Talk:Mark Fuhrman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Bugliosi and Outrage[edit]

I deleted the defence's point by point outline of a Police conspiracy. It has no relevance to the Buglioso and Outrage section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.32.147 (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


Note about Murder In Greenwich[edit]

Hi -- I'm by no means a Wiki writer, but I was browsing through the Wiki today and was rather disgusted by how clearly biased in favor of the prosecution and Mark Fuhrman certain portions of this article are.

In particular, the childish capitalizion of the word SCREENPLAY to push the point, and the analysis of the defense as "desperate" and having "no evidence" against Fuhrman is indeed a very biased representation of the trial and his role in it; even fairly balanced or pro-prosecution analyses of this trial that I have seen have not evaluated the defense as "desperate" at that point... beyond which of course, it's an inappropriate injection of personal bias into a Wiki article. Can someone revise? -Melissa, November 12 2006

I have already reverted the whole edit in question, so I'm going to remove the POV tag now. Ian Cheese 16:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we quit messing with the quote please? james_anatidae 12:02, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone comfirm if he Sandpoint, Idaho is an active area for white supremacy? NO HE DOES NOT LIVE IN SANDPOINT, RATHER OUTSIDE OF SANDPOINT. HE IS NOT RACIST. WE DO NOT BELONG TO ANY BROTHERHOOD. AS FAR AS THAT GOES, NEITHER DOES ANYONE WE KNOW.



I've added Fuhrman's recent book on Terri Schiavo to this article, along with a brief mention of the subject matter of his two latest books. However, I was really stumped when trying to find a brief, NPOV way to reference the entire Schiavo controversy. If someone hasd a less stilted but still NPOV way to rephrase what I've added, please do so. Dayv 16:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the reference alleging Fuhrman's book contradicts the autopsy report. I have read the report and Fuhrman's book; they are not contradictory. The fact is the autopsy report doesn't back Michael Schiavo and George Felos' claims (no matter what AP's Mitch Stacy and the St. Pete Times claimed) and couldn't prove one way or the other she was PVS.--SN




I was a classmate of Martha Moxley and am very familiar with the case against Michael Skakel. I do not believe it is correct to say that this book "helped re-open the case." It was an excellent book and helped keep public attention focused on the case. But credit for re-opening the case is more appropriately placed with the many years of investigation conducted by Detective Frank Garr. For more information on this consider the book Conviction: solving the Moxley murder : a reporter and a detective's twenty-year search for justice, by Leonard Levitt, ISBN 0060544309--Frank Quinn (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Frank Quinn is referring to this edit. This is WP:OR, isn't it? As such, should the edit not be reversed? Mark Shaw (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Mark Fuhrman in a Mad TV sketch?[edit]

Was this really him? In this Jerry Springer parody on Mad TV -- towards the end... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8bALGHXkvQ

It's not really noteable, in terms of inclusion in the main article... Or is it? "Post-Trial Appearances" or something?

Totally dead[edit]

As of right now the whole page is invisible due to a runaway HTML comment. I closed the comment tag but found plenty of other runaway formatting tags, misplaced signatures, citations reformatted as links, etc. Is there a last-known-good revision? White 720 01:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that wasn't Mark in the Jerry Springer parody. I have asked him if he had seen it and he said he didn't even know about it.

I just want people to put in the facts and not inflamatory statements or personal opinions. I have a good revision and it is factual, truthful. If you want it, let me know. Sometimes people edit things with with the best of intentions and get the things mixed up as to where things are suppose to go but there was a version in there that was not factual with lots of lies and made up versions. Men Against Women was not a secret society, it was a play and I can verify everything I have on Mark, please just state the facts and the truth. Someone kept changing his version of the events, which were lies, back to his version and would not let anyone add anything to it, even when it was verified and sourced. He said "the truth isn't important." Sorry but the truth is important. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/Simpsonaccount.htm)

