Home | Contents | Search Iago Conspirators Timeline Junot
From: Jasper
Date: 4/11/02
Time: 8:20:41 AM
John,
The trouble with the evidence against Fuhrman that you haven't seen is not that it isn't there in spades; it's that you steadfastly refuse to apply the same logic to viewing it that you apply to other problem-solving tasks. You can't see what your refuse to look at no matter how many times or in how many ways it is shown to you. And the speed with which you write your objections ought to tell you something.
I must have written fifty times that Ron Shipp made the thumps and that I don't believe Fuhrman planted the glove. I wrote those things in Iago. I wrote them on these boards again and again. I put them in a link at the top of this page called The Conspirators so I wouldn't have to keep on saying it again and again…
And you still give me THE SAME answer that you gave me the first time. A well reasoned answer to a theory I DID NOT propose, one that I have actively argued against online since 1999.and one that runs counter to what I have proposed…Again and again and again…. You tell me about other people's scenarios of Fuhrman planting when I have ALWAYS said on this site (you were here in '99) that Fuhrman's partner Brad Roberts planted the glove. I say it in Iago - in chapters that we have gone over together (A Mountain of Evidence, for one) and as soon as I show it to you what I wrote there, you seem to forget and go to something else.
Once you wrote me a long messaged telling me point by point what you thought was wring with my position. Point by point you got what I said wrong - then criticized your wrong interpretation of what I said as if you were responding to me. I spent over TEN HOURS preparing a point by point answer. When I went back to the board ten or fifteen minutes later, you had a point by point answer to everything I wrote - whether I wrote it or not. Hell, John. I can't even type that fast much less read, consider and formulate an appropriate response. Maybe you can do all of those things quicker and better than I can but not THAT much quicker and better. In case after case what you said was missing was right in the section above where you were writing - because you had cut and pasted there just the way I wrote it.
When I prepared my response to your tree thumps analogy, I said a little prayer… Dear Lord please don't let him tell me that I have made a false analogy because he would have looked behind the tree (Kato DID look "behind the tree"). Dear Lord, please don't let him tell me that the cops didn't say anything about the murders until after Kato had told Fuhrman about the thumps. There were FOUR plain-clothes detectives, rousting Kato out of bed in the early morning and asking him where O.J. was. Their presence alone and Fuhrman's examination of his shoes told him that some kind of serious crime affecting O.J. in some way had occurred. Please don't say again that Fuhrman didn't need an excuse to go behind the guesthouse if he wanted to "plant the glove." Here was the guy who posed for a photo pointing at one bloody glove, who propounded a bleeding killer theory and a hurriedly parked vehicle theory. Here is the guy who found the tiny blood spot on the Bronco, who propose the possible people in danger theory that got the police inside of the gate without a search warrant and into O.J.'s house. Please John, please don't say again that he didn't need and excuse to find the blood glove that matched the one he was photographed with on Bundy.
You crossed me up with what you said about Fuhrman asking Kato the routine question concerning his observation of anything unusual happening the night before. I thought that you would want to stay away from this one. I could ask you to think about it, but you won't, so here goes:
The other detectives were looking for O.J. They got into the house on a bogus claim that O.J.'s car was parked oddly (Fuhrman) and that the spot of blood that Fuhrman found on the Bronco door meant that someone in the house might require IMMEDIATE ASSISTANCE. They were not supposed to be there to investigate the murders. So any question about a possible link to the murder scene and what might have happened at O.J.'s residence THE NIGHT BEFORE would have been inappropriate.
Only one detective asked that question. It was the same detective who took it upon himself to give Kato a sobriety test and to announce that his shoes were "similar" (to what?) but too small - Mark Fuhrman. He did not ask that question of Rosa Lopez. When he came to her door she was the one who volunteered information about strange things she heard in O.J.'s yard the night before. Does that make her a suspect for inventing a story and planting the glove? Of course not. --Jasper