[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 3/13/03
Time: 1:29:54 AM
Remote Name: 68.73.52.133
Prien,
I warned you that if you answered too quickly you would get it wrong. That’s what you did. You got it wrong.
I don’t care about typos unless somebody makes one in the Subject line that could get in the way of further communication. I was astounded that I didn’t see ANY of yours before my Word program underlined them. When I backtracked WHY I missed them the answer was simple. I read your message for content and that’s what I saw. I missed your typos for the same reason I miss mine when I type directly to the board, make a lot of changes or type too fast. The UNNECESSARY corrections I made in your work hid the IMPORTANT fact that you wrote it in a hurry and didn’t go back to check.
When you see a long message from me all in one paragraph, you know that my browser software took the paragraph codes out. If the message itself is pretty clean you can bet that I labored over it for a long time and I hit the post button before the temptation to hall it back out and worked on it some more overcame me.
In short, an unedited message can tell you more about the message than an edited one can because a careful study of it can tell you not only what the writer said but how he or she really felt at the time. That’s what I hoped you would see. Instead, you proofed your response more carefully (you changed your behavior) and you missed the point entirely.
This is what I expected because I know how the process works. It was a variation on one of the deception tricks you outlined. You didn’t see it because you fell for the first “obvious” answer and immediately stopped looking for a better one. When I was in the Army Reserves, I learned how to “hide” the right answers on tests. 98 people out of a hundred fall for this one, 99 % of the time.
The Bundy and Rockingham crimes scenes are saturated with evidence like that, some of it for the prosecution and some for the defense (a lot if big-conspiracy stuff). ALL of it leads back to Detective Mark Fuhrman and away from Mark Fuhrman the murder suspect. The section of the criminal trial transcripts that you referred to pertaining to Phillips and Spangler (June 15) is a case in point…
Keep in mind the Sgt. Rossi preceded Phillips. On cross, F. Lee Bailey tried to show that state law made Rossi responsible for calling the coroner when he went to the murder scene. Rossi said that he didn’t know about that law and obeyed the law that he did know:
On cross-examination Bailey tried to get Rossi to say that he violated the law by not calling the coroner. Rossi said that it wasn’t his job. It was up to the responding detective. Q [Bailey]: WOULD YOU READ THE SECTION OR THAT PART OF IT WHICH YOU BELIEVE EXEMPTS YOU FROM THAT OBLIGATION? A [Rossi]: "IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER TO NOTIFY THE CORONER OF DEATHS OCCURRING." AND I WAS A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATING SERGEANT AND I TAKE THIS AS INVESTIGATING OFFICER, MEANING THE RESPONDING DETECTIVES.
The investigating officer was Mark Fuhrman. He got there at 2:10 with Phillips. Phillips was not there in the role of detective. He was there as a facilitator. Commander Bushey relieved Phillips and Fuhrman from duty at 2:30 or 2:40. Phillips ANNOUNCED that he was going to call the coroner at 2:50 or 2:55. That’s when Spangler “ordered him not to.” At that point it was up to the RHD investigators to decide when to call the coroner.
This was a running game between the coroner and the LAPD. The coroner demanded to be called pronto, according to the law. The LAPD refused until the detectives were satisfied that the coroner’s people wouldn’t move any important evidence (as though the liver temperature of the bodies wasn’t important evidence).
Q [Marcia Clark on redirect]: NOW, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TO WHAT, 300 HOMICIDE SCENES? A [Rosi]: IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 250 TO 300 IN MY CAREER, YES. Q: AND HAVE YOU BEEN TO OTHER HOMICIDE SCENES IN YOUR CAPACITY AS SERGEANT, WATCH COMMANDER, ON PREVIOUS HOMICIDE CASES? A: YES, I HAVE. Q: AND IN THOSE OTHER HOMICIDE CASES WHERE YOU APPEARED AS A -- IN YOUR CAPACITY AS WATCH COMMANDER, WHAT FUNCTION DID YOU PERFORM? A: THE EXACT SAME FUNCTION THAT I PERFORMED AT THIS HOMICIDE. Q: YOU MEAN IN THOSE OTHER CASES YOU DID NOT NOTIFY THE CORONER? A: NO, MA'AM. Q: YOU DID NOT ATTEMPT TO ASCERTAIN THE IDENTITY OF THE VICTIM? A: NO, I DID NOT. Q: YOU DID NOT ATTEMPT TO CALL FOR THE CRIMINALIST? A: NO. Q: OR PHOTOGRAPHERS? A: NO. Q: OR NOTIFY CORONERS? A: NO. I HAVE DONE THAT, BUT ONLY UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DETECTIVE.
So, where does this put Spangler order to Mark Fuhrman close friend Ron Phillips AFTER Phillips set him up to give the order (“I’m going to call the coroner now”)? Not NOW, you’re not.
Q [Marcia Clark]: SO IF THE CORONER GETS IN THERE, COULD EVIDENCE BE MOVED OR LOST BEFORE IT GETS A CHANCE TO BE DOCUMENTED? A [Phillips]: WELL, IT COULD BE. WE WOULD NEVER LET THE CORONER IN UNTIL WE WERE THROUGH WITH OUR INITIAL CRIME SCENE, UNTIL WE WERE THROUGH WITH OUR CRIME SCENE. Q: FOR THAT REASON. A: FOR THAT EXACT REASON. Q: NOW, WHOSE DUTY IS IT TO NOTIFY THE CORONER TO ARRIVE AT THE SCENE? A: IN A -- Q: IN GENERAL. A: IN GENERAL, AT A HOMICIDE SCENE, IT'S THE HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR WHO IS ASSIGNED TO THAT CRIME SCENE WOULD BE THE ONE THAT NOTIFIES THE CORONER.
This is where the Spangler order came in – after the case had been turned over to RHD.
All of this was predictable because it happened the same way every time. The power to set the tone of the entire investigation belonged to the first lead detective on the murder scene. The structure of Phillips West LA detective squad quarantined that Fuhrman would get that job. In functional terms, in that position and at that time, Mark Fuhrman outranked everyone in the LAPD. –Jasper