How can one verify that a secret society called Men against Women(MAW)existed? They can't because the LAPD and various other police and state agencies investigated it and found that it did not exist at all.(http://www.policenet.com/fuhrman5.html). So how is it that this person can't verify that it existed and keep insisting on putting it in the text without verification? (http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/31/fuhrman.probe/index.html)

I can send you the facts and you can format it correctly if you like, as long as you are not the one who was writing the lies. We will not allow anything but the truth and verified information to be published about Mark, or we will take steps to stop it. Mark's record was cleared in April 2, 1998 and there is a case number to prove it but that was not accepted by this particular user and he deleted it out. (Case#: XCNBA109273-01, Dismissed: per 1203.4 P.C., Disposition date: 04/02/1998, Charge code: Perjury) (https:// www.lasuperiorcourt.org/onlineservices/criminalindex). You can't go around making things up about people and adding your own opinions, it is a legal liability, and people should know that. LN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.189.211 (talkcontribs) 06:53, 9 December 2006

I believe the "someone" mentioned above refers to me. If so, I have been misqouted. I never said "the truth isn't important." You can find out what I actually said on Sunnytwoyou's talk page. You can find further legal threats on my talk page. Ian Cheese 21:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this page blank? Bscottbrown 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

My concern is when anyone authors any information on an internet site, it is considered 'Intellectual Property' and subject to scrutiny by a court of law. Therefore whenever anyone wishes to edit or add any information on any site about a living person, it is important that they ask themselves if this information is verified or sourced to a reliable source, as we know ignorance isn't a defense in a court of law. If it cannot be verified, it is better to side with caution and not add it and 'CYA' than, write it and it be published and then have to answer for it in a courtroom, if it is ever legally challenged.

Ian, You did say that the truth isn't important and that I needed to source my info but I did not see you, source your Men Against Women (MAW) content that you keep adding. I actually would like to know if you have a source that has actual proof that it existed. That is what bothers me. You demand sources to me yet, your source for MAW just mirrors the article already on the page. If it can't be sourced, then it can't be forced......upon us as a fact or an entity in existance. I just want the information to be truthful and factual. 12/12/06 sunnytwoyou I WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT SUNNYTWOYOU HAS A GRAVE MENTAL HEALTH DISEASE, AND SHE NEEDS HELP. SHE IS BIPOLR AND MANIC AND CAN BE VERY THREATENING TO MOST PEOPLE WHO GET IN HER WAY. SHE IS OBSESSED WITH MARK FUHRMAN AND HAS MULTIPLE PERSONALITIES. SHE IS NOT A FRIEND. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT. OUR FAMILY IS VERY CAUTIOUS OF HER EVERY MOVE. SHE IS IN NO WAY AFFLIATED WITH OUR FAMILY.


  _______________________________________________________________________________________________

If the current is the correct version, then why are citations needed? I sourced and referenced my info and you keep deleting it. It is below for anyone to come to their own conclusions:

