The first distinct impression you get of former LAPD Homicide Detective Brad Roberts is what you would expect if you were trying to track a government intelligence agent – a spook. Why does so much mystery and misdirection surround him? When and where was he born, raised and educated? When did he join the LAPD? What did he do before then? If he served in the Armed Forces, when, where, in what branch, for how long and in what capacity? Why didn’t O.J.’s attorneys know that he was Mark Fuhrman’s partner until the murder trial was in progress? Where did he live? What LAPD jobs did he hold before he became Fuhrman’s junior partner at West L.A.? When, where and how did Roberts, Phillips and Fuhrman become acquainted? What common interests and experiences did Fuhrman and Roberts have that bonded them as friends?
The answers to these questions matter because there are so many of them, so many derivations of them and all of them have to fit one of three theoretical men who had to exist if O.J. was framed in a way that matched the evidence against him on Rockingham.
Such a conspiracy appears on its face to be impossible in some respects and too complex in other respects for a small group of people to carry out successfully for their own ends. The up side of such an improbable, bottom-up conspiracy is that it reduces to practically zero the number of relevant people who will investigate the large number of improbable qualifications for each conspirator. The down side is that if they are investigated, the very nature, number and complexity of them will identify the people who match them as surely as the nature and number of complex characteristics in a clear set of fingerprints.
This is the essence of the Iago hypothesis. For this highly improbable explanation for the “mountain of evidence” against O.J. to be true, all of the logical and physical particulars have to fit within this theoretical structure. Iago should therefore be easy to disprove if it is not true because any discovery that fails to line up with it in time, space or defining characteristics of the participants in keeping with the laws of physics will invalidate it. The objective, therefore, is not to prove anything, but to disprove everything essential for a small, low level group of conspirators to get the legal establishment on all levels, the key prosecution witnesses and the news media to do exactly what they did. The evidence left standing either fits the mold or it doesn’t.
According to Iago, all of the evidence against O.J. could be accounted for if he did not commit the murders only if a minimum of five people with unique qualifications coordinated their efforts to create it or present it in an incriminating context. Each of them had to be linked to each other in ways that were not immediately apparent. They had to be able to communicate both direct and coded messages essential to the plan’s execution before, during and after the murders. They had to have special qualifications as well as the opportunity in real time and space to perform these functions covertly and in a timely way to keep the plan on track, to modify it when necessary or to abort it. The inextricable way they had to be linked means that if any real person matched all of the theoretical requirements the other four had to exist.
Of these five conspirators, three of them had to be men; the active killer, a lookout on Rockingham and a lookout on Bundy. The terrain in front and back of O.J.’s estate on Rockingham and the entire length of the 800 block of Bundy had to be compatible with everything these men had to see and do without attracting unwanted attention. One of these men had to arrange in advance that evidence incriminating both O.J. and himself would first be pointed at O.J. The other two had to be in a position to back him up.
The following list of these identifying characteristics is not complete, nor are any of them copied from Iago in Brentwood – although most of them are the same. The reason for this is simply that each item of necessity is a function of what must account for the evidence and testimony in question. Different questions produce different items of necessity.
