[ Discussions | TOC | Search | Post | Reply ]
From: Jasper
Date: 10/11/02
Time: 8:34:29 PM
Remote Name: 66.72.162.95
Miss Marple,
That was a staggering post!
I wish that I had read Marcia's book. How do you suggest I get a copy of it?
Apparently Marcia has radically different stories about that visit before she wrote her book and afterward. She had to admit in her book that Fuhrman gave her the tour on the 13th - complete with conversation. In court she wasn't sure and Sherry Lewis succeeded in confusing the witness who had just testified about her visit with respect to the date. This is what she told Judge Ito (Transcripts/April 3, 1995):
"Det. Luper walked me around a little bit, I THINK Roberts did, I THINK Det. Fuhrman did."
That's all she had to say about Roberts and Fuhrman. She may not have been sure then whether Fuhrman gave her the tour but she was adamant about not having the conversation with him that Det. Harper testified to, which included his recollection her talking to Fuhrman at a table in the backyard. Marcia claimed that she conversed with no one at that table. She just gave them orders and left. By the time she got ready to write her book everyone knew that story was bogus.
Why she doesn't mention the blood in the Bronco, however, is a mystery. If she saw it, how could she not have said so? On the other hand, we know that she isn't above lying so if the blood wasn't there why wouldn't she say that she saw it anyway? Any ideas?
It's interesting that she doesn't mention the sweatsuit in her book. When she was a guest on the National Public Radio talk show Fresh Air with Terri Gross to promote the book, she went into considerable detail about it. She claimed that Dennis Fung found the sweatsuit in the laundry room (not in the washing machine or dryer) but left it there because he said that it "obviously" hadn't been worn. Naturally, she said this with the appropriate level of outrage and scorn. She did not explain why she didn't have it photographed and order Fung to bring it in for testing.
The thing with Roberts, the photo and the socks is another revelation. I think your analysis is right on the money. This is a very lawyerly way of approaching the issue. It reminds me of the language Vannatter, Lange, Phillips and Fuhrman used to justify Fuhrman going over the wall and tells me where she got her reputation for "fixing" bad warrants. It's all in what you say and what you don't say after the fact. Now that I see Marcia's connection to Roberts and the socks I begin to suspect that Marcia knew the socks were planted and that she believed Roberts did it.
Check out this excerpt from a July 19 sidebar with Marcia arguing a point about the condition of the socks before and after testing:
"…The socks were collected from the bedroom of the Defendant on June the 13th, 1994. At that time they were found in a crumpled condition on the rug and were IMMEDIATELY PLACED--they were lying together. I meant they were stretched out…"
Sounds like a Freudian slip to me.
She goes on to say that they were placed in a paper bag. But we all know that they were not placed in a paper bag "immediately" after they were found (if Fuhrman and Roberts did "find" them before 10:00). She doesn't say who found them. Why did she stumble at this particular place - and why was she so dead set against calling Roberts as a witness? --Jasper