During the trial, Fuhrman denied ever using the word "nigger" for the previous ten years, yet the defense offered audiotape contradicting that testimony. Fuhrman gave a taped interview in 1985 to Laura Hart McKinney, an aspiring screenwriter and former girlfriend of Fuhrman's working on a screenplay about male and female police officers. Initially, McKinny would not allow the tape recordings or transcripts to be reviewed by the Department because she feared the information might be leaked to the public thereby reducing their value. In an effort to obtain access, the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office filed a motion requesting access so the Department could investigate Fuhrman’s allegations of police misconduct. An agreement, in the form of a Protective Order, was reached and approved by the court in which McKinny agreed to allow City Attorney James Hahn to obtain one copy of the tapes and one copy of her transcripts from the District Attorney provided that Mr. Hahn maintained those items securely in his office. Further, Mr. Hahn agreed to allow only eight named members of the Police Commission and seven named members of the Department to review the tapes and transcripts under controlled circumstances. No other copies were to be made and, upon completion of any administrative hearings, the City agreed to return the tapes to McKinny. No disclosure of the tapes’ contents is allowed except as necessary for an effective personnel investigation or administrative hearing regarding police misconduct. In accordance with this agreement, no copy of the tapes or McKinny’s transcripts is contained in the supporting documentation for this investigation. In compliance with the letter and spirit of that Protective Order, the taped conversation between McKinny and Fuhrman are summarized in this document.[[1]]REVIEW OF TAPES/TRANSCRIPTS In further interviews, Fuhrman bragged about beating and torturing gang members. See Fuhrman tapes for more details on content of tapes. Only very limited excerpts of the tapes were admitted as evidence in the 1995 murder trial against O.J. Simpson, yet the admitted portions were strong enough to cast doubts on Fuhrman's motives and credibility. The recordings had been made over a period of six months, ten years previously, when McKinney lived and worked in Los Angeles. There, she had done a lot of journalistic work revealing racism and sexism in the LAPD She had met Mark Fuhrman one evening at Alice's Restaurant in Westwood and struck up a friendship with him. She was intending to use the tapes as a basis for a screenplay she was writing called Men Against Women. [[2]] "Men Against Women" was not a secret organization, it was a screenplay written by Laura Hart McKinney and former Fuhrman girlfriend, he and other LAPD officers role played in the play by playacting and talking into microphone and recording the officers whilst acting out their roles. The problems began in 1985, following the investigation of a supposed group of males at the West LA division called "Men Against Women." The group was reportedly sexist and shunned female police officers. Internal Affairs, the Police Commission, and Inspection and Control investigated the allegations, but no discrimination was found, just a few bad jokes. 'Murder in Brentwood',Pg.182 Laura Hart McKinney, Fuhrman's former girlfriend was reportedly paid $255,000.00 dollars for the tapes that she offered up to the defense in the hopes of taking advantage of her 15 minutes of fame and to sell her screenplay 'Men Against Women'

As a result, the prosecution labeled their main police witness as a "bad cop." With the jury absent on September 6, 1995, Fuhrman was asked questions as to whether or not he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case and he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Fuhrman later pled no contest to a perjury charge and was sentenced to one years probation and fined $200. He appealed the case and in October 2, 1996, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ouderkirk cleared Mark Fuhrman of all charges and purged his record, (Case #LACBA109273-01 Filed at Clara Shortbridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center 10/02/1998) LAPD did an official investigation into all of the cases Mark Fuhrman handled in his career as a police officer and Sgt. Detective and no evidence of racial biased was ever found. Officer Robert Riske was the first officer who found the glove (one at the murder scene), and Fuhrman and his boss Ron Phillips were the second. Fuhrman is the one who found the second brown bloody glove behind Kato Kaelin's bungalow and much of the blood drops at Simpson's home and in his White Ford Bronco, and who entered Simpson's estate without a search warrant due to exigent circumstances. Because of the blood found on O.J's Bronco, Senior Det. Phillip Vannatter made the decision to enter the Simpson Estate without a warrant."A Murder in Brentwood", Pg. 29. Fuhrman's credibilty was re-established when O.J. Simpson wrote his book "If I Did It", to be released November 30, 2006 and the American public rejected it. The Fox News interview by Judith Reagan and the publishing of the book by Harper/Collins were canceled. Fuhrman made $105,000.00 dollars for his first book 'A Murder in Brentwood' in royalties and had to sue the publisher to get those. He has not made royalties on any other of his last five books. ==Post-Trial====Wikipedia:PAGE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Murder in Greenwich by Mark Fuhrman