The Active Killer
1) He had to be close enough to O.J.’s height to match the bloody shoeprint and stride pattern on Bundy
2) His shoe size had to match O.J.’s exactly in the interior and exterior features of the style of shoes that left the bloody shoeprints
3) He had to have timely, inside knowledge of what shoes to wear
4) He had to know which weapon (s) to bring with him to take out two strong, athletic people and to match weapons believed to be in O.J.’s possession
5) He had to be able to search O.J.’s house for those weapons to dispose of them
6) His hands had to fit the matching pair of bloody gloves left on the crime scenes
7) He had to have ready access to a light colored SUV like the one Robert Heidstra could not name turning right on Bundy from Dorothy
8) He had to have a base of operations south of Bundy
9) He had to be familiar with the military-style ambush that was used to attack Ron and Nicole and the specific military technique that was used to kill them as well as the military knowledge to practice that specific technique before the kill
10) He had to come prepared to kill both Ron and Nicole
11) He had to have military training consistent with the blunt force wounds to the back of the victims’ heads and the “sure kill” stabbing and slashing wounds on their bodies
12) He had to have an “artistic eye” for composition consistent with the police photographs of Nicole’s body and the evidence at the foot of Ron Goldman
13) He had to know how experienced homicide detectives, medical examiners and prosecutors processed superficial evidence of a rage killing
14) He had to draw most of his inspiration from the movies for the evidence he purposely left behind
15) He had to have a partner for the Bundy lookout that he trusted with his life
16) He had to have a false alibi for the murders on a false timeline and the real one
One person meets all of these highly unlikely theoretical qualifications; Mark Fuhrman
The Rockingham Lookout
If O.J. did not make the three thumps on the wall of the south path where Fuhrman found the bloody glove, the person who did had to match the following characteristics:
1) He had to know O.J. and the killer
2) He had to be an expert in covert surveillance
3) He had to know the layout of the property
4) He had to be able to pass for O.J. if he were seen briefly near the Bronco
5) He had to have a plausible reason for being on the property if he was identified
6) He had to be able to take the fall for the murders if RHD detectives determined that the evidence against O.J. was more consistent with a frame-up than his guilt
Taking the fall if the frame-up didn’t work means:
a) He had to be close to O.J.’s height, build and complexion
b) He had to be able to wear size 12 shoes in the Bruno Magli Lorenzo style
c) He had to have intimate knowledge of both O.J. and Nicole
d) He could not have a solid alibi for the time of the murders
e) He had to have a realistic motive for killing Nicole in a way that implicated O.J.
f) He could not have had an alibi for the time of the thumps on Kato’s wall
g) He had to be capable of monitoring all of O.J.’s movements to and from the Bronco as well as any voice communication within the house
If Mark Fuhrman was the active killer, one real person meets all 12 of these highly improbable theoretical requirements – Ron Shipp.
The Bundy Lookout
The fact that this person (Ron Shipp) exists in the real world means that another theoretical person in the Iago hypothesis had to exist; the man who planted the glove where Fuhrman said his questioning of Kato led him in search of a possible prowler. To plant the glove on Rockingham, this person had to get it from the killer on Bundy. To do that, he had to match the following characteristics:
1) He had to have a strong enough bond with to the killer for them to trust each other with their lives
2) He had to be in close enough physical and temporal proximity to the killing cage to help the active killer if he got into trouble
3) He had to have the physical and psychological wherewithal to do it and the emotional discipline not to without sufficient reason to believe it was necessary
4) He had to know enough about the military technique used by the killer to intervene when the time it should have taken to kill both victims and signal that the job was done exceeded the time it did take
5) He had to be involved in the investigation on Bundy and Rockingham wherever it was possible to his knowledge for someone to identify him (Elsie Tistaert, the “old man,” and Rosa Lopez) before anyone from RHD interviewed them
6) His actions had to complement Fuhrman’s in the discovery of incriminating evidence against O.J. on Bundy and Rockingham and in creating a “flexible” timeline for the murders to misdirect the prosecution and the defense.
7) He could not have a sold alibi for the time of the murders or the time Fuhrman announced finding the Rockingham glove
8) His voice had to match the “deeper, older-sounding” voice that Heidstra said he heard in Nicole’s courtyard arguing with man who exclaimed, “Hey! Hey! Hey!”
9) His height had to be proportional to the size of a shoe which left imprints with wavy, parallel lines on the murder scene of a smaller size than the imprints identified as Bruno Magli Lorenzos
10) He had to be separated from Fuhrman in the minds of the RHD investigators on June 13 before the Rockingham glove was found and in the minds of O.J.’s defenders before the criminal trial
Unlike Mark Fuhrman and Ron Shipp, all of the necessary qualifications for this person were difficult to match to a known individual in a way that excluded everyone else. Not enough was known about any real person who could possibly match all of them. What was known about these defining characteristics did match only one man. Every new discovery about him continues to match those characteristics. He was Mark Fuhrman’s hidden partner in the June 13, 1994 murder investigation, Brad Roberts.
