[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 2/2/03
Time: 12:58:44 AM
Remote Name: 66.72.161.126
Kari,
I hope that your distress is short-lived. I haven’t been felling too great myself for the past few weeks. Maybe your psychic powers are kicking in again. If so, I can assure you that I am doing just fine now and I hope that you will catch some of that good stuff.
Whatever you can recall from your correspondence with Lauren will be greatly appreciated. I tried to contact her but her old e-mail address is apparently no longer valid. My note came back as undeliverable.
Are you sure she said that SHE left something at Nicole’s, or was she referring to the fact that the words to her poem were left there. There is no way that she could have drawn the larkspur flower on the paper unless she used the same inks that Fuhrman used for his Goldman cutaways and copied his style. There is also no way that the real, freshly cut larkspur on the tile below the letter was put there at the same time as the withered delphiniums behind the paper. The moisture stains on the edges of the paper and in the folds (like the blood in the cracks of the tiles) also suggest that the paper was left folded in a damp environment. However, the flower picture on the page was drawn evenly across the vertical crease, which could have been done only when the paper was flat.
Lauren might have left the poem with someone at the property but there are too many discontinuities in the photo to make it likely that she put it where it was photographed. The lines of the poem are too evenly spaced and the characters too large and too easy to read for any purpose other than to be photographed. Yet, the names on the bottom eat up the lower margin as though they were put in as an afterthought. The purple delphiniums and the pink larkspurs are both varieties of delphiniums. Yet, the purple bunch is wilted and the single flower is fresh – like the one drawn on the paper. The composition of the photo is excellent. Yet, there is that unidentified knee in the frame. Why is it there? Why is that shot outside of the gate almost an overlay of the killing ground inside? Why is the doll an exact mirror image of Nicole’s body inside of the gate?
The bottom line is that the photo was meticulously thought out at least a day or two in advance. It somehow ended up in Fuhrman’s book with no acknowledgment of who authored the poem, who wrote it on that paper, who left the flowers (or when) or who’s knee that is. These things would not be mysteries unless Fuhrman wanted them to be.
Looks like a mind game to me.
Although Fuhrman says NOTHING about that photo, he suggests by context that he or his wife authored the poem and put their children’s names at the bottom. He doesn’t give his children’s names in the book and the knee allows him the flexibility to claim that it was his knee or to deny it. Symbols, suggestions, flexible interpretations of “evidence.” These are some of Fuhrman’s defining characteristics.
I’m not sure what it all means. Maybe that was the point. As I said, a mind game. --Jasper