Whodunnits on Panel Discussions

Status
Not open for further replies.

w00t

Former Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Nothing personal, but I have a pet peeve regarding Mark Furhman appearing on panel discussions about murder cases ever since he was convicted of lying under oath out in California after the OJ fiasco. He is an expert, but his credibility is an issue.

Out online, I already found one person's Mark Furhman-type theory:

http://www.helium.com/tm/748624/murder-bolingbrookit-muggy-afternoon
 
Nothing personal, but I have a pet peeve regarding Mark Furhman appearing on panel discussions about murder cases ever since he was convicted of lying under oath out in California after the OJ fiasco. He is an expert, but his credibility is an issue.

Out online, I already found one person's Mark Furhman-type theory:

http://www.helium.com/tm/748624/murder-bolingbrookit-muggy-afternoon
IIRC, his lie under oath was about his use of the N word, not about any evidence in the actual OJ case. His investigation of this case is on behalf of Fox and Greta. I have no problem with Mark Furhman. He's obviously a very good detective.
 
If you click on the link, you will find a fictional short story, loosely based upon Stacy's disappearance and not very well-researched. It has nothing to do with Fuhrman. The author makes no attempt to claim it as a factual account.

No offense w00t, but you seem to me to be trolling.

Maybe you should check out the "according to Drew" thread, since your post sounds like a red herring he might come up with.

JMO
Susan
 
You and many others have the same opinion. I can't quite get past the "bloody print on the gate," which was an item in his notes that he never pointed out to anyone, not the "N" word.

Good detective, yes. Credible when push comes to shove, no.
 
Good lord Woot, the only credibility Mark has to account for these days is to the media and Greta. Trying to compare Mark F to that rediculous article is well, the most rediculous thing I've seen in a long time. And trollish. Kthxbye!!!
 
You and many others have the same opinion. I can't quite get past the "bloody print on the gate," which was an item in his notes that he never pointed out to anyone, not the "N" word.

Good detective, yes. Credible when push comes to shove, no.

Joey?...thought I heard your whiney voice. Give it up, you are making your boy Drewpy look worse every time you pull out your smear the witness schpeil.
 
Yes, well, the "Swiss army knife" theory was also groping for credibility. Even the title is something he would do.

Getting back on topic, I just wish the media would only invite expert panelists, who have clean police records. Most of us would never get hired for a job anywhere with a felony conviction, even McDonalds. I believe that if the general population must adhere to certain standards, then "experts" must.
 
Would those standards include defense lawyers, w00t?
 
Yes, well, the "Swiss army knife" theory was also groping for credibility. Even the title is something he would do.

Getting back on topic, I just wish the media would only invite expert panelists, who have clean police records. Most of us would never get hired for a job anywhere with a felony conviction, even McDonalds. I believe that if the general population must adhere to certain standards, then "experts" must.
I have no clue who you are or whether you're close to the case or just trolling, but your obsession with Mark Furhman makes me wonder just how close he is with his investigating.
 
say what you want; i loves me some Mark Fuhrman
663.gif


i think he's a fine detective too..he's been instrumental in digging up info regarding Kathleen Shavio's death, imo.....also in Stacy's....i'd be embarrassed to death if i worked for the BBPD right about now, with the stuff Mark F's uncovered...
 
This is typical smoke and mirror tactics. Don't look at Drewpy's nefarious behavior, LOOK OVER THERE->
(as Drew and Joey scurrie away...)

Susan
 
BarnGoddess, I'm not obsessed. I'm just an average law abiding citizen, who expects a higher standard from the powers that be to give us credible experts. You could look at as one dirty cop knowing another, but still, I'd rather listen to someone like McGury, or a clean retired detective from Chicago, telling us about the case, rather than a Furhman.
 
W00t didn't seem to like the defense attorney question.

Pay NO ATTENTION to the man behind the curtain!
 
If you are referring to Drew's attorney? They deserve eachother.
 
BarnGoddess, I'm not obsessed. I'm just an average law abiding citizen, who expects a higher standard from the powers that be to give us credible experts. You could look at as one dirty cop knowing another, but still, I'd rather listen to someone like McGury, or a clean retired detective from Chicago, telling us about the case, rather than a Furhman.
Well, you can get Wecht and Baden to read either side of a case. Does that make one right and the other wrong? Nope, facts are facts. The fact is Furhman is an excellent investigator and has uncovered some interesting, grossly overlooked items that were either missed or suppressed by investigators who were officially on the cases. Shame on them.
 
Most people can be great as Monday Morning Quarterbacks, it doesn't make them "credible experts."
 
That did it, experts are leaning toward a murder as far as Kathleen's autopsy, so that doesn't make them credible experts, mmmmmm OK.

TGI I think you're right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
2,002
Total visitors
2,098

Forum statistics

Threads
590,006
Messages
17,928,892
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top