The operative word is “hidden.” Until the 1997 publication of Fuhrman’s Murder in Brentwood book, the TV interview Fuhrman and Roberts did with Dianne Sawyer and Fuhrman did with Geraldo Rivera to promote it, Roberts was separated from Fuhrman by nearly everyone who knew them. The only exception was West L.A.’s Supervisor of Detectives Lt. Frank Spangler, who testified in the criminal trial to seeing Fuhrman and Roberts together on Bundy. However, the most significant aspect of his testimony with respect to Roberts is that he did not testify to ever seeing Roberts with Tom Nolan, the trainee “detective” that Ron Phillips said he called to meet Roberts at the police station or on the murder scene.
The prosecution’s separation of Fuhrman from Roberts, with the assistance-by-neglect of the defense team’s lead investigator Bill Pavelic, had the predictable effect of shielding Roberts from defense scrutiny. That’s one of the three ways Roberts’ personal and professional relationship with Fuhrman was hidden from O.J.’s defenders. Hiding Roberts was as easy as ABC. I was done by:
A) Ron Phillips’ false identification of West L.A. Officer Tom Nolan as a detective assigned to work with Roberts on the case
B) Including Roberts’ name in groups of LAPD officers who were merely present at some point on Bundy and Rockingham on June 13 and June 28.
C) By the way Roberts carried himself in front of police and media cameras as an anonymous detective standing next to Phil Vannatter, posing with Marcia Clark and walking behind Mark Fuhrman.
We know what roles Roberts played in the Bundy murder investigation mostly by logical inferences made from widely scattered bits of information. These inferences were drawn together from attempts to track where he was and what he was doing at varies stages of the investigation. Neither his name nor Fuhrman’s were mentioned in the grand jury hearing. The prosecution also eschewed so much as an allusion to Roberts in the preliminary hearing where Marcia Clark used Fuhrman as a star witness and Fuhrman specifically, unequivocally and exclusively named Ron Phillips as his partner.
Roberts was never called as a witness in the case. His name appeared on a Bundy crime scene sign-in sheet at 2:30 a.m. but nowhere in Fuhrman’s notes or the notes of any other detective on Bundy or Rockingham. His own signed notes seemed to favor the defense. Sgt. Rossi, the West L.A. watch commander who called Phillips to report the murders testified in O.J.’s criminal trial that he didn’t know who Roberts was. He said that he saw him for the first time on Bundy on June 13. Officer Thompson referred to him only as “a detective” who was present in O.J.’s front yard when he handcuffed O.J. on June 13.
Riske recalled seeing Roberts with another “detective” he could not name but only after Vannatter, Lange, Phillips and Fuhrman left for Rockingham. He was not sure of the time (which was demonstrably off by a half hour) but he was sure of the sequence.
Chris Darden ran a video clip of the O.J. handcuffing with Vannatter on the stand and asked Vannatter to identify the fourth man in the clip http://walraven.org/simpson/mar20.html . Vannatter tentatively identified Det. Roberts. He did not make a positive identification until Darden paused the tape just after Vannatter and O.J. made sudden moves in opposite directions that exposed Robert’s face.
Darden’s reason for pausing the tape at that point was to show O.J.’s travel bag in the hands of someone other than Vannatter, who the defense claimed conspired with Fuhrman to plant evidence against O.J. Roberts was the ideal prosecution choice to separate Vannatter from Fuhrman because the defense, with the indispensable help of Bill Pavelic, used Phillips’ pairing of Roberts with Nolan to build their Fuhrman-Vannatter conspiracy theory. According to that theory, Vannatter planted blood on Rockingham and Fuhrman planted the glove.
With Roberts and Nolan as partners on the case, there was nowhere for Roberts to fit into a Fuhrman-Vannatter frame-up conspiracy and everyone except Fuhrman had an alibi for planting the glove. Phillips, Vannatter, Lange, Kato and Arnelle were together in the house when Fuhrman was on the south path looking for evidence of a possible prowler. The uniformed officers were outside of the compound and Roberts was with “Detective” Nolan interviewing witnesses two and a half miles away – or was he?
