[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: bob seigler
T1: [email protected]
Category 3: Category 1
Date: 28 Feb 1999
Time: 14:26:06
Remote Name: proxy-423.public.paix.webtv.net
jasper:
my book was far enough along two years ago for me to submit sample chapters and an outline to a number of publishers. but the market was already flooded, and i am a first-time author. you were lucky enough to have a publisher who both knew your work, and was open to the idea of a pro-simpson book. i have not been that fortunate.
the main reason my book remains unfinished is because i waiver in my faith the truth will ever come out. i can understand simpson's not acting before he has very strong evidence to present in a court of law, but the behavior of his lawyers in the civil case make me worry about the kind of advice he is getting. surely, he ought to have grounds for suits against any number of authors, news organizations and media commentators, yet he seems to just sit there and wait to get hit again.
essentially, i offer two theories: one a small conspiracy built on the speculative use of the media, the other looking to the media itself as the instigator of the crime. the small theory is more believable and subject to proof, while the larger theory is unlikely to ever be proven but represents a much greater danger to society.
at the very start of the case, i had no firm opinions about ted turner. i admired his success, and regarded him as being a progressive on issues such as ecology and indian rights. his employment of blacks as anchors at CNN also seemed to be a very liberal policy. but in lookng for a motive to frame simpson, i simply asked myself the old question: who profits most? my immediate answer was: the media, especially CNN and turner. i began to do a little research.
there are two reasons to see fuhrman as something other than the IAGO in this plot. the first is that the original villain was able to manipulate his victim by posing as his friend - he had othello's ear. the odd character in the story who actually held this position with both simpson and nicole was kato kaelin.
during the preliminary hearing, the night before kaelin first appeared was also the night i first looked seriously at the possibility turner might have engineered the deed himself. but when kato showed up on the witness stand, i saw someone who regarded the murders strictly as an opportunity to audition. i recognized him as a suspect who did profit from the murders as a publicity stunt, and i retired my turner theory for he time being.
but the most odd circumstance i saw in the events at rockingham being revealed was that moment when kaelin was alone with mark fuhrman. fuhrman was not even officially on the case, and neither he nor vannatter said fuhrman was asked to interview this person who had to be considered a possible suspect. this private interview should never have happened, yet it lead directly to the discovery of the illogical rockingham glove. was there any connection between kaelin and fuhrman prior to the murders?
that question was answered by the involvement of ron shipp.
the second reason to discount fuhrman and kaelin as the IAGO of the plot is that neither really show the ability to plan that far ahead in regard to their careers before simpson. to pull off this crime required a schemer who thought in terms of years, and while we can invent this quality in any suspect we don't really know, a man like turner is a proven factor.
bob