OJ FRAMED - The Case Against Mark Fuhrman

[Alex]

From: http://smartfellowspress.com/Iago/chap2.htm

Chapter 2: GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER

"WE COULD HAVE KILLED PEOPLE AND GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT."
—Mark Fuhrman, former LAPD detective, best-selling author

One undeniable fact in the 1994 killing at 875 South
Bundy is that somebody got away with murder. Most people
think it was O.J. Simpson. If all you know about the case
is what you heard from reporters and expert commentators,
you are probably one of them. I know I was.

Driving before dawn to work at a Ford design studio near
Greenfield Village, I heard the jolting news on my car
radio, "Nicole Simpson, estranged wife of actor/color
commentator O.J. Simpson, was found stabbed to death..."
As I stopped for the light at the intersection of the
I-39 service drive and Rotunda, I flashed on the mental
image I’d had of the ’89 incident involving O.J. and the
woman who was now deceased. I had been stopped at the
same light in ’89, en route to the same studio when that
picture was first brought to mind by a radio news
reporter describing Nicole as a "white female, later
identified as the wife of O.J. Simpson." This time, with
the dead body of the woman and a younger man laying
beside her, I saw Paul Robeson in my mind’s eye in place
of the other black football hero and actor. I envisioned
him on stage with a bloody dagger in his hand and a dead
white woman with blond hair at his feet. I kept thinking,
Othello!

Who didn’t?

Naturally, everyone I worked with pretended not to have
an opinion on the case—you know, innocent until proven
guilty and all that. It was much too soon to talk about
Othello with no proof that O.J. had killed his ex. But
what do you do with images alive in the popular culture
that spring to mind with a key word or phrase? How do you
get around the way the human brain is wired to "see"
complete mosaics instantaneously with the stimulus of a
few familiar tiles? Isn’t that what happened to
Shakespeare’s Moorish general? Wasn’t it false bits of
information from a trusted source that lead him to
inflict the ultimate punishment for wrongdoing on someone
who had done no wrong? Wasn’t the person really
responsible for the woman’s death someone else? Nobody
seems to remember that part of the tale. In America, sex
and color still count too much. They are the "tiles" that
color everything we think about men and women.

We have become quite sophisticated in the language we use
to disguise our true thoughts and feelings about race,
but the essential messages usually come in loud and
clear. For instance, everyone knows what is meant by the
"candle power" of the jury that found O.J. "Not guilty"
and the one that found him "Responsible." These and other
racist code words complete the picture formerly drawn
with one of Mark Fuhrman’s favorite words. If you’re an
OJI, you’ve probably gotten a taste of "the black
experience" whatever color you are.

That attitude is no different at its core now than it was
in the mid-’60s. That was when a modeling supervisor in
Ford Motor Company’s Styling Center named Vic Clark
greeted me with a warm smile, a hearty handshake and the
words, "Welcome aboard! I knew a ol’ boy named Jasper
back in Indiana. Now, that was one nigger that didn’t
mind workin’."

People like Vic still run things in too many places, but
we can’t always tell who they are and what pictures
they’re pumping into our brain to help us process our
thoughts. Who, for instance, generated those stories
about O.J. before he was arrested, stories that had me
and everyone I knew saying, he did it? Right, Mark
Fuhrman. Remember the blood-drops leading up the driveway
(they actually went the other way), plus the bloody knife
and the bloody ski mask police found in his bedroom
closet (pure BS)? What about the gloves in his size (that
didn’t fit), the dark clothes in the washer (Arnelle’s
underwear) and the knit cap?

I could see him wearing the cap. Hell, I had seen him
wearing it. Millions of people shared that vision from
his role in The Naked Gun. That’s why the cap never made
sense to me. It convinced me that O.J. had to have been
out of his mind to wear it.

According to the media, there was no doubt of his guilt
since he could have been innocent only if he was framed
by cops. I asked myself, what cop would do that to a
famous multi-millionaire who could summon the best legal
resources anywhere to his aid? Who in the LAPD could hate
O.J. that much, be that close to the evidence and feel
that secure? Who could be so intelligent and so arrogant
as to think he could convince the DA, misdirect the
defense, and fool the whole damn world, all at the same
time? Who could be so knowledgeable, so ambitious and so
sure of the American mass media as to think he could use
them to serve his personal ends the way Joe McCarthy and
Ho Chi Minh did to serve theirs? Who would think that he
could falsely implicate a man for murder, a man whose
name is a household word, without putting a national
spotlight on himself? What kind of man would want to put
himself in that position? There couldn’t be anybody like
that on the LAPD, could there? ....Nah!

O.J. did it, I thought. He must have, but....

Okay, so he flew into a jealous rage after seeing his ex
with a younger man. Why did he take the time to dig up
that cap before assaulting them? How could he have lost
both gloves? What, specifically, set him off? For a black
man of his status who had been busted and quietly
forgiven in the national press for beating his white
wife, it must have been BIG! He had to know that the
police would think he did it. And why would a black,
internationally famous, ex-football star and actor use a
knife? ....Why would he use a knife? Doesn’t he know
about Paul Robeson’s best known role, and the picture of
him with a dagger in his hand. Hasn’t he ever heard of
Shakespeare’s Othello?

I was sure that all of these questions would be answered
when the prosecution presented its case. In that I like
to think of myself as a fair-minded person the way
everyone else does, I told myself that I would reserve
final judgment until I heard all of the evidence. Still,
I couldn’t ignore what I heard until I’d heard it all.
Marcia Clark’s opening was so impressive that it took a
special effort to listen to the defense. What could they
say to refute the evidence? So much of it. So scientific.
So macroscopically and microscopically particular to
Orenthal James Simpson. How could he not be guilty? How
could one begin a rational process of evaluation with an
honest presumption of innocence? It couldn’t be done.

It was not, however, the defense that started my
turnaround from OJG to OJU (undecided). It was Marcia
Clark, Christopher Darden, and Brian Kelberg. The
prosecutors failed to answer any of the questions about
the motive and the weapon required to complete the logic
of the physical evidence. If the condition of the bodies
told them it was a rage killing, where was the evidence
of rage in O.J. that night, or the mind-altering
substance or event that would produce it? Not only did
the prosecution serve up incidents that could have meant
anything you wanted them to, they made it clear that they
never—not for one instant—considered anyone but O.J. as a
suspect. Where could they possibly go from there?

I ran into the same thing when I joined the Court TV
Discussion Group and tangled with some very bright and
single-minded OJG’s. They were the ones who turned me
into an OJI.

The essence of proof is that it eliminates all but one
possibility. If you consider only one possibility you can
come to only one conclusion. There is no rational process
of evaluation which can follow from that and no rational
grounds upon which anyone can challenge it. All you can
do is add more evidence or take some away. The conclusion
has to stay the same, even when the coroner’s testimony
points to a suspect with a military background—someone
who knew how and when to use both ends of a certain kind
of knife as different kinds of weapons—someone who could
procure such a weapon without calling attention to
himself—someone who enjoyed drawing blood and watching
his victims die.

In my effort to fill the gaps left by the prosecution and
the defense, both of whom made the same error of early
exclusion, I ran into a wall that couldn’t be scaled,
bypassed or ignored. It’s an attitude about the case
characterized on both sides by the automatic rejection of
any suggestion that the killer may have been someone in
particular other than O.J. Simpson. It took me a long
time to see it myself, which I never would have if I
hadn’t worked for a Klansman at Ford named Vic Clark, and
the killer hadn’t used the butt of his knife to
incapacitate one of his victims. None of us wanted to
accuse someone of murder before a worldwide audience
without good cause. All of which was lucky for the man
who became the number one best-selling author in the
country after the verdict against Simpson in the civil
trial was announced. That man, who, in one way or another
is connected to every scrap of evidence against O.J as a
wife-beater and a killer, is Mark Fuhrman.

Anyone with as much as a passing interest in the case
that made Fuhrman a hero to many who once despised him,
has seen all of the evidence and heard all of the
arguments against Simpson. Everything he said in his
defense has been angrily rejected, stubbornly attacked,
aggressively investigated and exhaustively explored—in
that order. His every gesture that could be shown as
evidence of guilt has been shown as evidence of guilt. We
know every incriminating fact there is about the five
blood-drops identified as his at the bloody murder scene
and the blood he admits was his at his home. We know
about his size 12 Bruno Maglis, his ill-timed cut finger,
and the rare gloves and carpet fibers. We’ve seen the
photographs and videotapes, we’ve heard the audiotapes,
and we’ve heard from numerous expert witnesses. We have
everything we need to conclude that O.J. Simpson
butchered two people. That is, we have everything except
a solid motive, a credible weapon and a clear
opportunity. What’s missing is a line of reasoning that
excludes any other possibility.

Where is the evidence that excludes Mark Fuhrman? I’ve
heard that he had an alibi which was confirmed by the
LAPD, the FBI and F. Lee Bailey’s private detectives.
I’ve heard Bailey’s top investigator, Pat McKenna, say
that he was sure Fuhrman planted evidence but that he did
not think the killer did. Bailey himself said that he
"knew," Fuhrman didn’t do it. However, no one I know of
has documented the evidence to support that conclusion.
According to Fuhrman’s own testimony, only his wife can
confirm his alibi, and no one asked her to do it. The
law, of course, cannot compel her. However, I fear for
her life if she or her husband should ever want a
divorce.

Planting ideas was every bit as important in the O.J.
Simpson case as planting physical objects. "Spin doctor"
Fuhrman, like Shakespeare’s spin doctor, Iago, was
unquestionably on top of that, from the "ski mask"
supposedly found in O.J.’s bedroom closet (item 17 in his
notes) to the "haphazardly" parked Bronco. Evidence or
ideas that were planted or shaped in some way by Fuhrman
and his partner Brad Roberts influenced everyone closely
involved in the case. What you get from most "informed
sources" as a result, is what you can expect when you
begin with your conclusion and work backward through the
"relevant" facts.

