[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: charlene
T1: [email protected]
Category 3: Category 1
Date: 12 Aug 1999
Time: 05:19:42
Remote Name: proxy-447.public.paix.webtv.net
ALL:
Notice the timing here. April 6, 1994--just prior to the Simpson Murders? The case dismissed in Jan. of 1995 probably making it one of the 5 (perhaps) dismissed due to tampered with evidence.
Why not a press story that Fuhrman's inappropriate handling of evidence had already had one case dismissed during the OJ trial? Instead --even us--who pay close attention are 1999 hearing about this one in detail.
And if it is Not one of the other 5 mentioned, that means that over 5 cases were dismissed in LA (murder charges) due to mishandling, tampering with (I think MF's actions are the same as tampering with evidence).
Also D. Mounger--the lawyer. I know that name. He is the accused lawyer but I know his name elsewhere in the OJ case. Perhaps in connection with Shipp or some other cops.
Also the Clayton woman in the other story filed charges/complaint in 1994. WHEN in 94. Fuhrman was basically DONE with other cases--forever---after the Simpson case in June. That leaves only Jan to June for him to have other cases and receive complaints.
Does this show something is "building up" within Furhman? An escalation of activity.
Those who defended him tried to say that his "past" was WAY in the past. Years and Years before and that he was a changed man. These two things show--again--that this is not true.
JUst as he always lies and says the audio tapes were 10 years before when in fact they continued until a month After the Simpson murders, this shows his "misconduct" (and severe it seems) was ongoing up to the time of the Bundy murders.
Here is this Mounger guy (I still say he was some other person's lawyer in the case) saying at the height of the OJ case that Fuhrman is capable of finding exculpatory evidence against someone he has arrested and destroying it and it never even makes a ripple in the TRIAL OF THE CENTURY?
I maintain that under "ordinary" circumstances in a high profile case, if the detective accused is found to have done wrongdoing in another current case it would have made a splash in the news.
Here, the media ignored it. And the other case that was settled out of court about "planting the knife" on the guy he had just shot. (which also happened DURING the OJ case)
Something isn't right here. The news was controlled. Can you even imagine this happening in say the Ramsey case or other high profile cases. I can't. charlie