Who was Tom Nolan and where was Brad Roberts when Fuhrman found the glove? Both Nolan and Roberts were unaccounted for. Nolan was last seen on the case more than an hour before Fuhrman’s questioning of Kato led him to the south path alone to investigate the thumps. Could Roberts have been behind the wall with the glove when Fuhrman got there?
Why O.J.’s defense team made no attempt to learn the answers to these question is only partially answered by Phillips, Fuhrman and Roberts’ strategic acts of commission and omission. If Bill Pavelic had not shut down his Guilty of Incompetence discussion board, you could go to his website and find this on page 2 of the thread called MARK FUHRMAN – BRAD ROBERTS ALIBI:
Phillips said he wore “three hats” as a West L.A. supervisor of different kinds of detectives. He made an elaborate point of calling Tom Nolan a West L.A. detective. He said that Nolan was on a list of detectives he worked with who did not have experience in homicide investigations. He testified that Nolan “is a West L.A. homicide detective.” Perhaps Nolan was a West L.A. homicide detective when Phillips testified in 1995. He was a “Fraud Squad” detective two years later He wasn’t a detective of any kind, as Phillips claimed he was, on June 13, 1994 and his status as a detective on June 13, 1994 was the issue at hand. Fuhrman solidified Nolan’s status by testifying that Nolan and Roberts were detectives with the same rank, “Detective I.”
The issue was perjury in Fuhrman and Phillips’ initial characterization of themselves as partners on the Bundy murder investigation. The crucial underlying questions were whether Phillips pared Roberts with Nolan to distance Roberts from Fuhrman and whether Phillips and Fuhrman lied under oath for a nefarious purpose. Sworn testimony that deviates from the facts is not perjury unless it is a deliberate and material attempt to deceive – a significant lie. The deciding factor in determining whether Phillips and Fuhrman committed perjury on the “partners” issue was whether they lied under oath for the purpose of thwarting the course of justice.
Roberts’ name came up for the first time in the criminal trial when O.J.’s attorneys cross examined Sukru Boztepe, the male half of the couple who found the bodies, and Steven Schwab who found the dog that led the couple to the bodies. Roberts was the detective who interviewed them. The notes he took of those interviews included a statement that the old man across the street from Nicole’s condo heard the dog begin barking at 10:30, which contradicted the prosecutions’ 10:15-10:23 start time. They included Schwab initial statement that he did not find the dog until 11:30, which contradicted his testimony and gave O.J. an iron-clad alibi.
The prosecution sidestepped any mention of Roberts in any capacity except where it was unavoidable. The defense attorneys mentioned him only because the notes he signed of his interview with Boztepe and Schwab contained timeline information that contradicted the prosecution’s timeline. Timeline clues in the form of Nicole’s broken Swiss Army watch stopped at 10:03 and calls by an unidentified woman or two to 911 and the Wilshire Police Station placed the start time of the murders ahead of the prosecution’s 10:15 to 10:23 start time. The only winner in this conflict between the prosecution and the defense was the detective who argued for a “flexible” timeline in Murder in Brentwood, its author, Mark Fuhrman.
The next time Brad Roberts’ name came up in the criminal trial was in the defense cross-examination of Ron Phillips who called him “A detective…” and named Tom Nolan as the “detective” Roberts would be partnered with on Bundy. This pivotal inaccuracy would have stood unquestioned if Johnnie Cochran on cross-examination hadn’t kept referring to Fuhrman the way Phillips did in direct testimony – as Fuhrman’s partner. The way Cochran phrased his questions unintentionally set up Phillips for perjury if he had not “clarified” his earlier testimony by stating that Fuhrman was not his partner.
We know that this setup was unintentional because the line of defense questioning that followed all the way to the end of the trial continued to treat Phillips as Fuhrman’s partner on the case. They never explored the when, where and how relationship between Fuhrman and Roberts the way they did with Fuhrman and Phillips even when Fuhrman, the prosecution’s next witness, acknowledge for the first time that Roberts, not Phillips, was his partner. Fuhrman preserved the illusion that he was not partnered with Brad Roberts on either crime scene simply by referring to him as his “regular” partner.
