Mark Fuhrman Dies: LAPD Detective at Center Of O.J. Simpson Murder Trial was 74
by Greg Evans
May 18, 2026


Mark Fuhrman, the former LAPD detective who discovered the bloody glove that became as pivotal to the O.J. Simpson murder trial as the epithet-spewing cop himself would be, died Tuesday, May 12, in Idaho, where he resided. He was 74.

The Kootenai County Coroner Office confirmed to Deadline that Furman died on May 12. The infamous LAPD detective had been suffering from cancer for “a while,” a well place source tells us.

Fuhrman, whose post-LAPD career included writing true crime books, as well as broadcasting stints on radio and television, including for Fox News, retired from the LAPD in August 1995.



His role in the Simpson trial, in which the accused murderer’s defense team portrayed Fuhrman as an avowed racist who frequently used the n-word, was pivotal in the jury’s decision to acquit the former football player. Fuhrman repeatedly denied the accusations.

Fuhrman’s discovery of a bloody glove on the property of the slaughtered Nicole Brown Simpson – and the claim that the glove belonged to O.J. Simpson – was meant to be a key piece of evidence in trial, but the defense suggestion that Fuhrman planted the evidence out of racism backfired for the prosecution.



The glove became the focus of the trial in one of the most notorious televised moments from the entire proceeding when Simpson, already wearing rubber evidence gloves, struggled to put on the bloody glove.

“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” said defense attorney Johnnie Cochran in his closing statements.

https://deadline.com/2026/05/mark-fuhrman-dead-1236915078/

Moments like this make me miss Norm MacDonald even more.

Moments like this make me miss Norm MacDonald even more.

Agree! On a more serious note I remember he was also allegedly involved in a bloody sock incident same case.

Mark Fuhrman Dies: LAPD Detective at Center Of O.J. Simpson Murder Trial was 74
by Greg Evans
May 18, 2026


Mark Fuhrman, the former LAPD detective who discovered the bloody glove that became as pivotal to the O.J. Simpson murder trial as the epithet-spewing cop himself would be, died Tuesday, May 12, in Idaho, where he resided. He was 74.

The Kootenai County Coroner Office confirmed to Deadline that Furman died on May 12. The infamous LAPD detective had been suffering from cancer for “a while,” a well place source tells us.

Fuhrman, whose post-LAPD career included writing true crime books, as well as broadcasting stints on radio and television, including for Fox News, retired from the LAPD in August 1995.



His role in the Simpson trial, in which the accused murderer’s defense team portrayed Fuhrman as an avowed racist who frequently used the n-word, was pivotal in the jury’s decision to acquit the former football player. Fuhrman repeatedly denied the accusations.

Fuhrman’s discovery of a bloody glove on the property of the slaughtered Nicole Brown Simpson – and the claim that the glove belonged to O.J. Simpson – was meant to be a key piece of evidence in trial, but the defense suggestion that Fuhrman planted the evidence out of racism backfired for the prosecution.



The glove became the focus of the trial in one of the most notorious televised moments from the entire proceeding when Simpson, already wearing rubber evidence gloves, struggled to put on the bloody glove.

“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit,” said defense attorney Johnnie Cochran in his closing statements.

https://deadline.com/2026/05/mark-fuhrman-dead-1236915078/



The defense was a little ahead of it's time, trying to claim that the glove found was planted because of "racism" and the whole thing was "racist" yet it worked!

This isn't a new, it shows how easy it is to take the attention away from the facts of the case and make it a totally different issue., i mean i remember watching "making a murder" i mean obviously the first time around this guy was innocent, but the second time? yet they've not made this case about if stephen avery is guilty, but about the justice system.

it's like sacco and vanzetti, they were clearly guilty, but the case stopped being about the murder of a clerk, and became a whole conversation about workers and immigration rights..

The defense was a little ahead of it's time, trying to claim that the glove found was planted because of "racism" and the whole thing was "racist" yet it worked!

This isn't a new, it shows how easy it is to take the attention away from the facts of the case and make it a totally different issue., i mean i remember watching "making a murder" i mean obviously the first time around this guy was innocent, but the second time? yet they've not made this case about if stephen avery is guilty, but about the justice system.

it's like sacco and vanzetti, they were clearly guilty, but the case stopped being about the murder of a clerk, and became a whole conversation about workers and immigration rights..

I'm still convinced the decision to acquit OJ Simpson was political in nature. LA was too afraid of finding a black celebrity that was still beloved in the Black community guilty so soon after the LA riots 3 years earlier. They were too afraid of sparking another riot.

As for Mark Fuhrman, I've read some of his work. I always thought he got treated unfair. He was caught going off on a tirade, in regards to Black people, but there is no indication that he was a racist, to the point that it would prejudice a case against Simpson. I never believed any LAPD officer planted evidence.