That kind of reasoning may be helpful in exploring
possibilities. But when you have to jettison troublesome
little facts that don’t add up to your conclusion and
force-fit conjecture that does, it’s time to consider a
different approach. It’s time to take the evidence as it
exists, for and against the accused, and see what other
scenario can be constructed. Then you have to throw rocks
at it, and see how it holds up.

In the absence of facts, some speculation will have to
suffice, but it should be dependent on facts or subject
to verification. For example, I could not find
verification of Fuhrman’s shoe size for years, despite
trying everything I know to get it. Based on his height,
I assumed that his feet might fit into a pair of size 12
Bruno Maglis. Either they could or they couldn’t. There
was no reason for a question like that to have remained a
mystery forever. But I sure didn’t have the answer until
I bought a copy of Fuhrman’s book and figured it out from
a photo of him in Nicole’s front yard with a size 10
envelope by his foot.

Based on the fact that Fuhrman was a police officer, I
assumed that he had the ability to monitor cellular phone
conversations with a police scanner. That, too, can be
determined beyond any doubt. Based on the fact that he
was an ex-Marine, I assumed that he had training in the
use of both ends of a certain kind of knife as different
kinds of weapons. Based on the fact that he enjoyed blood
sports, I assumed that he used a knife with that kind of
handle to skin and gut his prey. A Marine Corps survival
knife and a good hunting knife both have the same kind of
handle, so I know that he must have been comfortable with
the feel of both of them. Ditto a German Stiletto.

The fact that he said he enjoyed killing people and was
one complaint short of making the Christopher
Commission’s list of the LAPD’s most violent cops, tells
me something else. It tells me that he probably had the
first-hand knowledge he said he did of how it feels to
take a human life. His police record shows that, in front
of civilian witnesses, he pumped five bullets into an ATM
robbery suspect, planted a knife by his hand and
screamed, "Die, nigger! Why won’t you die!" He did this
in front of two other cops who weren’t necessarily his
buddies. What happened when the only witnesses were his
buddies, or when there were none? In the words of Mark
Fuhrman, "dead men tell no tales."

Whoever killed Ron Goldman did it after a short fight.
Think of a round in boxing. Believe me, two minutes is a
long time in that kind of physical contest. The pattern
of BLOODSTAINS on Ron’s shirt and pants suggest that he
was on his feet for much longer than that after his
initial wounds were inflicted. That is consistent with a
short fight in which he was taunted and tortured long
after he could put up a fight. Mark Fuhrman’s taped
characterization of his attitude toward fighting,
killing, torture, and Jews, was as close to a confession
as was ever heard in the case. It was what the autopsy
report said about the killer.

Fuhrman told Laura Hart McKinny that he killed people in
Vietnam, but he told F. Lee Bailey that he never got off
the ship. He told one psychiatrist that he had been a
machine-gunner. He told Bailey that he had been a
military policeman. Because Judge Ito sealed his military
records, there is no telling what he really did. All we
have is his word on tape that he enjoyed killing people
and watching them suffer—and complaints from a few
survivors in California that agreed with him.

Until I began the final chapters of this book, I thought
the timeline was open to debate. I was wrong. There is a
systematic way of eliminating the speculation. Until I
discovered that process, I was willing to allow that the
defense’s timeline witness might have been mistaken.
Still, the prosecution’s timeline rested on the testimony
of a man whose powers of observation and recall were
demonstrably unreliable. It assumed that Allan Park’s
hindsight was 20/20 when he didn’t recall seeing the
Bronco before he saw O.J., and irrelevant when he didn’t
recall hearing the Bronco return. The fact that he
recalled seeing another car that wasn’t there would tend
to support O.J.’s alibi. The fact that he never said he
saw the Bronco , even when he was leaving for LAX, would
also tend to support O.J.’s alibi.

Paradoxically, a Bronco that never moved during the
killing works against the most plausible theory that O.J.
was framed. The only way a perfect frame could work,
would be if O.J. didn’t have a solid alibi and the people
setting him up knew it. By the same token, the setup
didn’t have to be perfect if the killer was sure the
prosecutors would argue imperfect evidence as though it
was perfect. It had to be a cop who knew people like Gil
Garcetti, Marcia Clark, and Christopher Darden in 1994 as
well as we have come to know them since. It had to be
someone who knew how to reel in Marcia Clark from a sea
of deputy prosecutors in advance of the murders, with
ironclad assurance that he would get her. Warrant
problems + spouse abuse allegations = Marcia Clark, up
front, on the scene and eager to help the cops.

In California, the rage killing of one person would not
normally carry the penalty of death. The murder of two
people in a particularly brutal way is supposed to, on
grounds of "special circumstances." In other words the
double homicide could have been an attempted triple
homicide, with the media and the law as weapons selected
by the killer to torture and kill his third victim, O.J.
Simpson.

The only way all of the evidence in the case makes sense
is if you see it as a made-for-television drama staged to
make the accused and his chief accuser look like
something they weren’t. You have to see it as a grisly
publicity stunt by which Mark Fuhrman sought to call
attention to himself and launch a new career as a
best-selling author and media personality.

For two years, my theory had gaps of its own, left by an
absolute refusal of anybody with the resources to
investigate the possible involvement of Fuhrman in the
murders, to do so. For OJG’s the MFG idea was too silly
to contemplate. For OJI’s it was too risky.

Here is what I mean by, risky:

1). O.J.’s Alibi—If the only way that a premeditated plot
to frame O.J. could have worked for Fuhrman is if the
Bronco had been stolen and returned, O.J.’s alibi goes
with it.

2). Phillips’ Call—Fuhrman said he wasn’t on call that
night. If he had no way of knowing he’d be called to the
crime scene by his boss, Ron Phillips, he couldn’t have
planned the killing or carried out a successful frame.

3). Fuhrman’s Alibi—If an investigation proved that
Fuhrman was a speaker at the Police Protective League
picnic he was supposed to have been attending at the time
of the killing, his alibi would prove that he didn’t do
it.

4). Other Loose Ends—A real investigation of Fuhrman as a
murder suspect could prove that the shoe didn’t fit worth
a damn, either literally or figuratively.

The only reason that the evidence against O.J. ever
looked impressive is because he was the only suspect.
When there was no more proof that he committed the
murders than there was that Fuhrman did, there did seem
to be evidence that pointed to both men and some that
pointed only to Fuhrman. Moreover, the quality of the
evidence against Fuhrman has always been on an entirely
different level. The facts and circumstances that
incriminate him could not have been altered, anticipated,
manipulated or misrepresented by another party to frame
him. Not so with the evidence against Simpson.

Much of that evidence, in explicit or implicit form, can
be characterized as look-alike—duplicates or close enough
approximations to be identified as O.J.’s by description
or type. The Swiss Army knife, the German Stiletto, the
expensive Italian shoes and the sports utility vehicle
that Robert Heidstra saw on Dorothy all fall in that
category. Even some hair and fiber evidence was made up
of types of hair and fibers traceable to someone other
than Simpson if anyone had cared to do it. And the blood?
If the possibility of tampering by Mark Fuhrman or Brad
Roberts did not exist, neither would much doubt of O.J.’s
guilt. Only it does exist. In fact, with a little inside
help here, a purloined key there, and the right spin on
the wrong questions, it would have been easy for either
of them to do it.

The balance of evidence falls entirely in favor of
Simpson and decidedly against Fuhrman:

Item: The shoeprints left by the killer implicate O.J.,
but could have been worn by someone else for that
purpose. They could have been worn by a man with motive,
means, opportunity and size 12 Bruno Magli shoes. They
could have been worn by a man with contacts in Nicole’s
inner circle who knew how much the Bruno Maglis resembled
shoes O.J. wore to his daughter’s dance recital. If you
don’t know it now, you will learn that Mark Fuhrman fits
that description in every respect.

Item: Strong evidence suggests that two knives were used
by one man to cause the different kinds of bruises on the
victims’ skulls and the bloodshed that made the
shoeprints possible. All of which points to an
ambidextrous military history buff (combined sword and
dagger fighting style of 16th century Italy—home of the
Stiletto, with the long blade held in the right hand and
the short blade in the left). That’s Fuhrman, not
Simpson.

Item: The long-bladed knife with the heavy handle and
hammer-like butt used to incapacitate Nicole was not the
one O.J. purchased at Ross Cutlery, but one just like it.
The way it was used points to a military man. The way the
short knife was used to torture and kill Ron Goldman,
points to a martial artist who enjoyed making people
suffer. That’s Mark Fuhrman—who searched O.J.’s house and
said he found evidence of a missing Swiss Army knife
after another detective found the Stiletto unused.

Item: The German Stiletto could have left wounds
consistent with a Swiss Army knife and vice versa.
Therefore, had either knife been found by Fuhrman or
Roberts in their search of O.J.’s home, nothing could
have stopped them from pulling a switch. "The" murder
weapon could have been found with Ron’s, Nicole’s and
OJ’s blood on it in an alley one block south and two or
three blocks east of Bundy, with no way for O.J. to prove
it was a duplicate of the missing one. Imagine what
Jeffrey Toobin would have said about the candlepower of
anyone who believed a claim like that.

Item: I was so focused on the hammer-like quality of the
weapon Nicole was hit with, I forgot about the thin blade
that cut her until I saw it again during Dianne Sawyer’s
interview with Fuhrman after the civil trial. While
Stilettos may be advertised as hunting knives, I kept
thinking that "the" murder weapon was a conventional
hunting knife. I’ve seen lots of hunting knives and more
Stilettos than I like to admit. I’ve seen only one like
Sawyer had on the table during her Prime Time Live
interview with Fuhrman. That’s when I remembered that I
had seen it in O.J.’s criminal trial. It not only fits
Fuhrman better as a weapon of choice, it’s one that O.J.
could not have procured in secret. Fuhrman could have.
What would a homicide detective like Fuhrman have to gain
by procuring a knife identical to the one O.J. bought at
Ross Cutlery, then searching his house for a murder
weapon after O.J.’s ex was found with her throat cut?
...Give me a break.

Item: The Rockingham glove points both ways. That is, it
would if had fit O.J.’s hand. Several witnesses commented
on how surprisingly large O.J.’s hands were. No one ever
said that about Fuhrman’s hands.

