[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 3/13/03
Time: 2:32:33 AM
Remote Name: 68.73.52.133
Prien,
I can’t believe that you deliberately took that problem-solving passage out of context or that your missed the point, which you proceeded to articulate with a Fuhrman-neutral twist. I made that very point about FUHRMAN in Iago. My head is still spinning…
This is FUHRMAN’S problem-solving approach (and mine, which is why I recognized it). As far as I have been able to determine only one person in every two thousand or so actually uses it. That’s the key to making it a powerful tool of deception. Most people go for the BIG evidence and either play down or ignore the “little stuff” unless it helps them support the big stuff. Fuhrman had to understand that approach to articulate HIS approach as well as he did. You had to miss it to say what you did about Fuhrman AND the other detectives. In this crucial respect Fuhrman stands alone.
Yes, the other detectives knew that the evidence was badly askew when they arrived at Bundy. Who was there before them? What did they see that wasn’t out of the ordinary FOR THEM. Fudging the evidence a “little bit” here and a “little bit” there to win a conviction was SOP.
Phillips was Fuhrman’s close friend. Roberts was his partner. Nolan was a rookie and wasn’t around very long. Vannatter and Lange were the only other detectives at Bundy that counted. They didn’t care if the blood flows weren’t right as long as there were cut bodies and plenty of blood. They didn’t care that the coins were rearranged between photos or that two of them came up missing as long as they saw coins. They didn’t care that the envelope had been moved or that the other evidence below Ron’s boot had been carefully posed for a photo. They cared only that they saw the evidence.
When Lange and Vannatter saw enough evidence to convince them that O.J. was the killer they didn’t need orders to pursue him as their only murder suspect. They simply proceeded as usual. –Jasper