I am a huge fan of Mark Furhman. He is both intelligent and articulate. Most of all I believe he obtains keen common sense and insight of other individuals.
I read his book "Murder in Greenwich". I was immediately convinced that Michael Skakel is the brutal murderer of Martha.
I believe his sentence is appropriate (20 years to life) but do not believe he should be eligible for parole UNTIL is his minimum sentence of 20 years is complete. Do you think Martha's widowed mother and only sibling, John, were served justice?

By Ginnyk on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 10:22 am:

Annie, do you mean Mark Fuhrman, the cop who perjured himself on the stand in the Simpson case and was probably the major cause of the not guilty verdict? I see he is writing pop books about murders - since he is no longer able to be a reliable witness in any trial. My reaction to people who write such books is the old vaudeville line my father used to quote sometimes, "Was you there, Charlie?"

By Annie2 on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 03:04 pm:

Yes, Ginny, that is the same Mark Furhman I was refering to. Not to get off of the subject of poor Martha Moxley and her family....I do not want to discuss the OJ circus in which Judge Ito was the ring master. If you would rather side will murders and criminals, go ahead. I prefer to side with law and order; which police officers such as Mark Furhman call their life's work. back to my question:
I was curious if anyone disagreed with the Skakel verdict. And if so how and why.

By Colette on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 04:50 pm:

I am in Ma and heard some interesting talk radio about the verdict. One argument is that the law on the books when the murder was committed was that if you were 15 in 1975 and killed someone the most they could give you was 4 years in a juv. detention place, so if you side with that arguement then it looks like Skakel was unfairly sentenced. Another was the fact that Skakel's lawyer was an idiot and had his client show up for the pretrial hearing looking like he just stepped off a yacht on his way to court (he was wearing an ascot) and would be getting back on it as soon as this inconvienence was over.

I really stopped following this case awhile ago. I hope the Moxley's find some peace in this being over.

By Annie2 on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 06:21 pm:

I believe the law states that if one was convicted at the tender age of 15 in 1975 of murder (in Conn plus many other states) you were considered a juvenile and would be put into a youth program until you were 18 or 21 years of age. As we all know, there is no statute of limitations on a murder charge, because of this reason of time and changing laws being a given.
I believe Skakel would have been out in 4 years as a troubled youth if he hadn't lied for the past 25 years. Shame on him.

By Ginnyk on Friday, August 30, 2002 - 10:14 pm:

Annie - what in my post causes you to accuse me of siding with murderers and criminals?

By Claire on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 12:52 pm:

Annie, you brought up Mark Furhman and it seems to me that you are forming your opinions in part because you think that Mark Furhman is an expert and a stand up guy. That may have been true once upon a time but the truth is he was fired or at the very least asked to resign due to the issues with his truthfulness and his credibility was put through the wringer. I see no post where Ginny sides with criminals or murders and if you did not want to discuss Mark Furhman at all why bring him up?

Now on to Martha Moxley – I think it is a shame that it took this long and I feel like the right person was convicted of this crime and I feel horribly for her family.

By Claire on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 01:00 pm:

sorry for the typo that should read murderers

By Annie2 on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 04:42 pm:

My question wasn't about MF. I guess I was trying to instill my curiousity in the Moxley case generated by MF's book. Sorry if I offended you Ginny.
Claire, I think MF retired after 20 years of service to his community.

By Claire on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 07:21 pm:

"Fuhrman pleaded no contest to a charge of perjury and was placed on probation for two years. His career in law enforcement ended abruptly."

taken from the article which can be found here

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/3962546.htm

By Claire on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 07:27 pm:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/15/48hours/murder/main329518.shtml

Here is a better known news source.

I have no problem with the man making a living - I guess I have a problem with MF trying to portray himself as a victim & imho having career tabloid journalism does not make him credible.

By Ginnyk on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 07:48 pm:

Annie, it is not a matter of "if" you offended me. You accused me of siding with murderers and criminals. Again I ask, what in my post caused you to make such an accusation? Would you expect someone who is accused of siding with murderers and criminals to not be offended?

As an apology, saying sorry "if" you offended me is a bit lame.

By Annie2 on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 09:22 pm:

Ginny, I apologize for stating you sided with murderers and criminals. No "ifs, buts or ands". I am sorry I offended you and your moral character. That was never my intent.
Claire, thank you for the interesting articles about MF. I only had a chance to read the first one...so far. I wanted to post my apology to Ginny this evening.
I found it interesting. In the whole, it sounded sympathtic to MF's side, except for the one blurb you quoted. Any statement or comment can be taken out of context to help prove a point. MF knows that tactic. Hahaha
I found the sentence in the article
"the verdict was later dropped" against MF interesting. Did you?

By Claire on Saturday, August 31, 2002 - 11:22 pm:

He pled no contest Annie - he committed perjury. He admits it, and was sentenced two years probation. He got the verdict dropped for good behavior. As an example of one of the “good guys” imho he falls short and again imho not someone to look up to. Any way you look at it he committed perjury.

I am sorry if my opinion bothers you, I just don’t understand why you hold him in such regard.

By Ginnyk on Sunday, September 1, 2002 - 02:17 am:

Apology accepted.

By Annie2 on Sunday, September 1, 2002 - 10:17 pm:

Thank you, Ginny. Again, I'm sorry for insulting you.
Claire, your opinion does not bother me...on the contrary, I love listening and debating issues, etc. but I am eating crow on this one.
Okay...next topic!