Item: Assume that O.J. dropped the glove in a bumbling
rush to sneak into his house at 10:45 P.M. Does the
"trail of blood," that Roberts pointed out at Rockingham,
and the wet, sticky condition of the glove with no debris
on it when Fuhrman reported finding it at 6:06 the next
morning support that assumption?

Now assume that Roberts planted it.

Where was Roberts during and after Fuhrman’s talk with
Kato and before Fuhrman found the glove? Why did he make
no reports of his activities? Why did Phillips stumble
over Roberts’ name on the witness stand and imply that
his partner was Tom Nolan instead of Fuhrman? What was he
doing with the blood on O.J.’s driveway before Dennis
Fung intervened? How did he end up driving to Bundy
alone? Why is there no record of when he came to
Rockingham or how he got there? Why didn’t we know until
both trials were over that Roberts and Fuhrman were both
involved with "finding" the socks on O.J.’s rug? Why
didn’t Robert Heidstra get a chance to hear his voice?

Item: Neither the bumbling rush theory nor the plant
theory make much sense unless you assume that the killer
or killers planted both gloves. Simpson’s only reason to
plant them would have been to prove they didn’t fit his
unusually large hands—which opens the question of what he
could gain by leaving the cap and the shoeprints. The
plant theory makes perfect sense if Fuhrman was the
killer who gave one to Roberts to plant where he knew
he’d find it. He had a good excuse (three bangs on Kato’s
wall) to look there. Fuhrman knew about the Rockingham
glove before anyone else who wasn’t directly involved in
the killings. He is the only man who can be tied directly
to that look-alike glove which held the look-alike knife
[Image] that killed Ron Lyle Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
Item: At Rockingham, Fuhrman followed a lead to the
right-hand glove that he should not have known about
because he wasn’t supposed to be on the case, let alone
at Simpson’s estate without a warrant. His link to that
glove and the undisturbed ground around it was his idea.
He put himself there and negotiated some thorny high
hurtles to do it. The idea that the Bronco was parked
suspiciously "crooked" was Fuhrman’s idea. The "bleeding
killer" theory was his, as well as the "people in need of
assistance" inside the Rockingham walls—the shaky grounds
for entering the estate that guaranteed Marcia Clark’s
role in the case.

Everything that points to Fuhrman as a killer out to
frame O.J. was exclusively within his control or the
control of his friends. That is not true with any of the
evidence against O.J., which is the essence of my problem
with the case against O.J., and the core of my case
against Fuhrman.

At every turn where the most improbable set of
circumstances would have to exist to clear O.J. and
implicate Fuhrman that’s what we find. That goes for the
long list of rare characteristics the killer and his
associates would have to have. The same goes for all of
the missing, duplicate, altered, misrepresented or
switched items of evidence that would have to exist at
all the right times and places with access by all the
right people. It would require misdirection and a
knowledgeable use of the power of suggestion.

Perhaps you’ve noticed that a stage magician uses all of
these things to take advantage of how human perception
works—the tricks of the trade to make a convincing
illusion.

That is not simply a tall order to fill; it is so
unlikely by the laws of random probability as to approach
the infinite. O.J. Simpson was framed by Mark Fuhrman for
a murder committed by Mark Fuhrman with the assistance of
his partner Brad Roberts, his old friend Ron Shipp,
Nicole’s "best friend" Faye Resnick, and her sister,
Denise Brown. The only member of that quintet I have any
doubt about is Denise—but only the tiniest bit—and only
because it’s hard for me to come to terms with sororicide
for money.

From the outset of the case when O.J. didn’t appear to
have an airtight alibi, something wasn’t quite right. He
didn’t have a compelling motive either, not for a popular
public figure who wasn’t under the influence of an
enraging precipitating event or a mind-altering drug.
Furthermore, if he had any reason to believe that a
critical inspection of blood and trace evidence would
hurt him, why did he hire the world’s leading forensic
authority, Dr. Henry Lee, to do his own investigation?

Dr. Lee, who is normally sought out by prosecutors, did
not trust the integrity of any of the blood and fiber
evidence (remember the cockroaches in the spaghetti?).
The reasons he gave were never convincingly rebutted. His
offer of his services to the prosecution in their "search
for truth" was declined. Furthermore, his ability to do
his job properly was rudely, deliberately and
consistently sabotaged by the LAPD and the DA’s office.
Had a civilian done as much to a prosecution forensic
expert, he would have been tried, convicted and thrown in
prison for obstruction of justice.

The idea that O.J. is guilty has corollaries, which, of
course, are like in-laws. When you take one member of the
family as your own, you have to take them all. Here is a
short list:

1). On the day he got a "Dear John" voice-mail from Paula
Barbiari, he secretly procured, used and disposed of an
unusual knife identical to the one he was known to have
bought at Ross Cutlery—or a large Swiss Army knife that
no one can show he ever owned.

2). He kept, unused in his home, the twin of the German
Stiletto used in the murders—or the large Swiss Amy knife
came out of a small knickknack box.

3). He put on a blue knit cap exactly like the one he
wore in the movie, The Naked Gun, to help disguise
himself.

4). He put on a sweatsuit of which there is no record and
no trace of his ever having in his home, took off his
Reeboks and sweatsocks and put on his dress socks and
casual dress shoes.

5). He drove his white Bronco to an area where it and his
distinctive gait would tell the neighbors who he was,
regardless of what he wore on or over his head if he were
seen.

6). He parked the Bronco on Rockingham, ran through a
neighbor’s yard next to Kato Kaelin’s guest house while
dripping blood on his driveway, jumped a fence, and
accidentally banged into Kato’s wall three times.

7). He strolled back to the front of the house with the
shoes somewhere other than on his feet and the sweatsuit
with blue/black fibers still on his body, unconcerned
that the chauffeur saw him coming from where he dropped
the bloody glove.

8). He ran upstairs, cleaned himself up, and dispose of
the knife, shoes and sweatsuit and all of its
fibers—except for the ones he left on the socks—and was
ready to go to LAX in less than 10 minutes.

Odd things do happen. Unlikely events are not the same as
impossible events, as I am constantly reminded by the
mind-bending coincidence of being in the same place five
years apart when I heard the different news stories about
O.J. and Nicole. Therefore, I can accept without much
question three or four of those improbable corollaries to
the proposition that O.J. did it. But even if some of
them didn’t cancel out others, how could I accept all
eight? And that’s the short list. The long list has
several times as many improbable corollaries.

That brings us back to Mark Fuhrman with his violent
hatred of black men and mixed couples. What on Earth was
he doing on the police force, let alone on the case of a
famous black man suspected of killing a white woman?
Please don’t say O.J. wasn’t a suspect. Unless the killer
is obviously someone else, the husband is always the
number one suspect.

Rosa Lopez testified that she heard two men talking
between the houses the night before, men whose voices she
didn’t know. The next day two men came by. One stayed in
the car. The other one identified himself as Detective
Mark Fuhrman. Both men spoke to her. Immediately after
Fuhrman determined that she could not identify the voices
she heard as his and Roberts’, the two men left.

What bothers me about that visit more than the questions
that weren’t asked, was the potential for foul play. If
Mrs. Lopez had disappeared that morning, never to be seen
again, there were no witnesses and no reports to say that
either of them had ever been there.

Fuhrman denied, at first, that he talked to her about
anything. When the logic of an ace detective not
questioning a potential witness to O.J.’s goings and
comings became untenable, he said he didn’t realize who
she was because the woman he talked to spoke perfect
English. No other LAPD officer interviewed her about what
she saw or heard. The LAPD sent a detective to talk only
to Mrs. Lopez’s employer, Mrs. Salinger, who wasn’t even
in the country on the 12th of June.

Not until Robert Shapiro’s investigator, Bill Pavelic,
erroneously reported that Mrs. Lopez saw the Bronco at
the time Marcia Clark erroneously reported that the
killing began, did Ms. Clark show any interest in Mrs.
Lopez. Then she angrily accused the defense of outrageous
misconduct in failing to tell her what she told them. The
conduct of the district attorney’s office in failing to
talk to Ms. Lopez, except for the purpose of protecting
Mark Fuhrman and attacking her, has never been an issue.

Fuhrman, of all the officers on the force, had the only
opportunity to "discover" the most dramatic evidence
against Simpson. The testimony of Rosa Lopez supports the
idea that he might have been there before he was called
"at home" by Phillips. In his own words, "I’m the key
witness in the biggest case of the century. And if I go
down, they lose the case...The glove is everything.
Without the glove, bye, bye." He didn’t mention the
splintered wood by the Bronco or the bloody fingerprint
on the gate until much later. He never did mention the
partial print on a lens of Judith Brown’s glasses or the
fact that the lens disappeared.

For a long time I believed that the shoes may have been
O.J.’s at one time despite his denials. The trouble was,
IF—and that was a big IF—O.J. had owned those "ugly ass"
Bruno Maglis, how could he have owned up to it when the
media were unanimous in saying ownership proved guilt? I
wondered what would have happened if the people bringing
us the news hadn’t been telling the world ahead of time
what the evidence had to mean.

That is now a moot question because I now know the
photographs were faked.

But what of the cap that had to be his or one of his
kids’, and the gloves Nicole bought "for O.J.?" What of
the timing of the cut finger? What of Nicole saying that
O.J. was going to kill her? What could these things mean
if not what they appear to mean?

If someone had set out to frame O.J., he would have known
all of these things and anticipated how they would look
with O.J. accused of murdering Nicole. He would have to
have known the criminal justice system and the kind of
evidence most likely to be given weight by the DA. He
would have to have been willing to bet his life that the
LAPD and the DA would zealously pursue the obvious clues
left for them to pursue (District Attorney Gil Garcetti:
"...truly the giant mountain of evidence that we have
produced in court over these many weeks points to only
one person—and we know who that person is."). It had to
have been somebody who trusted other officers, and
officers of the court, to back him "without having to say
a word." It had to have been someone secretly affiliated
with Faye Resnick, Denise Brown, an spouse-abuse expert,
forgery expert, and friend of Denise and Faye—Ron Shipp.
Did such a person exist? Yes. Mark Fuhrman.

