Return Home Members Area Experts Area The best AskMe alternative!Answerway.com - You Have Questions? We have Answers! Answerway Information Contact Us Online Help
 Sunday 2nd June 2024 04:39:07 PM


 

Username:

Password:

or
Join Now!

 

Home/Government/Politics

Forum Ask A Question   Question Board   FAQs Search
Return to Answer Summaries

Question Details Asked By Asked On
Mark Furhman excon 10/17/05

    Hello:

    The reason OJ was acquitted is because Mark Furhman lied. He has been, in my view, totally discredited.

    Since then, he has been interviewed many times on TV, and appeared as a pundit.

    My question is, why would anybody consider him an expert on anything, or worthy of exhibiting an opinion? What does it say about us?

    To me, a lying cop is the scum of the earth. But, that's just me.

    excon

Answered By Answered On
tomder55 10/17/05
He worked 20 years in the force and up to the OJ case was one of the top investigators . He found the bloody glove that later "didn't fit " and put it back at the crime scene a shame that he "framed "a guilty man because that guilty man is now free and Furhman's 20 year career was ruined It was a lack of judgement in not following strict procedures ,he also pled no contest to perjury charges so you are correct in saying that he lied in testimony about "racist comments " he had made not related to the case.His book on the subject is as good a reference as any of the other 60 books on the OJ murders if you discount his white-washing of the mistakes he made .But facing the truth ;there were plenty of seedy characters and incompetent people in that drama;including the OJ defense team ;judge Ito ;the prosecutor team and the media circus that the press produced .Many of them are also subsequently published .

Since the case he used his experience as an investigator to almost single-handedly solve the murder of Martha Moxley (Michael Skakel, a relative of the Kennedy family was the murderer . Skakel was convicted for the murder in June 2002.)He has also written a book that spells out the case pretty well about the key suspicions and inconsistencies involving Michael Schrivo .

What can I say ;punditry doesn't require a clean past .Anyone can determine if what the person says has any veracity based on the persons past or the experience they bring to the table .As far as investigative journalism goes he brings more to the table than most of the pundits do .

Additional Options and ratings are only visible when you login!

viewa   © Copyright 2002-2008 Answerway.org. All rights reserved. User Guidelines. Expert Guidelines.
Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.   Make Us Your Homepage
. Bookmark Answerway.