The prosecution never referred to Fuhrman and Roberts as partners and the defense kept right on ignoring Roberts’ connection to Fuhrman on the case. The defense chose instead to couple Fuhrman with Phil Vannatter in their conspiracy theory. Therefore, they never tracked where Roberts was or what he was doing when evidence against O.J. was found on Rockingham or when Fuhrman claimed in his Bundy notes that he found a fingerprint in blood on the brass lock of Nicole’s back gate.
This was Bill Pavelic’s October 24, 2007 response to the issue of how Fuhrman used the words “regular partner” to describe his relationship with Roberts on the case. He wrote:
“…Jasper, you are again using the word "regular partner" out of context. Homicide detectives are paired up based on needs and they could have five different partners on the same day and or during the same investigation. Robert and Nolan did pair up with Fuhrman and others on June 13, 1994.”
This is precisely the context in which I did use “regular partner” with Nolan, falsely identified as a Detective I, paired with Roberts to hide where Roberts was and what he was doing when Fuhrman was investigating the source of Kato’s thumps. When and where did Roberts team up with Nolan? When and where was he with Fuhrman and “others” on June 13, 1994? Who were the “others”? When and where did they see Nolan with Roberts? If Nolan was “acting as a detective” he must have done something? What did he do?
The discussion thread was “Mark Fuhrman – Brad Roberts Alibi.” Was Roberts with Nolan or Fuhrman when Fuhrman found the glove? Pavelic’s verbal dance around this question, in sync with the testimony of Phillips and Fuhrman, demonstrates why the defense never attempted to answer it. Bill Pavelic, the man O.J. paid to look for other suspects, to check Fuhrman’s alibi and the people in Fuhrman’s inner circle who could have helped him frame O.J., took extraordinary measures to insure that the question was never asked.
We know as much as we do about Ron Shipp mostly because of the role he played in Sheila Weller’s Raging Heart book, his testimony in the O.J. criminal trial and the research J. Neil Schulman did to write his Frame of the Century book. We know as much as we do about Fuhrman largely because of the things he said and did that were written, tape recorded, photographed and videotaped when he said and did them. We know more about him because of the news media interviews he did afterward and the Murder in Brentwood book he wrote. Murder in Brentwood also gives us most of what we knew about Brad Roberts until January 10, 2008 when Solitairea1 discovered an article about Roberts by Lisa Nichols on her web page dated October 6, 2007.
This line of Smartfellows investigation began with a “strong hunch” I posted in a January Iago thread I called “Brad Roberts in Marina Del Rey?” http://smartfellowspress.com/_0108/00000012.htm I couldn’t call what prompted me to post that message anything but a hunch that Roberts kept a boat in Marina Del Rey. What I did would seem illogical to anyone who hadn’t followed the intertwined Witch Hunt-House on Carroll Street paths I trod years earlier in The Smoking Gun 3 that led me there. I didn’t even know Roberts had a boat.
All I had was a multitude of Mark Fuhrman bell-ringers in street names on a mental line-of-travel map; Olympic, emerald, diamond, garnet and the names of Presidents http://smartfellowspress.com/mental_line_of_travel.htm With street names as Fuhrman bell-ringers, including the one he lived on in Redondo Beach, it occurred to me that a street name in the title of a 1988 movie with numerous Fuhrman bell-ringers would also appear on a map closely associated with his partner Brad Roberts. If I was on the right track it would be near the ocean.
The movie was The House on Carroll Street with Jeff Daniels as Mike Cochran and Kenneth Welsh as his FBI partner Hackett. Johnnie Cochran spearheaded the ban of the chokehold in 1982 Janet Hackett was Fuhrman’s former partner in matrimony. I wrote about The House on Carroll Street for many reasons. One reason was because it preceded the Bundy murders with tie-ins to the murders and to the "Mothers" poem photo in Fuhrman’s Murder in Brentwood book. The Mexican worry doll in that photo was a direct tie-in to Witch Hunt, which followed the murders, and other scenes in Witch Hunt were inextricably linked to scenes in The House on Carroll Street and to Fuhrman’s Murder in Greenwich movie.
