Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fuhrman: Grand Jury should probe Terri Schiavo case (if Fla. won't, then US DOJ should, he says)
Newsmax ^ | July 1 05 | Mark Fuhrman

Posted on 07/03/2005 3:58:50 PM PDT by churchillbuff

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-84 last
To: mware

Sorry, Florida Governor George W. Greer says "no".


51 posted on 07/03/2005 9:03:53 PM PDT by Mad Mammoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Fuhrman is a good detective. Had the prosecutors been more competent, they would have called his partner who would verify what Fuhrman said about OJ.

I never did figure out why they didn't call Fuhrman's partner, who BTW is black. (Another goof by Marcia Clark.) Nobody mentioned that on Fuhrman's own time, he found proof that a black who was charged with a crime was in fact not guilty. Doesn't sound racist to me.

52 posted on 07/04/2005 12:32:56 AM PDT by Grani (Washington State--rotten to the core)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

Of course you are right and I am wrong, police officers would never lie to get a conviction. They are as innocent as babes. Furman is a saint and a legal genious he quit the LAPD because he was just too smart to work there any longer and wanted a career writing books. Yeah and dont forget the moon is made of green cheese.


53 posted on 07/04/2005 5:04:42 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
"We have to have Michael Schiavo sit in front of a grand jury.."

This is true.

I find it strange that anyone would not want the truth to be known.

54 posted on 07/04/2005 5:06:36 AM PDT by Earthdweller (US descendant of French Protestants_"Where there is life, there is hope"..Terri Schindler)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware

I would let it rest.

This will come up again and maybe this time someone will get it right. To rehash it is not going to be productive for anyone except the MSM and some Liberal politicians.


55 posted on 07/04/2005 6:04:55 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
Yeah and dont forget the moon is made of green cheese.

You said that many times police commit perjury to obtain convictions. Keep on the subject bud. That's what I'm talking about and in that regard I am right and you are wrong. Now you sarcastically say police officers would never lie to get a conviction which is turning around your original words. You go on to make other "points" I never made. Which is a typical tactic when you have no arguments or facts to back up the original things you said which you just pulled out of thin air. I invite you to submit proof that "many times" police commit purjury to get convictions.

Like I said, for your statements to be true you would have to have DA investigators and prosecutors involved in helping the police convict innocent people. And even judges. So? Are all these people involved?

As far as Fuhrman? Like I said he was and is a good detective. He made a mistake and paid for it. I never said he was a saint or "a legal genius (sic)".

Did you pay for something too? Is that what this is all about? Have a little problem with the law yourself in the past? And that's what is really your problem here?

56 posted on 07/04/2005 6:11:07 AM PDT by isthisnickcool (Get all the incumbents out of politics!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

Obviously you do not understand sarcasm ,too bad. I wont try to explain it to you I doubt you would understand. as for me , your brilliant assumption that perhaps I have had problems with the law is laughable. As for police perjury just use google if you can handle that. It does exist and Mark Fuhrman copped a plea to it. Most GOOD detectives dont need it.


57 posted on 07/04/2005 6:42:52 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Nightshift

ping...


58 posted on 07/04/2005 7:00:02 AM PDT by tutstar ( <{{--->< OurFlorida.true.ws Impeach Judge Greer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
So? When you said that many (a large indefinite number) police lie in court to obtain convictions you were being sarcastic?

OK.

59 posted on 07/04/2005 7:00:38 AM PDT by isthisnickcool (Get all the incumbents out of politics!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

Whatever sails your boat.


60 posted on 07/04/2005 7:29:44 AM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: marajade

You might try reading up on the case, and reading Mark Fuhrman's book.Mark said there is even now more evidence in this case than in the Martha Moxley case, think about that.


61 posted on 07/04/2005 7:46:23 AM PDT by True Republican Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
You said "You see many times in court that perjured testimony leads to convictions, Police officers who will perjure themselves to get a guilty verdict are a danger to the Justice system."

You threw this BS out as if police do this a lot. They don't. And you cannot offer any statistical proof that proves that they do if you look at the number of cases that pass through the court system.

You posted garbage and the best you can do when challenged is "whatever floats your boat".

Please prove that in many cases police do what you said they do. That they lie in court to obtain convictions.

If you are going to make such an assertion here back it up or at least agree that you meant "in a few cases". It is simply not a common practice that police lie in court.

