[ Home | Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: charlie
Date: 5/30/01
Time: 10:20:21 AM
I agree, Prien. This was an obvious one. In other cases, you have to read the series of questions before the answer and sometimes afterwards.
For example, when Clark leads the FBI guy up to the hair on the Rockingham glove and asks him finally, if the hair belonged to Phillips, Fuhrman, Lange or Vannatter.
Then he answers, "No, not those detectives, no."
THEN Clark completely changes topics with the NEXT question when in fact the most logical, reasonable and "honest" next question would be did it match or was similiar to ANY other detective or cop on the scene.
His very answer implies that those detectives are not the ones it matches but does match some OTHER detective. (Roberts?)
There were also no questions about how wide a net they tested. Just those 4 or all the cops? Some would not be counted due to length or hair color, etc. and only a few would have to be actually tested for a so called match.
As I stated before, the trials are filled with such exchanges.
charlie