For these reasons and others based on Fuhrman’s history, his words and his actions, I looked for a street named Carroll near the ocean. I found Carroll Ave. and Carroll Ct in Marina Del Rey intersecting Eastern Cannel Ct. and Ocean Ave.
The House on Carroll Street movie is set in New York City, which is on the eastern ocean of the Continental United States. That’s why I asked the question about Roberts having a boat in Marina Del Rey. Witch Hunt, also had much to do with the question because of the overlapping relevance of Chicago, covert surveillance, a boat and one eye – as in O.J.’s Naked Gun character Nordberg sneaking around at night on a pier in a dark blue knit cap spying on a ship. One man in the ship’s cabin that O.J. crashes in on flashing his LAPD detective’s badge is wearing a patch over one eye.
The name of the ship in that Naked Gun sequence is I LUV YOU. When a barely conscious Nordberg tries to tell his friend Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen) about the boat he can only say “I love you,” If you’re wondering what that has to do with someone or something with one eye, you’ll find it in the introduction to chapter 13 of The Smoking Gun 3: One-eyed Wonders.
If you wonder what the real world connection is to O.J.’s Naked Gun character Nordberg telling his friend about a ship and Shipp telling someone about his friendship with O.J. you’ll find it here:. http://walraven.org/simpson/feb01.html (love)
Shipp: I STILL LOVE THE GUY, BUT….
You could call the ship in The Naked Gun a “love craft.” You might do just that if you made the Night Gallery connection between Leslie Nielson, O.J. Simpson and the author who inspired two Night Gallery episodes and the main character in Witch Hunt, H. P. Lovecraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._P._Lovecraft (find “nigger”). The one-eye link is to an inscription on the Lovecraft headstone put up in 1977 that says, “I AM PROVIDENCE.” That line has a double meaning, Providence Rhode Island and the Eye of Providence on the back of the one-dollar bill.
This is from the Wikipedia article on H. P. Lovecraft:
“Some of his most racist views can be found in his poetry, particularly in "On the Creation of Niggers," and "New England Fallen" (both 1912). In "On the Creation of Niggers" in particular, Lovecraft takes this to an extreme, explicitly characterizing black people as sub-human:”
“When, long ago, the gods created Earth; In Jove's fair image Man was shaped at birth. The beasts for lesser parts were designed; Yet were too remote from humankind. To fill the gap, and join the rest of Man, Th'Olympian host conceiv'd a clever plan. A beast they wrought, in semi-human figure, Filled it with vice, and called the thing a Nigger.” |
Someone or something with one eye is a recurring theme in movies and TV shows with large clusters of “coincidental” links to Fuhrman’s version of the Bundy murders and the evidence he associated himself with. You get an artistic eye, an eye for detail, a glass eye, a man or woman with an eye patch, a close-up of one eye and the eye of a camera. You get three famous logos: the Masonic eye, the Pinkerton National Detective Agency eye and the CBS eye.
You get the eye in the photo of Nicole taken in 1979 that her sister Denise said she took on New Years Day 1989. You get it again in a terrifying scene from Street Smart with Morgan Freeman and Kathy Baker. http://smartfellowspress.com/smokinggun/Great.html (picture sets second and third from the bottom) That movie combines Fuhrman’s account of the “1985” baseball bat incident (actually ’84 when the Detroit Tigers played the Padres in the World Series) with Officer Edwards’ account of the January’89 incident..