62 posted on 07/04/2005 9:56:20 AM PDT by isthisnickcool (Get all the incumbents out of politics!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

You took the words right out of my mouth.


63 posted on 07/04/2005 10:08:16 AM PDT by dbluvsdjarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

You think Mark Fuhrman was the perjurer at the OJ trial?

Come on, you don't really think that there was no evidence against OJ.

You don't really think Michael Schaivo cared about his 'wife's' wishes.

LOL


64 posted on 07/04/2005 10:16:27 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Always A Marine

OH MY GOD!! Are you really THAT stupid.


65 posted on 07/04/2005 10:22:07 AM PDT by dbluvsdjarrett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dbluvsdjarrett; Always A Marine
They had a blood trail from the place the homicides happened to Simpson's bathroom. From the scene, to his vehicle, from the vehicle, into the house and all the way to his bathroom.

The Simpson case was nothing more than jury nullification. Which does not happen too often but it happens. The only people that were "THAT stupid" were on the jury.

66 posted on 07/04/2005 11:02:39 AM PDT by isthisnickcool (Get all the incumbents out of politics!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: dbluvsdjarrett
Welcome to Free Republic. Good etiquette is always appreciated. That means name calling on your second post on this forum.
67 posted on 07/04/2005 11:17:22 AM PDT by tertiary01 (It took 21 years but 1984 finally got here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: jess35
I would not have voted to convict OJ because the case against him -- Fuhrman or not -- was not beyond a reasonable doubt.

But I would convict Micheal for his act of murder, and Greer's too, was completely done in the public view, they were told it was murder while they were doing it, but they did it anyway.

Micheal Schiavo is a murderer.

68 posted on 07/04/2005 11:22:25 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

Yet on the civil jury -- given that is the system here -- I would have found against OJ, that he was liable for the murder as to civil damages. The standard of proff is lower, and the proof against him easily met that standard.


69 posted on 07/04/2005 11:25:23 AM PDT by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: dbluvsdjarrett
OH MY GOD!! Are you really THAT stupid.[?]

Not at all. If you listened to the post-trial comments of a few black female jurors, you might believe that yourself. It wouldn't have made any difference if the prosecution had shown that jury a videotape of OJ slitting his wife's throat; they still would not have convicted him.

Open discussion often challenges politically-correct orthodoxy. Welcome to Free Republic...

70 posted on 07/04/2005 11:40:26 AM PDT by Always A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

Couldn.t find evidence on OJ? Remind us who found the bloody glove at Simpson's home? Who noticed the blood on the door handle of the Bronco? He was hated because he found too much evidence.


71 posted on 07/04/2005 11:44:07 AM PDT by Honestfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sabatier

I am most of the way through the books and I can't help but think the cats have some unusual role in this. They seemed to keep coming up. First Schiavo claims that Terri was up and 5 AM wiping the cats' butts. Quite bizarre to say the least. Why would anyone wipe the butt of a pet, let alone at 5 AM. Then what they thought was Terri's vomit was cat's puke. Then Michael has the cats euthanized (weird not even asking the parents or brother and sister if they want them or trying to find them a home). Suppose Terri got up because she heard the cat throw up. She gets up to clean it up and wakes Michael up in the process. He gets pissed off (I know I don't like getting woken up at 5 AM if I go to sleep late) and it leads to an argument during which Michael does something that causes Terri's injuries. He spend one hour hoping she will revive but sees it is not happening and then calls the Schindlers who tell him to call 911. He talks about her wiping the cats butt because the cats are in his mind but he does not want to say she got up to clean up their puke because that is too close to the truth. Then in anger against the cats, Terri and the Schindlers has them put down.


72 posted on 07/04/2005 11:52:30 AM PDT by Honestfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Honestfreedom

Yes I do remember he found the bloody glove and the blood on the Bronco door, then when he went to court and lied all that evidence was compromised, but lets not mention that. The defense attorneys tore him a new ass but its not worth mentioning ater all he is a hero now.


73 posted on 07/04/2005 12:32:44 PM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

http://citizensforjustice.org/system.html
http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/19874/
http://www.discourse.net/archives/2004/01/a_heartwarming_story_of_crooked_violent_cops_and_the_strangely_unnecessary_perjury_that_got_them_off_charges_for_burning_and_beating_a_frequent_felon.html
http://www.easyrider.com/police_thugs.htm

This is just a few I got off Google of course you wont look them up or believe them , but give google a try there are a lot of them. By the way I never said it happens a lot, I simply stated that it happens and that Fuhrman had to leave a police career because he was caught at it. A fact that cannot be denied. I posted the message" Whatever floats you boat message" because I was trying to cut off debate. I see that didnt work .


