|
Rube and Mark
Gold is a Mark Fuhrman bell ringer deluxe. Everywhere you go with his version of the Bundy murders you find gold markers to improbable or unexpected people, places or things. The number, placement and density of key evidence items below Ron Goldman’s boot in his pointing finger photos are highly unlikely. The flowers in his Mothers poem photo eventually take you up Highway 101 across the Golden Gate Bridge. Fuhrman’s stories that involve bears and boxers come together with O.J. in Goldie and the Boxer. In Fuhrman’s second Primetime Live interview with Diane Sawyer he misspoke in describing the metal surface of the lock on Nicole’s back gate. He called it, “gold” before correcting himself and saying “brass.” Bronze is a Persian word meaning “brass.”
The issue was the fingerprint that he said he and Brad Roberts saw on the lock and their claim that Tom Nolan saw it, too. The 1992 Special Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Art Spiegelman in the role of a Reuter’s journalist confirmed that story in a 1997 interview with Nolan. In case you’re wondering what the Pulitzer looks like, here it is, a gold medal awarded to newspapers and a bronze medal awarded to individuals.
We know that Fuhrman had a special interest in at least one Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist because of what he said about Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonists Paul Conrad in Murder in Brentwood. To see what he said about single action Colts and old Winchesters, search the index for “Conrad, Paul.” They’re on the same page. If this series of gold-brass-bronze-single action Colt-old Winchester links to Fuhrman and two Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonists strikes you as being so indirect and convoluted that it’s silly, you’re on the right track. Factoring in the colored pen and ink drawings he made in Murder in Bentwood of Ron Goldman’s stab wounds puts you farther down that track.
A big reason it’s so difficult to follow Fuhrman-Roberts connections to the commission of the Bundy murders and the framing of O.J. Simpson despite the vast number of them are the indirect and convoluted ways they relate to each other. While the lines of guilt to O.J. are close at hand and direct, when you follow them you see that they are not solid lines. They are dotted and the dots at every critical place allegedly connecting them to the evidence against O.J. are missing. These are where the sold lines connecting evidence against Mark Fuhrman, Brad Roberts and their associates begin in “unnecessarily” complex but interconnected ways. Gold provides a visual clue as to how and why it works. Think: 1948 Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist Rube Goldberg.
A device to keep you from forgetting to mail your wife's letter
Wiki gives the best definition you are likely to find of Rube Goldberg machines: “complex
A quick look at a Rube Goldberg machine is all you need to see how silly it is. You don’t have to follow each step or understand how they are supposed to work if you can figure out what they are supposed to do, which requires paying close attention to details the way Fuhrman does. You can skip to the end to see the objective and how easy it is to accomplish without the machine. Most people would therefore conclude that constructing and using it is illogical, something that no rational, intelligent person in the real world would ever do even if it was physically possible to do it.*
On the other hand, if you define the goal as an engineering task to determine how a man sitting upright at a table eating a bowl of soup can wipe his mouth with a napkin without using his hands directly, the logic flips. The irrational becomes rational. Without seeing the Rube Goldberg cartoon, many people will conclude that it’s impossible, but using it as a guide for action, you can work out a practical solution. All you have to do is replace the comic elements with mechanically sound ones and you’ve got it. Indeed, the credulity steps that have to be negotiated to see it look remarkably like a Rube Goldberg machine.
You can appear to do the impossible by doing it in a way that triggers broad automatic reactions to what you did as something that (A) nobody could do. If it can be shown that it is possible, it becomes absurdly farfetched that (B) you could do it. Then (C), why on earth would you do it even if you could? From there you can go as far into the alphabet as you desire with complex, “unnecessary,” indirect and convoluted steps. Each step, like the cigarette lighter that ignites the fuse on the rocket or the cycle attached to the rocket that cuts the string allowing the clock pendulum to swing is challengeable on logical grounds. And you know in advance that they will be challenged because they are absurd.
So, if your goal is to distance yourself from your actions by a convoluted series of remote actions and reactions that will inevitably come back to you, a Rube Goldberg machine is an ideal model. The more convolutions, the better. Not all of the working parts have to be real if plausible lies can serve the same purpose. You don’t even have to worry about anyone, including you, inadvertently spilling the beans as someone often does in a complicated conspiracy, as long as their participation is built into the “ridiculous” machine. The real world existence of such a machine is not credible. Therefore, its component parts are not credible. The conclusion that it can’t be true comes before the step by step investigation of whether or not it could be true, so any serious thought about it ends right there.
***
* Not True. It’s done all the time by software developers who don’t know how to define a task outside of their technical expertise because they don’t know the fundamentals. Therefore, they don’t always provide tools, like the man’s left hand in Rube Goldberg’s self-operating napkin machine cartoon, necessary to simplify it. You have to learn the Rube Goldberg logic of the program to understand it and you have to follow every ridiculous step in the prescribed sequence to make it work. Professionals are sometimes so impressed with the wonderful things the technology can do that they neglect fundamentals of the job that people can do faster and better without it.
Mark Fuhrman makes the point repeatedly in chapter 23: The Simple Art of Murder Investigation of Murder in Spokane (copyright 2001-2002). He does it with his criticism of the Spokane Serial Killer Task Force's overreliance on massive DNA collection and complex computer technology over two years to find the killer.
He says, "Sure, it’s much easier to write a book using a laptop computer. But there haven’t been more reliable guns made than a Colt single-action revolver or a lever-action Winchester. And when it comes to detective work, not much has changed. Even with the advance in high-tech criminalistics, there’s a homicide textbook written in 1948 that I still find very useful. Given the tools available to him in the 1940s, a hardworking gumshoe like Philip Marlowe could have solved the case in a matter of weeks."
Note the Philip Marlowe links to "Randall Spencer" a.k.a. Michael McClinton and the murder of Robert C. Hurd. --Jasper
|
devices that perform simple tasks in indirect, convoluted ways.”
Goldberg called them “foolish inventions” for obvious reasons. The “Self-operating Napkin,” for example, uses 13 sequential operations to do
something that can be done in one. A man sits upright at a table eating from a bowl of soup. The device attached to his head allows him to wipe his mouth with a
napkin without touching it with his left hand or putting down the spoon in his right hand.