Furhman is blamed for the acquittal of OJ, but members of the jury have openly admitted that they were going to acquit him no matter what. People were openly celebrating a man getting acquitted for obviously murdering his wife and an innocent bystander.

Furhman is blamed for the acquittal of OJ, but members of the jury have openly admitted that they were going to acquit him no matter what. People were openly celebrating a man getting acquitted for obviously murdering his wife and an innocent bystander.

Yes that was pretty disgraceful. Made me wonder about some people's priority from then on.

Prosecuter Marcia Clark got the jury she wanted. They did not react as she expected. Mark Furhman was only one of many mistakes. LA refused to thoroughly investigate Furhman or prosecute him. Investigative journalists and PIs dug a lot up on him and he left while he could before a new local administration could possibly take action on perjury and evidence tampering on other cases as well.
The Defense simply did a better job. Racism is only one of the cards they played.
O.J. Simpson was an American Icon liked or loved by just about everyone.
Personally I think O.J. was probably guilty.

Prosecuter Marcia Clark got the jury she wanted. They did not react as she expected. Mark Furhman was only one of many mistakes. LA refused to thoroughly investigate Furhman or prosecute him. Investigative journalists and PIs dug a lot up on him and he left while he could before a new local administration could possibly take action on perjury and evidence tampering on other cases as well.
The Defense simply did a better job. Racism is only one of the cards they played.
O.J. Simpson was an American Icon liked or loved by just about everyone.
Personally I think O.J. was probably guilty.

OJ was acquitted.. with MOUNTAINS of evidence showing he was guilty..

The defense didn't do a better job. They performed a miracle.

And.. Don't get me wrong here... Even though.. I normally hedge my bets.. This is one i'll say.. He was guilty. No question.

But.. Even with that.. I will agree that the right verdict was reached. He was guilty. But.. There's a HUGE difference between what we know and what the jury was allowed to know during the trial. And based on what they were allowed to know.. They reached the proper verdict.

I always thought he got treated unfair. He was caught going off on a tirade, in regards to Black people, but there is no indication that he was a racist, to the point that it would prejudice a case against Simpson. I never believed any LAPD officer planted evidence.

If you had heard the horrific stuff he was saying; unprompted mind you; on that tape you would think otherwise. That man was a disgusting human being, and a prime example of the types of detectives that were (and some might argue still exist) in the LAPD at the time. And you have to be really naive to think the LAPD would never plant evidence. They have a well known history of having done so in previous cases.

OJ was acquitted.. with MOUNTAINS of evidence showing he was guilty..

The defense didn't do a better job. They performed a miracle.

And.. Don't get me wrong here... Even though.. I normally hedge my bets.. This is one i'll say.. He was guilty. No question.

But.. Even with that.. I will agree that the right verdict was reached. He was guilty. But.. There's a HUGE difference between what we know and what the jury was allowed to know during the trial. And based on what they were allowed to know.. They reached the proper verdict.

Honestly I wouldn't have a single doubt about OJ's guilt if Mark Furhman hadn't been involved. The alleged evidence tampering and perjury did it for me. I say alleged because he was never convicted. Not his racist remarks.
A coworker asked my opinion early in the trial. I was so sure of the outcome that I quoted the line about a fair trial from "Support Your Local Sheriff".

The only other person who provoked the same reaction as Mark Furhman in me was Judge Dupree. After an experience in his court, I thought Jeffrey McDonald who had been convicted in a different trial should get a retrial.

Pretty sure this law has been changed since then, but at the time of Simpson's trial, the planting of evidence in a death penalty case could result in the death penalty. No "racist" cop is going to risk his life to set up OJ Simpson.

Yes many laws were changed after the OJ trial, I guess they saw a black man get away using the same laws they created to get away with their crimes, and decided to do something about it so it wouldn't happen again.
And I was mainly referring to how in other cases police had planted evidence, not necessarily in this case, but I could see how some people would've been skeptical given their history.
The use of quotation marks around the word racist is a nice touch from your part, but the tape is out there, the man was a hateful bigot.

Yes many laws were changed after the OJ trial, I guess they saw a black man get away using the same laws they created to get away with their crimes, and decided to do something about it so it wouldn't happen again.
And I was mainly referring to how in other cases police had planted evidence, not necessarily in this case, but I could see how some people would've been skeptical given their history.
The use of quotation marks around the word racist is a nice touch from your part, but the tape is out there, the man was a hateful bigot.



Theres a worrying thing and it's not new... where we don't judge a case on the facts and evidence, but what our political ideology is. i mean of course OJ was guilty! it became almost comical how he got off. the norm mcdonald jokes...people just knew it was silly.

