[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From:
Date: 09 Nov 2004
Time: 13:04:21
From: http://smartfellowspress.com/iagojanuary04/Iago_0404_toc.htm
Date: 26 Apr 2004
Time: 09:12:48
http://smartfellowspress.com/iagojanuary04/Iago_0404_toc.htm
From: Jasper
Date: 4/1/04
Time: 1:49:24 PM
Remote Name: 69.212.60.165
Intra nos,
Let me thank you right here for your excellent questions, outstanding research and insightful analysis.
The hard part of getting anything right in this case is getting accurate information to base it on. There are way too many contradictions and misrepresentations of BASIC information that should be precise like the layout of the crimes scenes and some crucial timelines associated with them. The prosecution and the defense obscured the evidence as often as they clarified it. In many instances they tacitly agreed not to examine crucial evidence closely or present it as accurately as possible. We are therefore left with huge, messy piles of evidence and testimony that can be interpreted different ways and huge gaps in both that could nail down the truth.
Whenever I look at some of the mistakes I made in Iago I get embarrasses. But when I track down why I made them and see how the correct information makes my case even stronger I get pissed. I was duped into accepting appearance of reality – verisimilitudes that didn’t correspond to the facts.
For example, it appears to me that you are right about the flashlight. Its function in Fuhrman’s story of his Rockingham discoveries can only be an “image creation” devise to shift perceptions of time. I missed this time-shift trick but I saw plenty of examples where Fuhrman and his partner Brad Roberts did the same thing.
That’s why questions like the condition of Nicole’s wristwatch drive me up a wall. Things like this shouldn’t be questions. You shouldn’t have to make your best guess from all of the available evidence. There should be a simple statement from an authoritative source about whether the watch was or wasn’t stopped at a given time. The medical examiner might have taken it off without paying attention to it but the watch itself was the best evidence. What happened to it?
You also appear to have reached the same conclusion about Fuhrman’s style as Charlie, Miss Marple and I have. It didn’t surprise me that you could picture Fuhrman whipping out a spyglass in his telling of Rockingham discoveries. More than one in reading Fuhrman’s version of what he did and why he did it I got images of him with a spyglass, a curved pipe, an Inverness overcoat and a dear stalker cap. –Jasper