[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 3/5/03
Time: 7:53:46 PM
Remote Name: 68.74.28.251
Miss Marple,
As always, your points are well taken. I didn’t always comment on some of them because there is nothing more to say. The point you made about Fuhrman never doing anything without a reason is a typical example and I’ve wracked my brain trying to figure out why everybody doesn’t see it as clearly as you do. I guess that’s why I have such a hard time with all the resistance to Fuhrman as a murder suspect. The PATTERN of his outright lies, STRATEGIC omission, deceptive implications, exaggerations and alterations of the record run like a tree root through the soil of the entire case as only the killer’s could.
Fuhrman always has a story to tell but he does not have the imagination to tell it without borrowing heavily from other source (mostly television and the movies). He is very good at taking someone else’s story and shaping it to fit his. He is very good at planting suggestions (blood IN the Bronco, bleeding killer, Bronco parked at “extreme angle,” etc.) that show up in somebody else’s recollections or interpretations of what they saw.
For the life of me I can’t figure out why some people don’t see the pattern. I can’t see why they don’t distinguish between simple errors that all of us make and the “errors” Fuhrman makes CONSISTENTLY at all the right junctures to obscure what he knows. That’s why I’ve pounded so hard on the scale and proportion of the Rockingham layout. Fuhrman is an artist. He KNOWS the importance of getting the proportions right. Yet, he makes a drawing that is deliberately and unnecessarily out of proportion – in all the right places to make the truth seem like a fairytale at worst just another theory at best.
If you assume, purely for the sake of argument, that Fuhrman COULD BE the killer, you have to ask yourself what COULD he have done to hide it and to implicate O.J. at the same time. What you get every time are the things we know he did in addition to a slew of things he could have done because he put himself in a poison to do them.
When you wrote about missing water in Nicole’s bathtub, for instance, you said, “I smell fuhrman.” That didn’t come out of thin air. It came from looking at the patters of his behavior and matching them to the evidence. We couldn’t prove that he did it but when we ran down the list of people that could have done it, whom did we come up with? When we looked at the people who could have made the blood sample switch in the lab what detectives made that made the list. When you discovered the link between the 911 tapes that should have been erased but weren’t, and the people who had a definite link to the office that preserved them, who did you find? You found Mark Fuhrman.
The specific items (omissions and alterations) that you found in Fuhrman’s transcript of the interview is more of the same stuff. If that transcript hadn’t been in Fuhrman’s book, wouldn’t you have “smelled” him, anyway? --Jasper