the evidence, so the mountain wasn't enough to convict if a few of the hills and valleys were corrupted. And it was summarized by our expert witness [Dr. Henry Lee], who said, "If you find a cockroach in a bowl of spaghetti, you don't look for another cockroach before you throw out the whole bowl of spaghetti." And the argument was, you couldn't trust anything these policemen said or did because we proved that they lied about certain things and planted at least some evidence.

Which evidence do you think was planted?

There is absolutely no doubt that the sock that was soaked in blood was planted. Why? First of all, the blood had EDTA on it, a chemical that's an anticoagulant that is not found in the human body; it's only found in tubes. So we were able to prove that the police had poured blood from the test tubes onto the sock.

Moreover, the splatter pattern on the sock was such that it was consistent only with blood having been poured on the sock, and not with blood having hit one side of the sock and then soaked through the leg in the middle and then hit the other side of the sock.

Third, there was a videotape of the house on the morning of the search which showed that the black socks were not on the white rug in the place where the police claimed they found them. So I think all the jurors concluded that the sock was planted. And once you conclude that the blood on the sock was planted, you begin to have doubts about all the rest of the evidence.

Shortly after the trial, Dershowitz was on a panel discussion at TCU in Fort Worth

(on legal ethics). I attended a reception afterwards, where I and about a dozen

others asked him questions about the OJ case. Although there were areas he could not

get into because of confidentiality, he answered many questions quite candidly.

I had about a ten-minute conversation with him about Jason Simpson. With a very

surprised expression on his face, he answered many questions for me, since they

were not part of the trial and not part of the client/lawyer relationship; he seemed

almost glad that I brought up the subject. He said things like: (not direct quotes)

"""Jason was the ONLY PERSON under suspicion WITHOUT AN ALIBI.

"""Jason worked at a restaurant and was learning to be a chef

"""Jason had invited Nicole to dinner that evening and WAS TO PREPARE A SPECIAL MEAL FOR HER!

"""Nicole did not show up to eat the meal he had prepared

"""Jason was FURIOUS at being stood-up by his step-mother

"""Jason left his job long before his shift was up, and did not return

"""The murders occurred soon after he had left work

"""It was believed that a CHEF'S KNIFE was missing from the kitchen

"""Jason's behavior during the Bronco chase was very peculiar.

Jason's hands were much smaller than OJ's. Maybe Fuhrman's gloves

would have fit. OJ had no motive. Jason had a jealous infatuation

with his beautiful stepmother. When he went to check on why she

stood him up, he was peeking in a window at her preparing a

candlelit bath. Ron Goldman showed up and caught him window

peeping. He killed Ron...and when Nicole came to see what

was going on, he killed her too. Realizing what he had done,

he called OJ. OJ, getting ready to fly to Chicago, quickly drove

to Nicole's and saw the gory scene...and returned not sure what

to do, and went on to Chicago. The rest is history.

My belief is that Dershowitz was trying to ethically get word out

that his client was not guilty of murder, but of protecting his son.

Detective Bill Dear investigated the case on his own, and came

to the same conclusion that I had reached several years earlier.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My belief is that Dershowitz was trying to ethically get word out

that his client was not guilty of murder, but of protecting his son.

Detective Bill Dear investigated the case on his own, and came

to the same conclusion that I had reached several years earlier.

Jack

Just when I think I have heard it all ....... What size Bruno Magle shoes did Jason wear? :ph34r:

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The photos of the Bruno Magli shoes on OJ were faked.

Even if he did wear such shoes (WHICH WERE NEVER FOUND NOR

PRESENTED IN EVIDENCE), my opinion is that he probably did

visit the crime scene before leaving for Chicago. So what?

There is NO PROOF OF OJ OWNING BRUNO MAGLI SHOES.

They are the MAGIC BULLET of the OJ case.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...