[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 3/19/03
Time: 10:16:51 PM
Remote Name: 68.73.56.19
Prien,
The operative phrase here is “in the context of what we’ve been discussing.” I included that phrase because I said that you were misinterpreting what I wrote and what the trial transcripts revealed because you were taking things out of context. You said that it was beyond Fuhrman’s capabilities to do certain things. That was the context. I made a case for why it would have been easy him and then I did it to you.
Your reply to my challenge – not to Rose’s post – was, “Okay, you cleaned up my typos, and hid from the world my terrible typing skills.” THAT was the distraction that Rose identified in her post. The sense in which I used the word “edit” is clear; I made changes.
To delete something is to remove it. I didn’t remove anything. You said it yourself, I selected portions to of your post to quote. If you take the time to look closely at what Rose said and what I said about it, you will not find the word “deleted” anywhere.
Rose went back to the original document that I was responding to when I made my challenge and looked at the context. Any answer she would have given about a change of behavior in your response to the challenge would have been correct.
Guessing my motive was an integral part of the challenge. You had a world of them to choose from as long as you didn’t choose the decoy. You chose the decoy. You have consistently attributed implicit traits of character and motive to me that were less than honorable. As soon as you say, “Fuhrman did it,” that’s what you can expect. It happens nine times out of ten. Everything you did was, therefore, predictable.
I was as careful as I could be not to change the meaning of anything you wrote. I called it a translation because you didn’t write it in the form I did. I could have made a mistake. When you “clean up” anything that isn’t yours you run the risk of unintentionally taking out something that should be there or adding something that shouldn’t be. I’m glad I got it right. The exercise would have been invalid if I hadn’t.
Remember, this is all in the context of Fuhrman’s “interrogation text” and Vannatter and Lange’s “transcript.” Both documents show sings of deviation from the words that were spoken and the way they were spoken. One of them is definitely bogus and that one is Fuhrman’s. The other one looks stilted in the place where Fuhrman later claimed that his partner saw blood. When you take the SPOKEN errors out of what was actually said you end up with an artificial picture of what the speakers frame of mind might have been.
This is where I wanted to go about ten posts back with Fuhrman’s role in the investigation and the word games that he, Marcia and Phillips used to hide it. The false steps made by the prosecutor and her witnesses in the trial transcripts tell you things that cleaned up transcripts wouldn’t tell you. You obviously went back to Phillips’ testimony and Fuhrman’s. What did Phillips missteps and misdirection tell you about Fuhrman’s partner? What did Marcia’s missteps and misdirection tell you about Fuhrman? –Jasper