[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 5/8/03
Time: 9:12:42 PM
Remote Name: 68.73.56.178
Charlie,
That’s another biggie.
It took me a long time to become a master modeler at Ford. Becoming an expert in any highly skilled area takes years of experience. I don’t know of anyone in my field who became an expert in less than ten years because so much of it comes from running into the same situations again and again, sometimes years apart. Some people claimed to be experts in six or seven years when all they really knew were the basics.
The same thing holds true for homicide detectives.
Fuhrman became a Robbery detective in 1988 (some books say ’87). He didn’t become a Homicide detective until 1991. At the time of the murders he had less than three years on the job. At the time of the murders he had investigated a total of TEN cases. By his own admission, at least two of them were not solved. Who knows how many he didn’t solve?
Vannatter and Lange, on the other hand, had investigated hundreds of cases apiece. They saw more indications of O.J.’s guilt than they could shake a stick at within the first few minutes of their arrival. Their experience told them IMMEDIATELY that O.J. did it and they never looked at another suspect. They even subtitled their book, “The Inside Story Of The Police Investigation of O.J. Simpson.”
Fuhrman knew how homicide detectives think when they are confronted with overwhelming evidence of a “rage killing.” This was basic stuff, a no-brainer. Where the real expertise comes in is in cases where the evidence does not point directly to the killer right on the scene. Fuhrman was part of that scene, supplying the critical piece of information that pointed to O.J…. He had been to O.J.’s house on a domestic dispute call.
You mentioned where Jean caught Fuhrman in a big lie. Who on this board hasn’t? How many did you catch? Yet, he goes on “showing off his skills” with stories that don’t match his testimony but DO match some of the evidence that no one can now dispute.
Fuhrman’s stories don’t just change. They get better and better, “fixing” all of the proven mistakes that he made on the witness stand. Is it dangerous for him? Theoretically, yes, just as it is theoretically dangerous to go skydiving. That’s that makes it so thrilling. –Jasper