[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: charlene
T1: [email protected]
Category 3: Category 1
Date: 12 Aug 1999
Time: 06:18:41
Remote Name: proxy-546.public.rwc.webtv.net
All:
I think we can all agree that MF is an intelligent man. A dangerous man. A crazy man. But intelligent. Not the smartest man in the world and not the best detective in the world but intelligent. Right?
So why would he have a man arrested, subpoena the door frame and instead of having the lab test it and look for a bullet he takes it home himself and while trying to look for a bullet destroys the evidence?
Zealousness? I don't think so.
What if he found a bullet, how much good would it do him to find a bullet at his home without the proper chain of evidence and documentation?
What good would the bullet do him without the angle that the bullet went through the door? The suspect has admitted being shot with that bullet and that it went into the door frame.
If the man used his own gun, it was long gone.
WHY?
Even those detectives of "average" intelligence whom MF berates so badly knows that finding the bullet at his own home with the proper tests and documentation is basically worthless unless you can get someone at the lab (and more people) to say that it was really found at the lab.
So why do this? What was so important about the BULLET over the angle going into the door?
All the so-called "doing things by the book" that Fuhrman professed in his book goes out the window when just a couple months before he RISKED a lot to take that door frame home and destroy it looking for the bullet which he "claims" he didn't find.
Or did he?
What would the bullet have proven? What gun it came from, correct? And that is all because he destroyed the door and what angle it passed through while getting to the bullet.
What gun would it have matched to? His own? Somebody he was protecting? The suspect? Somebody he was supposed to cover for?
If found and it didn't match the suspect's gun, what would Fuhrman have done? Dismissed the charges? Or got rid of the bullet? (I vote on getting rid of the bullet).
If Furhman defenders would look closely at this one instance alone and what it could mean, they could see (hopefully, Geez am I tired of it was just a snafu excuse, an honest mistake, etc excuses)
Think on this too. The Gould case was on-going at the time. Many of the cops in and around the Simpson case at Bundy that night may have been well aware of the "lost evidence in the door frame" scenario. Maybe that is why Riske appeared to be watching Fuhrman? Maybe this case is why he was going to be taken off the Simpson case (how would THAT have played in court, btw, taken off because he tampers with evidence?)
How would it have Played in court that he took subpoened evidence home with it and destroyed it? (Think of all the folks who claim that they was nothing wrong with Lange taking OJ's shoes home with him--)
Jasper, you are correct, he should never have been anywhere near this case. Not even on a temporary basis. Really drives home the fingerprint, the blue jean jacket, the melting ice cream, the no fingerprints taken on the envelope, etc. Or the menu that I ever heard about. And the missing lense from the evidence room.
This doesn't make sense? Why would he do that? Unless he is hiding evidence that would clear the guy he just arrested or looking for evidence that would associate himself or someone he is protecting to the murder. charlie