A frame-up, by definition, makes an innocent person look
guilty. What kind of a frame would it have been if the
evidence didn’t shout, "O.J. did it? Since a murder that
a man didn’t commit could never be proven, the evidence
against him would have to be circumstantial. The
specificity of the evidence would have to be extreme. The
amount would have to be overwhelming. It wouldn’t be
enough for the killer to wear size 12 Reeboks that
thousands of men could have worn. They had to be rare
shoes traceable to O.J. Simpson, whether he ever wore
them or not, as long as they were "missing" when police
went looking for them. It couldn’t have been a pair of
gloves that anyone could have owned, they had to be rare
gloves traceable to O.J. Simpson whether he ever wore
them or not. For DNA processing in the LAPD lab—where
anything could happen with the theft of one key—a
strangling wouldn’t do, especially with the knowledge
that O.J. was given Swiss Army knives and had recently
purchased a German Stiletto. Only a knifing would insure
the proper picture in the frame and lots of blood on the
scene to insure impressions of "missing" rare shoes.

These are "little things" that only a
brighter-than-average man who pays close attention to
details would have considered important, a man exactly
like Mark Fuhrman.

If O.J. was the victim of a frame-up, the people behind
it would have required several things: They would have
required intelligence, as in smarts, and intelligence, as
in access to biographical and tactical information and
the ability to gather information on the fly. They would
have required specialized training in silent kills,
special knowledge of the victims, and specialized
knowledge in homicide investigations. They would have
required a thorough understanding of the Los Angeles
County District Attorney’s Office, and how to get the
prosecutor they wanted to handle the case up front.

They would have required access to the incriminating
items of clothing; close proximity to Rockingham and
Bundy; access to both properties, transportation to them
and between them in a vehicle that could be mistaken for
a white Bronco. They would also have required patience
and a simple, long-range plan that could be modified as
needed over many months of waiting, if necessary, for
unmanageable elements of a successful attack to fall into
place. The plan would have to include one or more people
who could be called on at any time for the appearance of
an alibi but the alibi would have to be vulnerable to a
critical inspection.

Enough of these things applied to Mark Fuhrman to have
justified an objective investigation of him as a murder
suspect in June of ’93. He could have learned everything
he needed to know about O.J. and Nicole through police
records, tabloids, gossip shows, mutual acquaintances
like Ron Shipp, Faye Resnick, Denise Brown, or the
personal relationship he boasted of having with Nicole
two years before her death. Although the shoes did not
have to be Bruno Maglis, they probably were. Nicole bough
Bruno Magli brand shoes for herself at Bloomingdale’s in
New York. Fay Resnick went shopping with her in New York.
Therefore, Faye Resnick could have furnished the shoes
and gloves as well as the cap.

If Fuhrman was as good at planting evidence as he said he
was, getting the evidence would have been no trick at
all.

As far as smarts are concerned, Mark Fuhrman had enough
to get dozens of people who should have known better to
vouch for him after his violent, racist attitudes, on
record since 1982, were disclosed. He got the Police
Protective League (the LAPD union) to go to bat for him,
and millions of others to believe in him and to attack
anyone who didn’t before the McKinny tapes exposed him
for the violent racist he was from 1985 to 1995. He
showed that he could plan, organize and carry out
extremely complex tasks. In the eyes of most Americans,
he "proved" on the witness stand that he was a good cop
falsely accused of racism by an unscrupulous defense
team. For most people, even if he had been a racist at
one time in the distant past, that had nothing to do with
the evidence against O.J. Simpson. Mark Fuhrman persuaded
two thirds of a continent that anyone who said his racism
did matter was too stupid or too blinded by his or her
own prejudice to see the truth.

Fuhrman’s book, Murder in Brentwood, should have jogged
some memories about the origin of that idea. The book
begins, in earnest, with a phone call from Phillips and
moves swiftly to the murder scene where he gives no hint
of having known Nicole intimately. He then shows how he
found the evidence and made the deductions that proved
O.J.’s guilt. You’d have to be pretty dense not to see
how right he is on the facts that say O.J. is the killer.
They’re all there, all those items large and small that
had to be there if O.J. did it—all those items missing
from the prosecution’s case that would have resulted in a
guilty verdict had other officers only read his notes and
done their jobs accordingly. It must have been extremely
frustrating to him that they didn’t.

It must have driven him batty that the evidence he worked
so hard to establish as the end time of the killing was
read by Marcia Clark as the beginning. Unless you assume
that her line of reasoning was purely arbitrary, you have
to wonder what rational basis she may have had for her
decision. Do that, and you run smack into an eyewitness
who saw a man in a dark sweatsuit getting out of a
light-colored sports utility vehicle between 875 S. Bundy
and the San Diego Freeway.

The witness is why she latched onto Kato Kaelin’s guess
that O.J. was wearing a sweatsuit and why she wouldn’t
let go of that idea no matter what. It’s why she accepted
the 10:15-10:20 time at which Pablo Fenjves said he heard
the dog’s "plaintive wail." She did believe, at first,
that the killing was over by then and all the other
witness had gotten the time wrong. When it finally dawned
on her that the other witness couldn’t have been as far
off as she thought, she split the difference and changed
her end time to the start time. That’s the only
explanation I can muster that fits all the facts. More
about those facts later.

Back to the other kind of intelligence for a moment....

Some of the most damaging evidence against O.J. came from
police records, photographs and tapes of him and Nicole
on the telephone. The estranged couple had regular
conversations on cell phones where numerous aspects of
their public and private lives were discussed with
various people. As Newt Gingrich can testify, cordless
telephone conversations could be monitored on police
scanners. That is not to say the homes of Nicole, O.J.
and Ron weren’t bugged, which they may have been. It is
only to say that sophisticated monitoring equipment
wasn’t always necessary.

O.J. and Nicole made and received all of their calls that
night on cordless phones. Thus, all of the requirements
for a successful ambush of Nicole and Ron were met.

After learning what Dr. Lee had to say about the blood
evidence, my first thought was that O.J.’s cut finger may
have been a trigger that either set the plan in motion or
carried it to its conclusion. After a careful study of
the blood-drops identified as O.J.’s at Bundy and
Rockingham, I saw it was a complicating factor that
nearly derailed it.

One method of dealing with the last-minute problem would
have been to reverse, in the minds of the authorities and
the press, the order in which the blood-drops at each
location appeared, and the direction of travel they
showed at Rockingham. LAPD detectives were trained to
recognize direction by the shape of the blood-drops. With
small drops, an observer would have had to get close to
the source. When two detectives reported that the
Rockingham blood trail was going up the driveway, no one
questioned it. Why would they if the question had already
been settled and it was what they expected to see? Once
they were told what they were looking at, that’s what
they saw.

If someone had noticed the true direction of the
blood-drops before Roberts could obscure it, all they had
to do was say, "Really? I could have sworn they were
going the other way." Simple mistake. No big thing.
Fuhrman could then argue that O.J. must have realized he
was bleeding before he got home and cleverly planted his
own blood-drops at the last minute to suggest he was
going out instead of coming in.

All that would have been needed was an alibi. Any story
Fuhrman could give his wife to justify his lie to Marcia
Clark that he was at home, would have taken care of that.

One simple, flexible plan would have proceeded in three
stages: The first would be to lay groundwork for the
assassination of O.J.’s public image when the news of the
murders broke. The second stage would be to arrange
various scenarios around times when O.J. was scheduled to
be in town, to procure or simulate incriminating personal
items, and to choose a murder weapon and style of killing
that could be linked to him. The final stage would be to
keep an eye and ear on the three principals with the
appropriate surveillance equipment, to keep in touch by
cellular phone, to refine the plan as obstacles and
opportunities present themselves, and go when the
necessary conditions were met.

There is more than enough evidence to say that’s more or
less what happened.

So, what are we to do with O.J.’s apparent lie to police
about his cut finger—the one he told police he cut a
second time "by accident" in the same place while he was
in Chicago? ...The same thing we are to make of innocent
Desdemona’s lie to Othello when he questioned her about a
handkerchief he’d given her which he knew she didn’t
have. It was an act which falls so near the center of
normal human behavior that, under the circumstance, it
would have been remarkable if he’d done anything else.

Remember that story we learned as children about George
Washington and the cherry tree? Why, as children, did we
think that was so special and why, as adults, are we so
inclined to consider it apocryphal? Because the natural
thing would have been to lie to avoid a spanking. Saint
Peter, the first saint of the Christian church and the
most trusted apostle of Jesus Christ, denied knowing his
rabbi, friend and mentor THREE TIMES when it looked as if
it would be his ass if he told the truth. If OJ lied
about anything that would appear to incriminate him, is
it reasonable for us to expect him to do what a saint
couldn’t?

That’s one reason we have the 5th Amendment; to protect
us from our survival instinct. It’s a big reason why this
case is so important, and why conservatives and
libertarians should be as outraged as anyone by the
"liberal" media and the government’s treatment of O.J.

It looks to me as though O.J. cut himself on purpose in
Chicago before he realized that someone may already have
discovered his blood on his property. Only an innocent
man too frightened and confused to think straight would
do a dumb thing like that. But who could have tipped him
about the blood? Not Lange, Vannatter or Phillips, unless
one or more of them lied. That leaves Roberts and
you-know-who. A friendly off-hand whisper to Arnelle or
"accidental" loud talk with his partner would have done
the trick. On the other had, what is our rational basis
for thinking that Phillips, Vannatter and Lange wouldn’t
lie about O.J.?

Fuhrman’s known lies, in contrast to Simpson’s, are
consistent with a man who thought he could get away with
murder. He must have known that Kathleen Bell heard him
say he wished he could gather up "all the niggers in the
world and burn them." He must have known that she knew
how he said it. He must have known that he told her what
he would do when he saw a nigger driving with a white
woman. He couldn’t have forgotten that he told Natalie
Singer, "The only good nigger is a dead nigger." How
could he have forgotten what he did to Roderick Hodge ("I
told you I’d get you, nigger!")? And how is one to
interpret his boasting to Laura McKinny about his joy in
torturing people, his skill in planting evidence and his
team of officers who covered each other so well that they
could have, in Fuhrman’s words, "killed somebody and
gotten away with it..."? Could he have been referring to
his old partner, Brad Roberts, who made no report of what
he did at Bundy or Rockingham, and whose name appears
nowhere on anyone’s official report? Wouldn’t you like to
know more about that?

