From: Jasper
Date: 07 Apr 2000
Time: 07:51:37
Remote Name: dyn1-tnt10-150.detroit.mi.ameritech.net
Chris,
If you think I'm patronizing you, I must have been wrong in my assessment of your intellectual capabilities. I thought that you were only pretending not to have understood the multiple breachs of logic you made in your attack on me and my motives for writing Iago in Brentwood. I see from your post that I was wrong.
For the record: I talked with Scott Anderson off the air before the broadcast so I had a pretty good feel for his audience. I told him on the air that the motive for killing Ron and Nicole was the image assassination of O.J. Simpson. I said that Fuhrman did it for fame, fortune and glory. I said that he chose to murder the people he did and he did it in the way it was done as a grisly publicity stunt. When Scott balked at the idea that anyone would commit a crime like that "just to get attention" I could see that it wasn't a good idea to talk about Munchausen by Proxy. So, I used myself as an example of getting attention that his audience could immediately appreciate simply because of why they were bothering to listen to me. I told Scott that the only reason he was talking to me was because my name was associated with Mark Fuhrman.
That's a fact. It's also a fact that radio and television producers don't want to talk to "people." They want to talk to "personalities." To sell an idea, you first have to sell yourself. With name recognition, ninety percent of the sale has already been made. Few people in your audience recognized my name (Maybe a few who'd read The Invisible Warriors) but everyone recognized Mark Fuhrman-because of the Bundy murders.
It does not follow that my reason for writing about Fuhrman was the same as Fuhrman's reason for killing Ron and Nicole (so he could sell his screenplay, write a sure-fire bestseller, and change the national agenda on race relations in the United States). While it's reasonable to assume that I wrote the book to get attention (no one writes a book to be ignored) you cannot further assume that I sought that attention for selfish or sinister reasons unless you make the further assumption that my allegations are totally without substance. That's what you did without reading the book. And that's where you went wrong. Assumptions based on assumptions equal assumptions.
When I tired to give you the facts, you ignored them and talked about how "lengthy" my reply was. Now I'm asking you for the facts. Make your reply as long as it has to be to answer the question: Why are you convinced that I invented evidence of murder against Mark Fuhrman just to get attention?
Think carefully before you answer. Remember me telling Scott how the specifics of the attack and the clues left behind reminded me of an IQ test? This is a test. --Jasper