[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 6/19/01
Time: 4:58:19 AM
Allitia,
My position is that the drug issue is a red herring.
I went around with that for years before I saw how well prepared the killer was for Ron at precisely the time he showed up, which eventually led me to see that Ron was a carefully selected target (yes, there is more to my reasoning than that; lots more). I think he was chosen because he satisfied a number of requirements at once. First, he was a Jew. Secondly the mere fact that two people were killed in a particularly gruesome way set up the accused killer for the death penalty. Last, but not least, Ron had so many connections to people associated with drugs that the defense was certain to zero in on the drug connection RIGHT AWAY and they would not be easily persuaded to give it up (the Primacy Effect).
Thus, no investigation of Fuhrman as a murder suspects by the defense, then or now.
This response to Ron's drug connections (as well as Faye's and Nicole's) was entirely predictable. That's because of the mind-set of the defense in any capital case (pursue whatever evidence is most like to show the greatest number of people in the least amount of time that someone other than my client is guilty).
I have never bough the argument that the killer tore off a corner of the envelope to see if there were drugs inside. The glasses were a vital part of the two-pronged story that Ron was either the victim of being in the wrong place at the wrong time or the target of the killer (trails leading away from Fuhrman). Crawford found them inside of a leather case. There was no good reason for her to have put them in an envelope and no way the killer could no that she did by feeling the envelope what he was feeling - except that it was NOT a bag of drugs. The bag did not have to be opened for that. You could tell by felling it. If it didn't give, it wasn't likely to contain drugs. On the other hand, if the killer was that desperate for drugs and he was so interested in the envelope because of that interest, why not just take it and run? Why stick around to peek inside of it and then leave it where it could tell as story implicating O.J. with shoes purchased in 1991 or '92, gloves that were purchased in December of 1990, and cap that looked like the one O.J. wore in The Naked Gun ('88)?
The reason I'm interested in Ron's glasses is the same reason I'm interested in Nicole's shoes. If they were never a part of the crime scene, that's one thing. If the killer took them, that's something else. I'd just like to have all the facts - not just the ones the killer intentionally left behind. -Jasper