All of this comes together in a New York City bar scene in The House on Carroll Street set in 1951. An FBI agent trying to decipher a coded message inscribed in an Edgar Allen Poe book gets a wisecrack from his partner about Poe being the shortstop for the Tigers. The book was taken from a safe house for Nazi war criminals (the house on Carroll S.) using false identities taken from the names on Jewish tombstones. The message involves a European date (day, month and year) and the name Laura Moulton. Amid side talk about the New York Dodgers and a bet about who will be the National League batting champ of 1951, the wisecracking partner figures out that Laura Moulton is not a woman, which leads to a dock and a ship carrying German passenger. http://smartfellowspress.com/smokinggun/Smoke_3/smoke_3_chap_9.htm
http://smartfellowspress.com/smokinggun/Smoke_3/smoke_3_chap_12.htm (Chicago)
Most of these elements merge again in Fuhrman’s 2002 Murder in Greenwich movie loosely based on his 
book. They combine in different ways with Fuhrman and Steve Carroll in a bar discussing Carroll’s search of the Skakel house and Fuhrman’s perjury convictions stemming from the release of the Laura Hart McKinney tapes. It was in the same bar where Fuhrman first encountered the Maryland Man (Edger Allen Poe lived and died in Baltimore) and where he shows flashback scenes of teenagers swinging baseball bats
the night Martha Moxley was killed. This bar is also where Fuhrman inserts flashbacks of Carroll interrogating “Morris Banks” ending in a close-up of one eye (The Smoking Gun 3: Chapter 14).
The single eye appeared strikingly in so many movies associated with Fuhrman that it was impossible not to include it in several chapters of all three Smoking Gun books. If you don’t see the eye in The House on Carroll Street, it’s only because you don’t know that the Pinkerton National Detective Agency, headquartered in Chicago, was the model for the FBI, headquartered in Washington D.C. The Pinkerton logo is where the “I” in FBI comes from. http://www.orwelltoday.com/leavenworth.shtml . It’s a homonym. You get it with the double meaning in the identical sound of “I” and “eye.”
Thursday, January 20, 1977 – Van Nuys, Calf Valley News Page 5
The eye is only one of many Fuhrman bell-ringers in the ads and headline stories on that page. The biggest numbers are 10 and 15 (the Swiss Army watch code equivalent of 10 is 22 and the code’s equivalent of 15 is 3 – 10:03, the time stopped on Nicole’s broken Swiss Army watch. Counting only the first three numerals gives you 101. The most frequently repeated single numeral is 5.
The cosmetic surgery ad features a blonde woman in a bikini (Fuhrman in 1992 boasting in a cop bar of seeing Nicole’s “boob job”). The furniture ad takes you to a couch on Gretna Green (O.J. seeing Nicole performing oral sex on Keith Zlomsowitch in 1992 and her recorded 911 call in ’93 containing references to the incident). The auto detailing ad connects directly to the occupation of Robert Heidstra whose dog walking routine made him a key timeline ear witness to the Bundy murder on June 12, 1994. The 22 in the “parking lot” add gives you 2 dimes and 2 pennies Lange noted on Nicole’s driveway.
The stories below the headlines contain a slew of other Fuhrman bell-ringers looking backward from O.J. Simpson’s murder trial in 1995. They give you drag racing (Fuhrman was s crew member on the LAPD drag racing team) and lying cops. They give you names like Brown and Hunter, ACLU and “bussing..” In Detour to Terror with O.J., and Nicole, O.J. is the driver of a Golden West tour bus hijacked en route to Las Vegas
http://smartfellowspress.com/smokinggun/Smoke_3/smoke_3_chap_26.htm However you interpret these Fuhrman bell-ringers one all-important fact we didn't know before is incontrovertible; they are also bell-ringers for his old partner Bradford H. Roberts (Hunter)
http://smartfellowspress.com/smokinggun/Smoke_3/smoke_3_chap_14.htm http://smartfellowspress.com/smokinggun/Smoke_3/smoke_3_chap_23.htm
http://smartfellowspress.com/smokinggun/Smoke_3/smoke_3_chap_24.htm
This is the stuff of subconscious threads woven into events yet to come with O.J. and Nicole and stories yet to be told by Mark Fuhrman about himself and Brad Roberts. The 10-15 (2203) in the Look! Ad suggests that it could also be a master blueprint for a conscious plan even with the car washer whose dog walking routine had to be studied for weeks to insure his absence from the 800 block of Bundy during the killing time. --Jasper