From: Jasper
Date: 11/7/00
Time: 3:59:05 PM
Jean,
I still have the same question: Why are the mainstream media following the National Enquirer on this case?
The speed with which they process information is undoubtedly part of the problem. That's the biggest problem I have with everything new I discover. Some things, like the significance of the timeline, the stick and the Rockingham glove that took me months of real-time hours to work out may as well have not been done. Most people will not stick with it for the ten minutes or so that it takes to see where everything fits and why. About six seconds into the timeline, they skip ahead (to get to the point) and miss the point entirely because they didn't take some essential bits of information into account. They don't get it, and they move on to something else. The timeline, the stick and the Rockingham glove are proof that O.J. was framed by the killer, and Fuhrman's explanation for the stick ties him to every scrap of evidence in the case against O.J. including the murder weapon and the man who tried to frame him with it.
I'm pretty sure that the blood trail, the stick and the glove were only stepping stones to get into the house where Fuhrman expected to find either the German Stiletto O.J. bought at Ross Cutlery or a large Swiss Army knife like the one he describes in Murder in Brentwood. You can't get to this position with a superficial, light-speed interpretation of evidence.
The media are nothing if not superficial.
Jean, you are one of the few people who took the time to see why Nicole's story of the '89 incident couldn't be right and O.J.'s story had to be. I have given up on trying to get anyone else to look at it. The image of O.J. abusing Nicole is so strong that most people simply WILL NOT DO IT. Trying to get them to look is a surefire way of bringing down an iron wall of resistance to anything further you wish to say. It's even harder than getting people to consider Mark Fuhrman as a murder suspect. And you know how hard that is.
As soon as you suggest that Fuhrman be looked at as a suspect, most people IMMEDIATELY fast-forward to the first piece of evidence they can thing of that seems to clear him. Usually it's the glasses (he couldn't have planned for Goldman) or the obvious way the Rockingham glove was planted (an expert would have planted it so that it didn't appear to be planted). Whatever it is, they will invariably skip the information they have to have (or the sequence or the context) to understand what you've found and they will compare the next recognizable thing you say to what they already believe to be true. That means they are not looking at the logic what you presented to them. They are judging your motives for saying something that makes no sense to them. The reasoning goes something like this, "I don't understand, therefore you must be confused."
This is the communication barrier you always run into with the media even when they want to be even-handed. Unless you're a prestigious prizewinner or a celebrity of some kind they will not take the time to hear, understand, and THEN judge a new idea. -- Jasper