[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 7/5/04
Time: 11:07:16 PM
Remote Name: 69.212.37.198
Rose,
The “still under investigation” thing is absurd. Fuhrman said so himself in his Murder in Greenwich movie about the Greenwich police chief telling him that that the Martha Moxley case was still “open.” That’s the same thing as “under investigation.” All it means is that a suspect has not been found guilty in a criminal court. It applies when the people in charge want it to apply and it doesn’t when they don’t.
Brad Roberts had no trouble talking about it when Fuhrman was promoting his Murder in Brentwood book on Primetime Live in ’97. I used what he said in that interview about the bloody fingerprint to make a key movie connection between Murder in Greenwich and A Study in Terror in The Smoking Gun 3.
If Robert’s CAN’T talk about the case, it has to be because HE is under investigation or his superiors saw what you, Pat and I did about Fuhrman’s fingerprint note and fear the implications. There was no bloody fingerprint on the gate unless Fuhrman or Roberts put it there. If they wanted someone else to see it and photograph it, they had the official responsibility (protect the evidence) and authority to get it done. If Fuhrman could direct Rokahr to photograph the coins a few feet away from the back gate (Rokahr testified that he did), he could certainly have directed him to take a photograph of the fingerprint. Rokahr said nothing about a bloody fingerprint. Marcia didn’t want him to say anything about it. If Geraldo wanted the truth, he would have tried to get Rokahr on the show.
Rose, you are very good at solving logic problems but you don’t put enough trust in the answers. I got beaten up pretty badly on my assertions that I wasn’t guessing about some things I put in Iago and the original Smoking Gun because my critics couldn’t tell the difference between speculation and deduction. When you don’t have all the essential facts you speculate. When you have them you deduce. You can go wrong only if you have the essential facts wrong.
The essential facts of the bloody fingerprint story are:
Fuhrman put it in his notes. He did not protect the evidence IF it existed. He did not tell the detectives taking over the case that it was there. He did not make it an issue until it was beyond the reach of investigation and HE was beyond the reach of cross-examination in a court of law.
Look at what he DID call to other people’s attention:
The coins and the blood drop near the Bundy back gate (Rokahr) The bloody Bundy glove (Rokahr) The “arm” in Kato’s room that led to the bloody Rockingham glove (Phillips) The spec of blood on the Bronco (Everybody) Kato’s thumps (Vannatter) The bloody Rockingham glove (Everybody)
What does all this blood evidence tell you about the bloody fingerprint on the gate? --Jasper