On Fox's HANNITY & ((colmes)), guess which expert they called in to pontificate on the Virginia Tech massacre? Mark Fuhrman. Yes, it seems that the nation was waiting with bated breath to learn what a notorious racist cop -- the guy who blew the O.J. Simpson case -- has to say about this tragedy.
When I last wrote about Furhman -- in a post which discusses some little-known details of the man's history -- I asked: "Just what does a guy have to do to achieve pariah status these days?" That's still a good question.
6 comments:
I would expect nothing less from hannity. Colmes is merely a prop.
colmes is a total wimp... he's Hannity side kick.
This show is really for conservative retards who really really like to drink the GOP koolaid but like to think that they get the opposite point of view.
Mark Fuhrman did not ruin the OJ Simpson case, the prosecutors ruined it. As far as being a racist, he said the "N" word into a microphone for his then girlfriend Laura Hart McKinny and he is racists? By who's standards? Didn't Johnny Cochran use the Nation of Islam for bodygards during the OJ Simpsom trial at the same time he was pointing his racist indignation at Fuhrman? Talk about a hypocrite. What about Don Imus, Michael Richards and every rapper in Hollywood, and even Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton themselves. They spew racist remarks and the black community call each other the n word all of the time. Check your own backyard before you go throwing your garbage in others.
Fuhrman is a cover-up artist in the same vein as Gerald Posner. Serves the powers-that-be.
Sunny, did you check the link to find what I wrote earlier about Fuhrman? He has never made any lawsuit noises against Singular, myself, or anyone else who repeated that information. Moreover, after I published I received private communications from an LAPD source confirming what Singular wrote.
Yes, I blame Fuhrman personally for blowing the O.J. trial. His second testimony is the moment when I decided that if I were on the jury, I would have voted to acquit. I simply will not allow myself to convict any man -- no matter what the state of the other evidence -- if all the detectives at the crime scene are not willing to take the oath that they did not plant evidence.
Is that too much to ask? I don't think so!
I'd like to know if Fuhrman actually writes those books. Maybe he does. But the comparison to Posner seems apt.
sofla said...
Fuhrman was later charged, tried, and convicted (or maybe took a plea deal, I don't recall) for a felony conviction of perjury.
As part of his taking the Fifth Amendment, the defense offered up this intriguing question: did you plant blood evidence at the crime scene to falsely implicate Mr. Simpson? (words to that effect).
Fuhrman perhaps had to say it, to consistently refuse to answer questions under his 5th amendment rights and not open the door a crack to answering any questions, but assuming the jury heard it, it must have been devastating to hear that question answered, 'I refuse to answer, on the grounds that it would tend to incriminate me.'
Sure, the judge would instruct that Fuhrman's taking the Fifth should not be taken into effect by the jury, but assuming he said these things in the jury's presence, it is hard to unring that bell.
Post a Comment