After the trial, Fuhrman retired from the LAPD and moved to Sandpoint, Idaho and wrote a book about the Simpson case, called Murder in Brentwood. For his next book, Murder in Greenwich, he investigated the then-unsolved 1975 murder of Martha Moxley and presented his theory that the murderer was Michael Skakel, a relative of the Kennedy family. Skakel was convicted for the murder in June 2002. The book was made into a TV movie in 2002, starring Christopher Meloni (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Oz) as Fuhrman. In May 1998, Mark Fuhrman was given a polygraph test on the Fox Network show Lie Detector. The test's administrator claimed the results indicated that Fuhrman did not plant the bloody glove and that he was not aware of the bloody glove before entering Simpson's property. More recently, Fuhrman has written books on the controversial subjects of capital punishment and the medical treatment and death of Terri Schiavo. Most recently, he has written a book on the John F. Kennedy assassination. In it he advances a theory debunking the Single Bullet Theory while still maintaining that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. He claims that the Warren Commission was forced to adopt the Single Bullet Theory for political reasons. However, he says that a dent in the presidential limousine used that day in the chrome above the windshield vindicates the story told by John Connally that a first shot hit President John Kennedy without hitting him. Fuhrman is a frequent guest of conservative commentator Sean Hannity and a contributor for FOX News. He is also the host of his own show the popular Spokane, WA radio show "The Mark Fuhrman Show" on AM radio station www.1510kga.com between the hours of 8am-11am Pacific. The show covers local and national policitcs and topics and includes many guest callers and listeners. In response to the proposed book 'If I Did It' written by O.J. Simpson to be published by ReganBooks (an imprint of HarperCollins), Fuhrman stated that he would drop HarperCollins as publisher of his own books in the future. However, Simpson's book has since been cancelled due to public outcry of the book and the interview. Fuhrman did drop Harper/Collins and will not write anymore books with them until his contract expires.

The above is most certainly referenced and sourced and verified, not only by Mark Fuhrman himself but by court records, case numbers and interviews. Sunnytwoyou ________________________________________________________________________________________________ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnytwoyou (talkcontribs) 06:50, 11 December 2006

Edit War/Dispute[edit]

Hi all, after a long, futile argument with Sunntwoyou I went out and found 4 references for the disputed section. Does anyone, besides her, still dispute the factual accuracy of this article?Bscottbrown 03:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have corresponded with Sunnytwoyou and I believe that she is satisfied on the accuracy and NPOV of the article now. If no one else has any objections I will remove the NPOV and Fact Accuracy sometime Wednesday.Bscottbrown 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I do know that MAW was not a secret organization and was investigated by the LAPD and found not to exist. http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/siege_11.html

Fuhrman's case history was also investigated by the Attorney General and LAPD and various other agencies and their findings of fact state that Fuhrman did not use racism or engage in it in any form in any of his case history as a LAPD Police Officer or as a Detective Sergeant. I will put in a reference or link for this as well. Have had a great correspondence with Bscottbrown on all issues regarding Mark's history and we are working together as a team to achieve the best most accurate information about Mark and the history surrounding the Simpson trial. He is teaching me how to use the various tools on Wikipedia to put my info in perspective and in the right places, as I did not know how to before. I desire the facts and the truths, bad or good, to be presented in a non-violent provoking content. Mark is not a murderer and he looks like a racist according to these quotes but listen to the tapes in it's context and judge for yourself the use of the 'N' word as I am not sure that he said them to hurt or degrade anyone, as he spoke them into a microphone for his then girlfriend, Laura Hart McKinney. If he had racism in his heart back in 1985, whilst these tapes were being made, he lives with his lack of judgement every single day and how it has affected his life and the lives of his family. His children are now old enough to look up information on their father and this is what I think about when editing or adding information on Mark Fuhrman. He didn't kill two people, he has never stolen from anyone, he has never been involved in domestic violence, stole anyones identity and he is not a rich man. He is just like the rest of us plodding along in life trying to make ends meet and put food on the table and a roof over his children's head like everyone else in life. He has paid his dues in ways we could never understand and he has learned his lesson. He doesn't make a lot of money as he had to sue for the royalties from his first book, Murder in Brentwood, but he has made no royalties on his last five books. He lives a very simple life, drives an old truck, has a very modest home with a little bit of land in Northern Idaho. I want people to know that he also does a lot of good things too like his involvement and contributions to various charity organizations. He gives a lot of free help and consultation to the families of murdered victims and there isn't a day that goes by that he doesn't offer help to various communities on how to keep your children safe. So, he does a lot of good too. Thank you Bscottbrown for helping me. Sunnytwoyou ________________________________________________________________________________________________


WAFUZ: I don't understand why I can't refer to links in the discussion page, when I put it on the article page, my information keeps getting deleted. I think it is important that another side or other sources of the information on Mark Fuhrman be allowed to be read. I have as much right as anyone else to add information to the article but people keep reverting back and it leads me to believe that my Freedom of Speech is being stepped on and I have a right to argue my side and since it keeps being deleted, I have to put it in the discussion page. So please do not delete this information, so people have another view. It is the discussion page and no one should object to my so called 'popups' and I didn't see where they are illegal. I was told many times to source and verify and I did and now these are getting deleted. Sunnytwoyou 12/12/06 8:19pm ______________________________________________________________________________________________


June 2007 changes[edit]

removed "most of". I'm not aware that nolo contendere exempts the pleader from ANY additional consequences that would apply to a guilty plea.

A nolo plea doesn't require the pleader to allocute the charges, for one thing. Blueboy96 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course, but as the wiki article says, the pleader "is subject to any and all penalties, fines, and forfeitures of a conviction from a guilty plea" 130.156.31.150 22:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

removed "racial bias". Somewhat specious claim in light of recorded statements

suggest removing "technically" as not being needed. He's not "technically" a felon, he IS a felon. 130.156.31.150 22:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Radio Commentary?[edit]

This line seems inappropriate and biased:

"The divorced father of a son, Cole, and a daughter, Hayley, Fuhrman is a frequent guest of conservative commentator Sean Hannity for FOX News."

Why does he need to be described as a divorced father of a son and daughter under the radio commentary section? Also he's a guest on Hannity and Colmes which has a conservative and a liberal on it. I'm waiting for the day when wikipedia describes public figures as "liberal" as often as they liberally apply the "conservative" label. Pardon the pun. --72.211.227.15 04:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The divorced father part is indeed irrelevant and I removed it. However your characterisation of Hannity and Colmes is somewhat inaccurate, check out theH&C article and Alan Colmes for details Nil Einne (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Margaret York[edit]

Ito was married to Margaret York, an LAPD captain who had worked with Fuhrman in the past, and Fuhrman felt that Ito should have been recused by the prosecution or voluntarily removed himself from the case on that basis.

Some more elabaration would be helpful. For example, if Fuhrman said he had conflict with York, that would be more significant then simply having worked with her. (This wouldn't be surprising given his involvement in 'Men again women' and the fact she was a woman) Or alternatively if he had work with her fairly extensively. As an LAPD captain I would presume York would have worked with most LAPD officers in some fashion so it would seem a bit strange to me to suggest he should recurse himself for any officers who had worked with her (which would seemingly mean he would have to recuse himself most of the time in criminal trials). Of course maybe this really was what he was suggesting Nil Einne (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Made up?[edit]

In the state of California, anyone who fabricates evidence in a death penalty case can be sentenced to death themselves.

I really don't think this is accurate, atleast not now. Right now the only thing you can be executed for is murder, rape of a child and maybe treason. (Armed Robbery possibly too)

Can anyone attest to this fact using a better source rather then some old book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.93.68 (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No one's put up anything for some time. I assume this information is made up, as no one can back it up and no one agrees with it. I've removed the line from the article. If you can come up with acceptable evidence that is it true, you can put it back. One line in one old book doesn't make it true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.93.68 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism[edit]

This article not only links to a CBS News reference, it repeats what the linked article says word-for-word without quotation marks. This is called plagiarism. I didn't bother to read the rest since it is at the usual level of Wikipedia swill. Nicmart (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am removing most of the Idaho section, since the first sentence is as noted above, blatant plagarism, and the rest seemed to be some sort of collection of angry additions with no relevance to Furman. If you would like to discuss the views of Idaho as racist by others, put it on the Idaho article. --Wlf211 (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What is going on with this page?[edit]

This material seems to be completely disorganized. The first section is post-trial, and the introduction is a mishmash of pretrial stuff. Somebody needs to show this page some love! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.124.27 (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

I removed the part about his conviction as unsourced but see it cited further into the article. Not sure if that belongs in the lead anyways but maybe readd it? --Tom 16:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I was copy editing the lead and reinserted it. I don't know how detailed the lead should be, but his work in the murder investigation and trial is what he's best known for. 130.156.31.181 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I simplified the lead to avoid undue weight. The details are in the body of the article. Tom (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I inserted a phrase in the lead. I understand what you mean about undue weight, but it's an important detail.
While we're on the subject, this whole article should be reviewed for undue weight. As much space is given to one of Furhman's book as to his involvement in the murder investigation. At least, I think the paragraph which deals with Bugliosi's book should be removed. 130.156.31.148 (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I also agree that the book section is too much. I would trim it about in 1/2. --Tom (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

KFC comment[edit]

FUHRMAN: Sean, I'm going to tell you this right now. I dealt with people like this for 20 years. They will get up every day. They will kill somebody and go have some chicken at KFC. You will catch them eating chicken and drinking a beer after they just murdered three people. Sean, these people are out there. They're all over the place. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfjAWovOXFU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.85.234 (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Is "U.S. Marine Corps" a Country?[edit]

U.S. Marine Corps is listed as his country...

Removal of unsourced, unverified material from lede[edit]

I removed the phrase "and no evidence has been produced to contradict this claim" this phrase seeming to qualify the first part of the sentence "Fuhrman maintains that he did not plant or manufacture evidence in the O.J. Simpson case" The removed phrase has the effect of qualifying Former Detective Fuhrman's statement, particularly be rendering it as more credible. Since there is no source to back up Fuhrman's statement, it is inappropriate to include it in the lede. This is still a quite controversial subject, given that the truth or falsity of the statement would determine whether or not the jury verdict in the alleged "Trial of the (20th) Century" was made in error. It someone can provide a source (or a reason, within WP guidelines) that my change was made in error, please do so. However, in my view, purporting a fact to be true in the lead of an article, without source and based only on either synthesis of other sources in the article or a sheer guess, is not proper with WP guidelines. Furthermore, claimants bear the burden of their claims, and a simple statement of the absence of evidence is insufficient to establish the evidence of absence. I strongly doubt that there is not some source that could justifiably qualify the phrase, but such a source isn't available for this particular assertion, and the burden of proof falls on whoever made the assertion (which is unknown at this time since the entire sentence is unsourced), not on the respondent. In other words, I strongly encourage somebody to prove me wrong, as that is how true statements are separated from false ones.Skberry889 (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty. The preceding paragraph implies that Fuhrman may have planted the glove (because this is what he is known for), and we have a duty to balance this with the actual facts. Even if you assume that he did plant the glove, it is a simple fact that the prosecution presented exactly zero evidence (forensic, eyewitness, etc.) during the trial that Fuhrman planted the glove. They merely implied that he must have because he climbed the wall and used racist terms (and later pleaded the fifth). There is no ~evidence~ to substantiate those claims. The first cop at the murder scene found a single glove there before Fuhrman could even have arrived to have "stolen" the other in order to plant it. So, in summary, your reference for there being no evidence that Fuhrman planted the glove is "The entire O.J. Simpson trial and everything that has happened in the twenty-odd years since then." I have added a reference to a Baltimore Sun article that states "Since the defense has no evidence that Detective Fuhrman moved anything, it is resorting instead to innuendo." Bueller 007 (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, the Baltimore Sun article would have been sufficient. I was looking at it simply as an element of the lede. Also I wasn't suggesting that Fuhrman planted the glove, only that an unsourced statement that he didn't was sufficient for the lede. The lede is much better now. Muchos Gracias.Skberry889 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, not to sound nitpicky, but the prosecution wouldn't have presented evidence of planting even if it had it (although they would have to turn over any evidence to the defense to comply with Brady), and it was the defense that would have had to prove planting (which, of course they didn't). Just to be clear, I'm not an OJ-truther, I just saw a statement beneficial to the subject, in the lede, with the conclusion that no evidence contradicted his story left unsourced. Now it is sourced. Many thanks.Skberry889 (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Racist cop[edit]

A damning video: Who’s More Racist: Mark Fuhrman Or Fox News? Published on Apr 10, 2016

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mark Fuhrman/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This reads more like a diatribe than a bio. The phrase "convicted felon" appears 3 times in the first 280 words. I got the point the first time. There should be more to say in the first 300 words; if not, maybe the article doesn't need to be written.

Last edited at 00:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 23:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Expungement[edit]

California courts say "If you were convicted of an infraction, a misdemeanor, or a felony and were NOT sentenced to state prison or put under the authority of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, you can petition for a dismissal (people often use the term “expungement” when talking about a “dismissal.”)"[3] See also [4][5]. Fuhrman had his conviction dismissed/expunged under 1203.4 P.C.[6] Search case number BA109273 here: [7]. By any fair standard, it's safe to say that Fuhrman's conviction was dismissed or expunged, rather than the awkward and sketchy sounding wording that the anonymous IP user wishes to use. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

While I'm not glad that you violated 3rr, that you thought it was necessary to mention that I am an "anonymous" IP, as if there is any other kind and as if it is relevant, and are characterizing as "awkward and sketchy" words taken directly from a source which uses as it basis Furhman's attorney's own words, I am glad that you heeded my advice and familiarized yourself,however superficially, with California law. Your own source indicates dismissal as the preferred term, and you neglected the obvious step of wiki linking to the the very article on expungement, which explains that California post conviction remedies, which are quite nuanced, are sometimes characterized as expungement, regardless of whether this is consistent with how the term is traditionally understood. Perhaps in in the interest of improving this project you'll consider these changes. 2600:1002:B10D:B2EF:D4EC:1ED9:38FE:DAF5 (talk) 02:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I prefer "dropped" in this version as it reflects what the source states or "dismissed" as it reflects what the Criminal Case Summary states. -Location (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. What do you say, double oh seven? 2600:1001:B02A:5A7B:B896:8F21:3DEF:AF66 (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Bueller? Bueller? 2600:1001:B00C:7531:FD78:EAFC:DF89:67EB (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Conduct Review by LAPD[edit]

Extinct by instinct (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)== LAPD Officials Confirmed the Existence of "Men Against Women." ==

When the LAPD reviewed Fuhrman's workplace conduct, they presented evidence to the civilian commision following the O.J. Simpson trial indicating there was indeed widespread malicious conduct orchestrated in certain precincts at the time and that Mark Fuhrman was involved in those activities.

From L.A. Times, July 30, 1996: Fuhrman Faces Reprimand for Treatment of Female Officers

The results of the LAPD inquiry will be shared with the civilian Police Commission in a closed session after today's meeting, sources said, and will recommend that Fuhrman receive a reprimand for his treatment of women colleagues.

"Fuhrman participated actively in creating a hostile work environment" during his time at the West Los Angeles police station, where he allegedly was a member of an informal group known as MAW, short for Men Against Women, a source familiar with the case said. "There are a litany of things about that time that have come to light."

Specifically, sources said investigators probed comments by the then-detective, who would allegedly deride the abilities of female colleagues and would suggest that they were unfit for police work. A previous investigation of the West L.A. station also confirmed the existence of Men Against Women.

Based on those allegations, LAPD investigators are prepared to recommend that Fuhrman, now retired and living in Idaho, receive a reprimand. If the chief and Police Commissioners agree, Fuhrman would be given a chance to respond. If his response is unconvincing or if he chooses not to fight the action, the blight on his record would be included in his personnel package.


I'm very surprised this article is nowhere on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extinct by instinct (talkcontribs) 00:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mark Fuhrman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)