The defense knew that OJ using the facts and evidence was going to prison! so what did they do? they took the case and made it about "racism" at a time after the LA riots and whatever else, had created a society that had become more sensitive to these issues. and it was a very clever ploy, it worked!

the defensive did an amazing job.

but this isn't knew, i mean theres enough to tell us that george floyd overdosed... but at a time that america was going hardcore with all these movements, black lives matter, me too... if "overdose" was the official cause, then this country would have burned a 1000 times worse than it did...

you had sacco and vanzetti, who were accused of killing a wages clerk, we know their gun was used, we have witness statements, their aiibies didn't add up, someone sharing a cell with one of them said that he admitted it... but for political purposes the whole murder case got ignored and it become about workers rights, immigrants...

about 10 years ago in spain, a country obssessed with feminism, a girl went missing, the media ran with "it's another case of men killing women" yet all this stuff came out about the mother lying, being jealous of her relationship with her new stepmom, even the sister accused the mother of it! yet the media and many politicians lied, hid things.. because it went against a political and social narrative...

it's really dangerous what people are doing, when they insert their ideology on to a case and ignore the reality.

Yes many laws were changed after the OJ trial, I guess they saw a black man get away using the same laws they created to get away with their crimes, and decided to do something about it so it wouldn't happen again.

So they passed laws that softened the sentences because OJ got away with a double homicide?

And I was mainly referring to how in other cases police had planted evidence, not necessarily in this case, but I could see how some people would've been skeptical given their history.

I love this line of reasoning: "It's happened before so it's possible that it happened here!"

The jury said they were going to acquit him no matter what.

The use of quotation marks around the word racist is a nice touch from your part, but the tape is out there, the man was a hateful bigot.

The "tape" in question was a mock improvisation done with the hopes of eventually selling a TV show about how tough female officers had it back then (and in some ways still do to this day). Several of Furhman's former coworkers (https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-11-08-mn-771-story.html) backed him after the trial. I don't know the man. I think he was an idiot, who also in a small way helped pave the way for an acquittal when he plead the fifth when asked if he had ever planted evidence, but to believe he showed up to a crime scene with evidence ready to be planted without even knowing who was responsible for the crime and luckily frames the soon to be ex-husband of the victim without an alibi is just bonkers.

Pretty sure this law has been changed since then, but at the time of Simpson's trial, the planting of evidence in a death penalty case could result in the death penalty. No "racist" cop is going to risk his life to set up OJ Simpson.

I can't think of anyone who would risk their life to set up OJ with the possible exception of Nicole's greiving parents. So you are right from that perspective.
However I don't think Mark Furhman looked at it that way. I think he didn't feel at risk. Some people think they are in the right and the end justifies the means. Others don't think they can or will get caught. Negative possibilities don't even enter some peoples minds.
Personally based on the trial and aftermath in real time I think Furhman was a dirty cop. I also think if he had followed protocol OJ may have been convicted of something. Instead he provided the defense with reasonable doubt. Even if the prosecution had done everything else perfectly Furhmans actions and image would still have tanked the case.

I honestly don't remember any jurors saying they were never going to convict. That maybe misinterpretation or misinformation. There was always the high risk that a jury wouldn't convict. Most people didn't want to believe he was capable of murder. I do believe there was a general pro OJ bias before the trial nationwide. He was extremely popular, considered a good example for everyone, polite, modest, smart & hardworking. It was almost like putting Mr. Rogers on trial.

Iron sharpens Iron. You had deep corruption within LAPD and OJ who both sort of used the other for a means to an end. There was a lot of pressure on the jury to listen to a lot of noise that was given by both the defense and the prosecution, but especially the defense. In a case that should have been easy, the prosecution had to climb a mountain because of the deep corruption or brutality that existed in those days. LAPD also enabled OJ to a large degree. a lot was made about them framing OJ, but they didn't really do a whole lot to punish him either, in spite of knowing that he was brutally beating Nicole.

As for Furhman, good riddance. I don't believe that he was merely quoting a movie. He made those remarks and then pled the 5th to protect himself because he knew that he had a dark side. He also made other remarks away from the OJ case that were basically defending police brutality when it wasn't warranted. Police in those days always backed one another even when they knew they were wrong. or better yet, especially when they knew they were in the wrong. If they beat the hell out of a guy and got caught red handed, but yet let off the hook....imagine what they were able to get away with when there were no cameras and it was just the word of the police?

OJ and Mark together equal complete POS'

What's sad for me is there was a lot of racism and politics in this case and that seemed to be the story. But the story should have been protecting women from predators. and I don't know that to this day that is talked about enough. it's a terrible shame.