74 posted on 07/04/2005 1:05:11 PM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002
You said "many times in court"......

I took the term "many" as a large number. The word "many" used in the context you used it is usually a large number. The word "some" is what you meant. Thanks for finally pointing that out.

I guess my boat is floating now and we are through.

75 posted on 07/04/2005 1:21:45 PM PDT by isthisnickcool (Get all the incumbents out of politics!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
Exactly. And just wondering if OJ is lurking on this thread. The issue with Fuhrman in the OJ case had nothing to do with the evidence against OJ or his investigation of the case.

Anyway, Fuhrman ended up a winner as a result of the OJ trial, with lucrative book contracts. It was mentioned on radio that he has a contract for another book, seemed it was a murder in the 1960s that remained unsolved until now. (I only caught the tail end and am not sure of the details.)

76 posted on 07/04/2005 1:40:32 PM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: sgtbono2002

Yes, he was a jerk for lying about using the N word. However, that does not mean he is not a good detective.


77 posted on 07/04/2005 2:13:49 PM PDT by Honestfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

I sure hope so.


78 posted on 07/04/2005 2:17:23 PM PDT by sgtbono2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: k2blader

Well. It was the law. If Florida has an issue with it, they need to change the laws.


79 posted on 07/04/2005 2:58:37 PM PDT by sabe@q.com (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: True Republican Patriot

"You might try reading up on the case, and reading Mark Fuhrman's book.Mark said there is even now more evidence in this case than in the Martha Moxley case, think about that."

I've read up on the case. What evidence? I read his book about Martha Moxley. Freep mail me, if you are willing to let me borrow the book. I'll return it when I'm done. I'm not going to buy it.


80 posted on 07/04/2005 3:03:55 PM PDT by sabe@q.com (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: dbluvsdjarrett; Admin Moderator
Welcome. But FR insists on manners. If you look at the "posting page" it says this: "Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.".
81 posted on 07/04/2005 3:38:36 PM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Honestfreedom

Interesting theory. We have cats and do get up in the night to deal with hairball issues. And Michael's impulse control was nonexistent.

He had the cats killed. He decreed that only blonde nurses could care for Terri. Shortly after her collapse he took the diamonds out of her rings and made a ring for himself. What a disgusting person.


82 posted on 07/20/2005 7:31:12 AM PDT by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Honestfreedom

I am most of the way through the books and I can't help but think the cats have some unusual role in this. They seemed to keep coming up. First Schiavo claims that Terri was up and 5 AM wiping the cats' butts. Quite bizarre to say the least. Why would anyone wipe the butt of a pet, let alone at 5 AM. Then what they thought was Terri's vomit was cat's puke. Then Michael has the cats euthanized (weird not even asking the parents or brother and sister if they want them or trying to find them a home). Suppose Terri got up because she heard the cat throw up. She gets up to clean it up and wakes Michael up in the process. He gets pissed off (I know I don't like getting woken up at 5 AM if I go to sleep late) and it leads to an argument during which Michael does something that causes Terri's injuries. He spend one hour hoping she will revive but sees it is not happening and then calls the Schindlers who tell him to call 911. He talks about her wiping the cats butt because the cats are in his mind but he does not want to say she got up to clean up their puke because that is too close to the truth. Then in anger against the cats, Terri and the Schindlers has them put down.




There was nothing in the police report about any vomit near or in the bathroom. I cannot imagine that Terri would have wiped the bottoms of her cats. I have a cat and quite frankly she looks after her own needs very well. Also, Michael had the cats euthanaised because he intended to move in with Cindy Brasher. He also tried to claim that Mary Schindler had the cats put down but that is plain false.


83 posted on 07/25/2005 1:07:16 AM PDT by Maggie4life
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Maggie4life

I don't remember the details but there was vomit found and thought to be from Terri but later shown to be from the cats. I can understand Michael not wanting to keep the cats but why have them euthanized. At least ask the Schindlers if they want them or try to find them a home.


84 posted on 07/25/2005 9:18:43 PM PDT by Honestfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-84 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson