Talk:Mark Fuhrman

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bugliosi and Outrage 

message: 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, --Frank Quinn (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Martha Moxley book 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Totally dead

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit War/Dispute 

message: removed "most of".  I'm not aware that nolo contendere exempts the pleader from ANY additional consequences that would apply to a guilty plea.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.31.150 (talk • contribs) 
:A nolo plea doesn't require the pleader to allocute the charges, for one thing. Blueboy96 22:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  June 2007 changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Radio Commentary? 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Margaret York 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Made up? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What is going on with this page? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  KFC comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of unsourced, unverified material from lede 

message: Substituted at 23:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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.”)"  See also . Fuhrman had his conviction dismissed/expunged under 1203.4 P.C. Search case number BA109273 here: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Bueller?  Bueller?  2600:1001:B00C:7531:FD78:EAFC:DF89:67EB (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expungement 

message: Extinct by instinct (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Conduct Review by LAPD

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100831092900/http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/65010 to http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/65010
*Added  tag to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=128
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, I have been scrolling through this long talk page and I was wondering what we need to do to remove it.  Please let me know any BLP complaints and whatnot, along with any consensuses that need to be built.  Thank you.  — Tyrone (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV notice removal Discussion. 

message: The page currently states "In an article by Jeffrey Toobin in the July 25 issue of The New Yorker, the defense revealed that they planned to play "the race card". I looked up the article and the phrase "race card" only appears once when Toobin writes "By one reckoning, the new strategy may simply be a sign of desperation; the race card may be the only one in Simpson’s hand." Additionally, earlier in the article he writes "Simpson’s attorneys understand the implications of a racially tinged strategy, and there appear to be subtle but real differences of opinion within the defense camp about how hard to push the race angle", which in my opinion is not what a journalist would write when referring a subject engaged in what as commonly understood as "playing the race card". I don't think it's appropriate to use "race card" in quotes for this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.204.66 (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I follow the point. The quote "race card" appears directly in the citation. The source is on our RS list. And Toobin is a award winning journalist. Furthermore, the term "race card" appears only once in the article (and it should probably appear more since this is something the defense has been accused of in numerous other sources). So in summary: I don't see the issue here. Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The reading I was trying to convey is that to me, the Wikipedia article is explicitly claiming that Toobin is claiming the defense will "playing the race card" and that the text of the New Yorker article doesn't support that assertion, since "race card" appears once, not as quote from anyone on the defense but as an authorial description of a potential trial strategy. 74.193.204.66 (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a quote directly from the article. And Toobin says in the article exactly that (and that is exactly what the defense has been accused of doing in RS). Another quote from the article: "In fact, the defense’s theory is even more monstrous. The defense will assert that Mark Fuhrman’s motivation for framing O. J. Simpson is racism. “This is a bad cop,” one defense lawyer told me. “This is a racist cop.”" So again: I don't see the issue here. Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Play the race card"