Fuhrman hated blacks, Jews, strong women in general, and
in particular, white women who had sex with black men.
His lies on tape were smart ones, meant to be heard and
used in a movie. They convey the message he wanted to get
across without getting him arrested. These were the
actions of a man who saw himself as a tough, heroic
figure and wanted the world to see him that way, too,
with only enough risk of getting caught to make it
exciting.

We’re all familiar with the kind of man who does great
harm to people because they have the wrong-colored skin,
the wrong religion, or the wrong sexual inclinations—the
kind of man who acts out his hatreds. We know that some
people will do anything to get attention or be the center
of attention. We’ve seen the phenomenon call Munchausen
by Proxy, in which a firefighter start a fire or a nurse
puts a patient on the brink of death to be seen as a hero
rushing to the rescue. We know about greed-driven
miscreants who will commit any act, including murder, for
money.

The double homicide at 875 S. Bundy could not have done
more for Mark Fuhrman’s ego and his new career as a
writer and professional celebrity than if they’d been
planed with those goals in mind. It guaranteed that
Geraldo, Oprah and Larry King would want him on their
guest list, which guaranteed that his book would become a
national best-seller. It gave him a unique chance to be
everything he demonstrated in the McKinny tapes that he
wanted to be.

Whether the infamous murders in Brentwood were more a
case of psycho-racist wish fulfillment, Munchausen by
Proxy, a scheme to become rich and famous, nobody had a
better motive or complex of motives for committing them
than Mark Fuhrman. And nobody has been better protected
from criminal investigation by the judges and the
prosecutors of the County of Los Angeles and the State of
California, not to mention the FBI, ABC, NBC, CBS and
CNN.

[Alan Earle]

Alex wrote in message <7l9o3e$m6f$1...@news.casema.net>...

<snip>

I suppose that had Lee Harvey Oswald been afroid, you'd be calling him a
"victim of racism" too.

[me]

Am I the only one (among those who see Simpson's guilt) who thought the
whole idea was ridiculous at first?

[robert seigler]

m...@here.now (me) wrote:

Re: OJ FRAMED - The Case Against Mark Fuhrman

Who didn't?]

comment:

NEWSWEEK had an editorial in an issue shortly after the slow speed
chase, in which the writer referred to the simpson case as being 'like
OTHELLO without an iago in sight.' bob costas, on NBC, meanwhile talked
about his previous high opinion of simpson's character, saying the whole
story 'was like a shakespearean tragedy.' in fact, anyone familiar with
the shakespeare play should have seen this odd similarity. othello was
a black man accepted in his society as a hero. it won him a white
'trophy wife,' but he was prone to jealousy. he eventually kills his
wife and attempts to kill the young man he believe to be her lover. the
resemblance to the simpson saga is obvious.

bob

'We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize
the rights of others.´
Will Rogers

[me]

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry over this post. As I began
reading it, I looked forward to a reasoned and well-stated "pro-J"
case, one which would provide an interesting exercise in logic and one
which, who knows, might actually make me believe that it is possible
that Simpson isn't a murderer.

But things sprial quickly down-hill from the Shakespeare references.
I'm guessing that the author is hoping to get some kind of credibility
by proxy from his frequent references to "Othello", as if we might
think no one who quotes Shakespeare so readily could be a complete
idiot. And I'm sure he is not an idiot. That is perhaps the problem.
Like so many pro-J apologists, he's a bit too smart for himself,
refusing to believe that in this case the simple explanation is true.

The first sign of trouble is the reference to some brainless racist
yahoo from the author's past as some kind of short-hand for "all whites
are racist, some just hide it better than others". As usual, I'm hard
pressed not to be offended by this. Do most white people hear a hateful
voice in their head at times which screams 'the n word' when a black
person cuts them off in traffic? Likely so. Is it true that many white
employers are more likely to be a little 'more comfortable' with a
white applicant than a black one? Certainly. But the idea that the
majority of whites, or even a large minority, is plotting day by day
against black people is insulting and racist at its base.

Putting that aside, though, the most hateful idea the writer puts
forward, with no evidence (not even what he passes off as evidence),
is that Denise Brown conspired in her sister's murder. This seems to
be symptomatic of some virulent hatred projected toward Denise Brown
by many of those (including several of the jurors) who cling to the
illusion of Simpson's innocence (some interesting speculation could be
done on why she is so hated by that crowd). There is, of course, not a
single shred of evidence to back up this outrage. This very assertion
marks the author as a zealot (as well as a coward and a liar) and sheds
suspicion on all his claims. This slander is made in addition toward a
whole cast of characters (Fuhrman's partner, Brad Roberts, Ron Shipp,
and Faye Resnick), again, without any supporting evidence. The logic
seems to be that it must be so in order to support the rest of his
bizarre speculation.

As I write this, I wonder why I am bothering to dignify this half-
baked fiction with rebuttal. I guess I just got so caught up with the
prospect of seeing a well reasoned argument for Simpson, which this
appeared to be at first glance. But then it falls prey to a pitfall so
many pro-J theorists stumble into: start with OJ being innocent and
construct a scenario that supports that conclusion.

As theories go, however, this one is funnier than most. We start with
Mark Fuhrman, a loser cop with a knack for shooting himself in the
foot; clearly one of those guys with a 112 IQ who thinks that makes him
smart. He is transformed (because the theory requires it) into a cold,
brilliant, deadly super killer, a cross between Rambo and the genius
hit man from "3 Days of the Condor", a man whose vast knowledge and
power allows him to move police and prosecutors around as pawns in
his game. Of course, if he really did have this power, he saved it up
quite a while. No promotions and fancy offices for this genius! He
sweated it out, biding his time in a dead end job, knowing that someday
he'd have the chance to frame a famous black athlete turned pitch man
and his fortune would be made! His genius is so far-reaching that he
knows each subliminal association we will make in the case (Simpson in
the familiar knit cap) and uses them to hypnotize us en masse!

But, like so many entertaining stories, this one asks a little much in
the way of suspension of disbelief. The easiest question is how Fuhrman
knew OJ wouldn't be maybe having a beer with Kato while the murders
were going down... or talking on the phone... or how he knew OJ
wouldn't answer the limo driver's first ring at the gate... basically,
how he knew that OJ wouldn't have an alibi. And then of course, the
police would have to look for another killer, one who might have wished
to frame OJ, who bought shoes and gloves like OJ's. But our brilliant
killer would have just waved his arms and made all that go away.

[robert seigler]

me writes:

<snip>

But, like so many entertaining stories, this one asks a little much in
the way of suspension of disbelief. The easiest question is how Fuhrman
knew OJ wouldn't be maybe having a beer with Kato while the murders were
going down... or talking on the phone... or how he knew OJ wouldn't
answer the limo driver's first ring at the gate... basically, how he
knew that OJ wouldn't have an alibi. And then of course, the police
would have to look for another killer, one who might have wished to
frame OJ, who bought shoes and gloves like OJ's. But our brilliant
killer would have just waved his arms and made all that go away.

reply:

the objections to this theory are well founded, but fail to phrase
themselves as questions: how could fuhrman know simpson lacked an alibi?
why did the police find no evidence of another killer? ask, and you
might find answers.

garrison's book nominates fuhrman as the 'real killer', neil j. schulman
has a similar book pointing to ron shipp, and john junot has a web page
linking kato kaelin to the crime. what if they are all partly right, but
refuse to see how an unlikely combination of these three suspects can
answer the objections cited above?

fuhrman could only begin to know about simpson's alibi status if he had
an inside connection to monitor simpson's activities. ron shipp knew
simpson well, and had known fuhrman for 9 years when the murders
occurred. shipp also knew kato kaelin, the ONLY person who was actually
at rockingham to monitor simpson that night. shipp provides the
connection between fuhrman and kaelin.

as for the failure of the police to find evidence of another killer, all
we can be sure of is their failure TO PRODUCE SUCH EVIDENCE. once
fuhrman is named as a possible suspect, the motive of the police
switches from allegedly framing simpson TO COVERING UP FOR MARK FUHRMAN.
there was no motive for framing, but every reason in the world for them
to hide a plot by an LAPD detective to commit murder for profit.

the elements of proving a crime are MOTIVE, MEANS and OPPORTUNITY. for
fuhrman, shipp and kaelin, all three elements exist.

fuhrman and kaelin both aspired to media careers, and the circumstance
of the simpson case made them national celebrities overnight. shipp had
a deep hatred of simpson based on what he saw as being a 'race traitor',
and he too had a lame acting career to bolster. the three shared
motives.

kaelin lived with nicole for a year and with simpson for a little over 5
months. he had the means to gather information and items for physical
evidence to frame simpson. he knew exactly what simpson's plans were
that night, and had the means to manipulate the situation.

fuhrman had the means of manipulating the discovery of evidence, and may
have had the training and will to commit these knife murders.

shipp was trained specifically in 'domestic violence' when on the LAPD,
and had the means to know how to fabricate 'motivational' evidence.

and what of opportunity?

kaelin has an undocumented telephone alibi. fuhrman was alone somewhere
on the highway when the murders took place. shipp was never even asked
to prove his whereabouts.

and why can't this be the basis of a solution? because fuhrman is a
racist, and shipp is black? or does 'racism' have a limit?

[Alex]

robert seigler heeft geschreven in bericht <14525-37...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>...
me writes:

<snip>

>But, like so many entertaining stories, this one asks a little much in
>the way of suspension of disbelief.

Hmm... Maybe. There are a lot of aspects to the theory that OJ Simpson
is guilty that _also_ ask for a suspension of disbelief (see below).

>The easiest question is how Fuhrman
>knew OJ wouldn't be maybe having a beer with Kato while the murders were
>going down

He didn't care. (And I'm playing devil's advocate here.) Just like he didn't care
that the gloves didnt' fit. Ever notice the extremely tight timeline or the
way that if the timeline works, it is so tight while it doesn't have OJ do so
much as break a sweat.

He's supposed to be in a brooding/fuming mood (according to Denise) while
videotapes show him giving his mother in law a peck on the cheek.

>... or talking on the phone... or how he knew OJ wouldn't
>answer the limo driver's first ring at the gate...

Who cares, the limo driver might be mistaken, he might be high, take your
pick. Ever wonder how if OJ's finger was supposed to have bled all over the place,
yet noone noticed a bandage on it during his flight to Chicago? That's the fastest
healing injury of record.

>basically, how he
>knew that OJ wouldn't have an alibi. And then of course, the police
>would have to look for another killer, one who might have wished to
>frame OJ, who bought shoes and gloves like OJ's. But our brilliant killer

Not brilliant, just knowledgable and gutsy...
(Just look at the things that have been waved aside already, like OJ's
cut/not cut finger, lack of motive, his packing a knit cap and a stiletto,
but not the gun he had. Who would do that, if they planned on killing anyone -
a gun leaves a lot less evidence; on the other hand, a knit cap points to
premeditation, but of what?)

>would have just waved his arms and made all that go away.
>reply:
>
>the objections to this theory are well founded, but fail to phrase
>themselves as questions: how could fuhrman know simpson lacked an alibi?

What makes you suppose he would have cared?
OJ Simpson is _the husband_, after all, Fuhrman already intervened in a
previous dispute (5 years earlier) and with a little blood here and there - case
closed.
Besides, who would doubt _anything_ if only Simpson's blood is found at the
crime scene?

>why did the police find no evidence of another killer?

Didn't they? The shoeprint was supposed to fit OJ, but if it also fits Fuhrman...

>ask, and you
>might find answers.

>
>garrison's book nominates fuhrman as the 'real killer', neil j. schulman
>has a similar book pointing to ron shipp, and john junot has a web page
>linking kato kaelin to the crime.

So, suspects all around (anyone say: reasonable doubt?).

What I find appealing about the Fuhrman theory, is that

a) he is supposed to have been some kind of marine in Vietnam, while
OJ dodged the draft.
Some people have said that OJ "must have" picked up his knife fighting
skills doing a movie of the week. On the other hand, Fuhrman was trained
by the navy/marines? Take your pick as to who you would have take out 2 people
with what are classical, not to say textbook sentry killing skills (I defer
to the book "Knife Fighting, Knife Throwing" by the late Michael D. Echanis,
a Vietnam vet, and Seal/UDT instructor - the technique he describes is one
performed from behind the victim, whereby a first inverted slash is made with
the regular part of the blade, severing the jugular vein, from which a second
insertion with the knife tip into the throat follows, with which the victim's throat
is ripped out. This can't be done with a stiletto, by the way (or a swiss army knife).
but only with a broad bladed, (partially) double edged knife like a hunting knife
or a K-bar. Does that spell Simpson the actor or Fuhrman, the ex-marine?

b)
Ron Goldman wasn't just killed, but tortured. To me, that spells hatred, not
simply rage or anger.
If OJ was prone to flying off the handle if encountering his (ex-) wife with a
Don Juan type, then you would expect him to start pummeling the heck out
of him (or kick down a door, for instance), not torture the guy.
On the other hand, we have Fuhrman, the anti-semite and neo-nazi. Fuhrman,
the established psychopath (Kathleen Willey, et al).
Now, how would he react if he saw one of his pure Aryan women (well, kinda sortof -
a bit like Fuhrman himself, really) defiled by a Jew?

Would he pummel the heck out of him, or would he torture him for all he could,
as he confessed of wanting to do, over and over?

c)
By some great miracle of chance, not only did Fuhrman intervene in OJ's previous
domestic dispute AND knew Nicole well enough to comment upon her new boobjob,
he was actually babysitting a maffia type as well at the time, along with Vanatter.
Now let's say that this maffia type (or someone "connected" to him, ho, ho) would want to
"send a message"" to OJ Simpson (who knows, maybe he had some business dealings
with these guys through the businesses he ran), who else was better placed than
Mark Fuhrman - he could take money from them, _he basically put himself in charge of the
investigation_, he had access to the evidence, etc.
He led the team of detectives to Simpson's home. He jumped over the wall. That's one
heck of a dedication to duty. He then "found" the glove, etc. (Is anyone wondering how
someone could "lose" 2 gloves - one at a crimescene and one in his backyard?)

Who else had access to the blood vile in the police evidence locker AND could get
back to the crime scene without raising suspicion and plant it on a hosed down
crime scene _three weeks later_. That kind of
surpasses improbability of second-guessing Simpson's alibi on the night of the crime,
doesn't it?

So, now Fuhrman retires to some kind of mansion in Idaho? There seems to
be a lot of money floating around that hasn't been accounted for - including with
Vannatter and Faye Resnick.

However, none of this makes any difference. The truth is, there's reasonable
doubt all over the place.
Lack of a motive. Lack of investigation of alternative possibilities. Fuhrman's
past history. For that matter, Faye Resnick's unsavory history (and maybe
it is Faye Resnick's past as a drug dealer/user that leads back to the mafia guy;
Let's say, Faye Resnick has drug debts she can't pay back, she camps out at
Bundy's the mafia guy's bosses want OJ has to pay back her losses, and they
send him a message through their good old corrupt buddy, Mark Fuhrman. Fuhrman
kills Nicole and Ron, comes into a bundle of money and retires happily ever after to Idaho).

Take your pick,

Cheers :-) ,

Alex

[Alex]

robert seigler heeft geschreven in bericht <14525-37...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>...
me writes:

<snip>

>But, like so many entertaining stories, this one asks a little much in
>the way of suspension of disbelief.

Hmm... Maybe. There are a lot of aspects to the theory that OJ Simpson
is guilty that _also_ ask for a suspension of disbelief (see below).

>The easiest question is how Fuhrman
>knew OJ wouldn't be maybe having a beer with Kato while the murders were
>going down

He didn't care. (And I'm playing devil's advocate here.) Just like he didn't care
that the gloves didnt' fit. Ever notice the extremely tight timeline or the
way that if the timeline works, it is so tight while it doesn't have OJ do so

much as break a sweat on the first murder in his life..

He's supposed to be in a brooding/fuming mood (according to Denise) while
videotapes show him giving his mother in law a peck on the cheek.

>... or talking on the phone... or how he knew OJ wouldn't
>answer the limo driver's first ring at the gate...

Who cares, the limo driver might be mistaken, he might be high, take your
pick. Ever wonder how if OJ's finger was supposed to have bled all over the place,
yet noone noticed a bandage on it during his flight to Chicago? That's the fastest

healing injury of record. It didn't even re-open during all the autograph signings.

>basically, how he
>knew that OJ wouldn't have an alibi. And then of course, the police
>would have to look for another killer, one who might have wished to
>frame OJ, who bought shoes and gloves like OJ's. But our brilliant killer

Not brilliant, just knowledgable (of both police procedure and OJ) and gutsy...

(Just look at the things that have been waved aside already, like OJ's
cut/not cut finger, lack of motive, his packing a knit cap and a stiletto,
but not the gun he had. Who would do that, if they planned on killing anyone -

a gun leaves a lot less evidence and is a lot less risky because a knife necessitates
getting up close; on the other hand, a knit cap points to premeditation, but of what?)

>would have just waved his arms and made all that go away.
>reply:
>
>the objections to this theory are well founded, but fail to phrase
>themselves as questions: how could fuhrman know simpson lacked an alibi?

What makes you suppose he would have cared?
OJ Simpson is _the husband_, after all, Fuhrman already intervened in a
previous dispute (5 years earlier) and with a little blood here and there - case
closed.
Besides, who would doubt _anything_ if only Simpson's blood is found at the
crime scene?

(Fuhrman could have switched the blood taken there in the police locker or what
it's called, not at the crime scene).

Bundy's, the mafia guy's bosses want OJ has to pay back her losses, and they

[Bob A.]

Why would Fuhrman, Shipp, Kato, etc. risk life in the slammer by
slaughtering two people? To frame a third-rate TV announcer? Even if you
throw out the glove, & the DNA evidence:

1. OJ fled from the
2. OJ virtually confessed in his "suicide" note.
3. OJ changed his story many times.
4. The night his wife was brutally murdered there is blood found on his
walkway and he has a cut on his hand.
5. OJ lied about the shoes.

Even with any DNA the average guy would have been convicted.

If you are going to propose this conspiracy theory then you could also
consider the good tooth fairy did it.

I

> reply:
>
> the objections to this theory are well founded, but fail to phrase
> themselves as questions: how could fuhrman know simpson lacked an
alibi?

> why did the police find no evidence of another killer? ask, and you

> might find answers.
>
> garrison's book nominates fuhrman as the 'real killer', neil j.
schulman
> has a similar book pointing to ron shipp, and john junot has a web
page

> the rights of others.=B4
> Will Rogers
>
>

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

[me]

Yes! The lack of evidence against anyone else almost PROVES it was a
conspiracy! It's so obvious!

You all have failed, however to name the REAL killer... someone known
for his daliances with the ladies... someone with the power to frame our
hero... someone who had killed before, his best friend for one... none
other than the President of the United States, Bill Clinton!

[me]

Alex wrote:
> >... or talking on the phone... or how he knew OJ wouldn't
> >answer the limo driver's first ring at the gate...
> Who cares, the limo driver might be mistaken, he might be high, take your
> pick. Ever wonder how if OJ's finger was supposed to have bled all over the place,

Once again, misdirection. The question is how the brilliant Fuhrman (as
he is characterized in this theory, just read the writing) knows that OJ
won't answer the limo call at 10:15 and provide himself with an airtight
alibi. Then all his months of plotting would be down the drain and the
hunt for the killer would be on.

As for the cut finger, among other things, OJ later admits that he DID
cut his finger before leaving for Chicago, showing that people don't
always notice everything. What he can't remember though is just how he
got that deep 3/4 inch gash on his knuckle.

[General495]

robert seigler wrote:

>fuhrman and kaelin both aspired to media careers, and the circumstance
>of the simpson case made them national celebrities overnight. shipp had
>a deep hatred of simpson based on what he saw as being a 'race traitor',
>and he too had a lame acting career to bolster. the three shared
>motives.

Ron Shipp was or is married to a white woman. He had
his kids with him on one of the TV talk shows where
he was interviewed. They are almost white. Ron himself
is more white than black. He had a crush on Nicole, which
is why he testified against Simpson.

[robert seigler]

Bob A.writes:

Re: OJ FRAMED - The Case Against Mark Fuhrman

Why would Fuhrman, Shipp, Kato, etc. risk life in the slammer by

slaughtering two people? To frame a third-rate TV announcer?

[comment: one of the first questions to ask in looking for the solution
to a crime is: who profits? in this case, there is no need for
speculation. the simpson saga generated millions of dollars for various
media outlets, and provided fuhrman, shipp and kaelin with national
celebrity status. the real question is: did the three speculate on how
the media would hype the affair, OR WAS SOME OUTLET OF THE MEDIA BEHIND
THE PLOT FROM THE OUTSET? there are two possibilities. Even if you

throw out the glove, & the DNA evidence:

1. OJ fled from the

[comment: assuming the rest of this unfinished line, the 'flight as
evidence of guilt' argument is weak to begin with. simpson DELAYED his
arrest in what became the 'slow speed chase', but never made a proven
attempt to flee the jurisdiction.]

2. OJ virtually confessed in his "suicide" note.

[comment: but he DID NOT confess at all in this note, where one might
expect him to. this 'virtual' quality is very much in the mind of the
beholder.]

3. OJ changed his story many times.

[comment: this fictional 'change of story' comes from weighing simpson
real testimony against statements made by his lawyers, which are not
testimonial. the differences are non-consequential and inadmissible.]

4. The night his wife was brutally murdered there is blood found on his
walkway and he has a cut on his hand.

[comment: the blood is as plantable as the glove, and kaelin had an
opportunity to wound simpson's hand in a moment of distraction AFTER the
murders.]

5. OJ lied about the shoes.

[comment: he was at least mistaken about the shoes. i fact, much of his
wardrobe was supplied for public appearances, and he had 40 pairs of
nikes alone. the famous murder shoes could easily have been worn for one
time only, retired ti his back closet, then taken for planting without
being missed AND without him recognizing them later when a facsimile was
presented in court.]

Even with any DNA the average guy would have been convicted.

[comment: the framing of 'an average guy' would not have generated the
motive to justify itself. 'the average guy' would not have the legal
means to combat spurious 'scientific' evidence.] If you are going to

propose this conspiracy theory then you could also consider the good
tooth fairy did it.
I

[comment: if the tooth fairy monitored simpson's activities like kaelin,
found the illogical evidence like fuhrman, and fabricated a story like
shipp, i would certainly regard it as a suspect. IMO, the ONLY
alternative explanation for the evidence requires exactly the control
possible to this trio, PLUS the desire of the police to suppress the
real story of fuhrman's complicity. as such, it represents a solution
which deserves BUT HAS NOT BEEN AFFORDED serious examination.]

bob

[General495]

"Alex" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>robert seigler heeft geschreven in bericht
<14525-37...@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>...
>me writes:

><snip>

<more snips>

>Didn't they? The shoeprint was supposed to fit OJ, but if it also fits
Fuhrman...

Please quote from the trial transcripts about Fuhrman's shoe size.
I think you will find that Johnnie Cochran mentioned that Fuhrman wears
a size 12 but he put it in the form of an unanswered question. There was
no testimony about that at all.

<snipped>

>What I find appealing about the Fuhrman theory, is that

>a) he is supposed to have been some kind of marine in Vietnam,

He said he was in Vietnam on the Laura Hart McKinney tapes,
but that was when he was playing the part of the main character
in the screenplay, a woman Vietnam veteran, so that Laura could
get an idea of how a Vietnam vet might talk. In real life, Fuhrman
was in the Marines, but never made it to Vietnam.

<major snipping>

>On the other hand, we have Fuhrman, the anti-semite and neo-nazi.

Who was that guy who said that if you repeat a lie often enough,
people will believe it?

>Fuhrman,
>the established psychopath (Kathleen Willey, et al).

Kathleen Willey was one of the women that Clinton groped. It was
Kathleen Bell who tried to attract Fuhrman, but she rejected him - in front
of two witnesses who were willing to testify, but they were never called.

>Now, how would he react if he saw one of his pure Aryan women (well, kinda
sortof -
>a bit like Fuhrman himself, really) defiled by a Jew?

So why did he hire a Jew to help him get another book deal? Maybe he
thought she was too old to defile him and he was safe.

<snipped>

>c)
>By some great miracle of chance, not only did Fuhrman intervene in OJ's
previous
>domestic dispute AND knew Nicole well enough to comment upon her new boobjob,

Can someone please help me out with the name of the guy who said if you repeat
something often enought, people will believe it?

<snipped>

>He led the team of detectives to Simpson's home.

He went along when he was asked. He wasn't the driver of the car.

>He jumped over the wall. That's one
>heck of a dedication to duty.

Do you recall Vannatter saying on the witness stand that Fuhrman was
the only one of the detectives that was in good enough shape to scale the wall?
He also mentioned that Fuhrman was the most "junior" of the detectives, so
it was his job to obey orders when he was told to climb over a wall.

<snip>

>Who else had access to the blood vile in the police evidence locker AND could
get
>back to the crime scene without raising suspicion and plant it on a hosed down
>crime scene _three weeks later_. That kind of
>surpasses improbability of second-guessing Simpson's alibi on the night of the
crime,
>doesn't it?

Vannatter was the one accused of doing this, not Fuhrman.

>So, now Fuhrman retires to some kind of mansion in Idaho?

He lives on a ranch, which has a house, not a mansion.

> There seems to
>be a lot of money floating around that hasn't been accounted for - including
with
>Vannatter and Faye Resnick.

It is my theory that Fuhrman received some money from Shapiro and Toobin
when his lawsuit was settled out of court. He sued the people who started all
this slander against him.

<snipped>

>Alex

[me]

robert seigler wrote:
the real question is: did the three speculate on how
> the media would hype the affair, OR WAS SOME OUTLET OF THE MEDIA BEHIND
> THE PLOT FROM THE OUTSET?

You really need some intensive therapy

[me]

robert seigler wrote:
>fuhrman and kaelin both aspired to media careers, and the circumstance
>of the simpson case made them national celebrities overnight.

Yeah! Most aspiring actors commit double homicide to get noticed! Look
at that Jim Carey guy!

[robert seigler]

when i wrote:

the media would hype the affair, OR WAS SOME OUTLET OF THE MEDIA BEHIND
THE PLOT FROM THE OUTSET?

me's feeble reply was:

You really need some intensive therapy

comment:

here we have the most typical no-brain response - an implied accusation
of mental illness as an excuse for not dealing with a real possibility.
this me character is either unaware of history, or is in very deep
denial. he may not need therapy, but a library card might help.'

bob

[robert seigler]

when i wrote:

fuhrman and kaelin both aspired to media careers, and the circumstance
of the simpson case made them national celebrities overnight.

me continued his display of ignorance by observing:

Yeah! Most aspiring actors commit double homicide to get noticed! Look
at that Jim Carey guy!

to which the obvious reply is:

yeah! and dillinger never robbed a bank, because he became an investment
broker. jim carey was one of the lucky stiffs, but fuhrman and kaelin
took the criminal path - they made their own luck. THAT'S WHY CRIMES
HAPPEN!

bob

[Alex]

me heeft geschreven in bericht <377A4F...@here.now>...

>Alex wrote:
>> >... or talking on the phone... or how he knew OJ wouldn't
>> >answer the limo driver's first ring at the gate...
>> Who cares, the limo driver might be mistaken, he might be high, take your
>> pick. Ever wonder how if OJ's finger was supposed to have bled all over the place,
>

>Once again, misdirection. The question is how the brilliant Fuhrman (as
>he is characterized in this theory, just read the writing) knows that OJ
>won't answer the limo call at 10:15 and provide himself with an airtight
>alibi. Then all his months of plotting would be down the drain and the
>hunt for the killer would be on.
>
>As for the cut finger, among other things, OJ later admits that he DID
>cut his finger before leaving for Chicago, showing that people don't
>always notice everything. What he can't remember though is just how he
>got that deep 3/4 inch gash on his knuckle.

Why didn't he bleed all over his suitcases - the ones he'd been packing
with Kato Kaelin?

If this gash was really 3/4 of an inch, again, how come noone noticed
it when he was signing autographs?

Alex

[John Shields]

All i know is every murder since 1974 the year pong came out can be attributed to video games.
o. j. simpson was not a video games player therefore he couldn't have done it. If you think it's
a lie hey time will prove me right. Soon every newspaper will read murder video games again.

[vida...@my-deja.com]

> reply:
>
> the objections to this theory are well founded, but fail to phrase
> themselves as questions: how could fuhrman know simpson lacked an
alibi?

> why did the police find no evidence of another killer? ask, and you

> might find answers.
>
> garrison's book nominates fuhrman as the 'real killer', neil j.
schulman
> has a similar book pointing to ron shipp, and john junot has a web
page

> linking kato kaelin to the crime. what if they are all partly right,
but
> refuse to see how an unlikely combination of these three suspects can
> answer the objections cited above?
>
> fuhrman could only begin to know about simpson's alibi status if he
had
> an inside connection to monitor simpson's activities. ron shipp knew
> simpson well, and had known fuhrman for 9 years when the murders
> occurred. shipp also knew kato kaelin, the ONLY person who was
actually
> at rockingham to monitor simpson that night. shipp provides the
> connection between fuhrman and kaelin.
>

How could Kato have monitored Simpson's activities? He didn't see him
between 9:37 and 10:55.

[d...@nationwide.net]

robert seigler wrote:

Bob thinks that its a real possibility that "SOME OUTLET OF THE MEDIA
BEHIND
THE PLOT FROM THE OUTSET." When someone humorously derides him for his
delusional thinking, he takes umbrage at the a fact that some one does not
take his incredulous hypothesis seriously and attempts to justify his
'thinking.' This implies a very serious narcissistic disorder that does
call for some intensive therapy. So in fact, Bob's response proves the
point of "me's" post.
He will never understand this and I'm sure will have some type of
self-aggrandized comment in which he chastises me for not addressing the
issue as he sees it, but we can see the issue all too clear, Bob.
Duane

[me]

robert seigler wrote:
> this me character is either unaware of history, or is in very deep
> denial. he may not need therapy, but a library card might help.'

You really need some intensive therapy.

[me]

Alex wrote:
> Why didn't he bleed all over his suitcases - the ones he'd been packing

Let's try something new and interject facts into the debate:
(from Simpson's statement to Vanatter and Lange)

Simpson: Mmm, it was cut before (Chicago), but I think I just opened it
again, I'm not sure.

Lange: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?

Simpson: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco.
The last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got
my phone out of the Bronco.

[robert seigler]

the general writes:

He said he was in Vietnam on the Laura Hart McKinney tapes, but that was
when he was playing the part of the main character in the screenplay, a
woman Vietnam veteran, so that Laura could get an idea of how a Vietnam
vet might talk. In real life, Fuhrman was in the Marines, but never made
it to Vietnam.

question:

then why does toobin mention fuhrman's service in viet nam in that first
NEW YORKER article, published long before the mckinny tapes surfaced?
could it be the general is getting her information from a known
perjurer?

bob

[robert seigler]

the general points out:

Ron Shipp was or is married to a white woman. He had his kids with him
on one of the TV talk shows where he was interviewed. They are almost
white. Ron himself is more white than black. He had a crush on Nicole,
which is why he testified against Simpson.

comment:

in fact, his wife is jewish! but look again at his testimony, when he
declares simpson 'treated him like a servant.' he saw simpson as a race
traitor for turning his back on fellow blacks, like shipp himself. and
just because he hated this aspect of his 'hero' did not preclude him
from the same attitude. THAT'S WHY SHIPP IS NUTS.

bob

[robert seigler]

vida blue asks:

How could Kato have monitored Simpson's activities? He didn't see him
between 9:37 and 10:55.

comment:

you are assuming kato's testimony is true. but if he in fact was part of
a plot to frame simpson, there is every reason in the world to doubt his
story. what is a FACT is that he was the last person to see simpson
before the murders, and his 'thumps' are used to establish the supposed
time of simpson's return after the murders. if ANYONE could have
monitored simpson activities in this time period, it would have been
kato.

bob

[robert seigler]

duane writes:

Bob thinks that its a real possibility that "SOME OUTLET OF THE MEDIA
BEHIND
THE PLOT FROM THE OUTSET." When someone humorously derides him for his
delusional thinking, he takes umbrage at the a fact that some one does
not take his incredulous hypothesis seriously and attempts to justify
his 'thinking.' This implies a very serious narcissistic disorder that
does call for some intensive therapy. So in fact, Bob's response proves
the point of "me's" post.
He will never understand this and I'm sure will have some type of
self-aggrandized comment in which he chastises me for not addressing the
issue as he sees it, but we can see the issue all too clear, Bob. Duane

comment:

duane doesn't understand that anyone with an i.q. higher than his
temperature can now dismiss duane's comments as the ramblings of a
clueless fool.

bob

'We will never have true civilization until we have learned to recognize

the rights of others.´
Will Rogers

[me]

robert seigler wrote:
> you are assuming kato's testimony is true. but if he in fact was part of
> a plot to frame simpson, there is every reason in the world to doubt his
> story. what is a FACT is that he was the last person to see simpson

You are assuming that Kato is a real person! He is, in fact a character
in the long running mini-series "The People vs. Simpson"!

There were never any real murders to begin with! In fact there never
were such people as Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. The whole thing was
a long running mini-series co-produced by Court TV and CNN (there's that
plot by the "MEDIA" for you)!

For you trivia buffs, they really wanted Jim Brown for the part, to give
it more of an edge, but he was involved in another murder at the time.

[me]

robert seigler wrote:
>
> duane writes:
>
> Bob thinks that its a real possibility that "SOME OUTLET OF THE MEDIA
> BEHIND
> THE PLOT FROM THE OUTSET."

Bob, I don't mean to be insulting, but you really can't be serious, can
you? What is this, "The Truman Show"? Or maybe "The OJ Show"?

[vida...@my-deja.com]

In article <24198-37...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>,

babsd...@webtv.net (robert seigler) wrote:
> vida blue asks:
>
> How could Kato have monitored Simpson's activities? He didn't see him
> between 9:37 and 10:55.
>
> comment:
>

> you are assuming kato's testimony is true. but if he in fact was part
of
> a plot to frame simpson, there is every reason in the world to doubt
his
> story. what is a FACT is that he was the last person to see simpson

> before the murders, and his 'thumps' are used to establish the
supposed
> time of simpson's return after the murders. if ANYONE could have
> monitored simpson activities in this time period, it would have been
> kato.
>

Ok, point taken. Kato could have been a member of the conspiracy to
frame Simpson and lied on the stand. But wouldn't such a conspiracy be
incredibly incompetent?

In that they didn't instruct agent Kato to testify that he saw Simpson
bleeding all over the place, hiding a knife, washing blood from his
body, holding a bloody glove, etc.

So once again we have this brilliant and malignant cabal of doom,
undetected to this day, that couldn't shoot straight.

[d...@nationwide.net]

robert seigler wrote:

> duane writes:
>
> Bob thinks that its a real possibility that "SOME OUTLET OF THE MEDIA
> BEHIND

> THE PLOT FROM THE OUTSET." When someone humorously derides him for his
> delusional thinking, he takes umbrage at the a fact that some one does
> not take his incredulous hypothesis seriously and attempts to justify
> his 'thinking.' This implies a very serious narcissistic disorder that
> does call for some intensive therapy. So in fact, Bob's response proves
> the point of "me's" post.
> He will never understand this and I'm sure will have some type of
> self-aggrandized comment in which he chastises me for not addressing the
> issue as he sees it, but we can see the issue all too clear, Bob. Duane
>
> comment:
>
> duane doesn't understand that anyone with an i.q. higher than his
> temperature can now dismiss duane's comments as the ramblings of a
> clueless fool.
>
> bob

As pedicted, Bob retorts with an ego inflating comment symptomatic of his
condition and derides my post with an impotent remark. To state that the
media is behind some kind of plot, obviously ridiculous to all without Bob's
condition, somehow assuages Bob's need for psychological self-gratification
and he flails at trying to get someone to engage his in his folly. He
mimics the symptoms of Miller, a clearly disturbed individual. No doubt Bob
will respond.
Here, let me hold the hoop real still for you Bob.
Duane

[USNRET]

robert seigler <babsd...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:24199-37...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net...

You ever get any info from Bill Clinton?

[USNRET]

robert seigler <babsd...@webtv.net> wrote in message

news:24198-37...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net...

>what is a FACT is that he was the last person to see simpson
> before the murders,

You are wrong, Perry Mason breath. The two victims were the last to see him
before the murders.

[General495]

babsd...@webtv.net (robert seigler) wrote:

>the general writes:

>He said he was in Vietnam on the Laura Hart McKinney tapes, but that was
>when he was playing the part of the main character in the screenplay, a
>woman Vietnam veteran, so that Laura could get an idea of how a Vietnam
>vet might talk. In real life, Fuhrman was in the Marines, but never made
>it to Vietnam.

>question:

>then why does toobin mention fuhrman's service in viet nam in that first
>NEW YORKER article, published long before the mckinny tapes surfaced?
>could it be the general is getting her information from a known
>perjurer?

>bob

Toobin got his information from Fuhrman's personnel records.
Fuhrma was trying to get a disability pension and he told
lies to his psychiatrist in this attempt. The pyschiatrist
recognized that he was telling lies and his disability request
was denied. The New Yorker and later some of the tabloids
printed these lies, which they presented as the gospel truth.

I remember reading an article in the Globe magazine which
was taken from Fuhrman's words to his psychiatrist. I
didn't believe it when I read it. Why? The same reason the
psychiatrist didn't believe it. He overdid it and told
exaggerated stories about beating up suspects. He also told the
psychiatrist that he was in Vietnam. He was actually on
a ship that was just outside of Vietnam. He was never in
combat in Vietnam. This information came from his former
wife, who had nothing but good things to say about him, and
was printed in the New York Times.

[robert seigler]

when i wrote:

you are assuming kato's testimony is true. but if he in fact was part of
a plot to frame simpson, there is every reason in the world to doubt his
story. what is a FACT is that he was the last person to see simpson
before the murders, and his 'thumps' are used to establish the supposed
time of simpson's return after the murders. if ANYONE could have
monitored simpson activities in this time period, it would have been
kato.

vida blue comments:

Ok, point taken. Kato could have been a member of the conspiracy to
frame Simpson and lied on the stand. But wouldn't such a conspiracy be
incredibly incompetent? In that they didn't instruct agent Kato to
testify that he saw Simpson bleeding all over the place, hiding a knife,
washing blood from his body, holding a bloody glove, etc. So once again
we have this brilliant and malignant cabal of doom, undetected to this
day, that couldn't shoot straight.

reply:

the plot to frame simpson was meant to generate a huge media story, NOT
to convict him of murder. in fact, it was designed to create no-j's and
pro-j's, who would make the case their longtime hobby. the object was
controversy, with kato and fuhrman featured as major players.

consider the murder weapon.

during the preliminary hearing, a bloody knife was found in the vicinity
of rockingham. the area had been searched before, and could only have
been placed there AFTER simpson was in jail. the media quickly dismissed
the knife as a hoax.

but during the trial, the defense unsuccessfully tried to enter this
knife as evidence. it was then that marcia clark revealed the blood on
the knife was human, but was degraded type B blood which was unsuitable
for DNA testing. she claimed there was no one with type B blood involved
in the case, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAD PREVIOUSLY ARGUED THE TYPE B BLOOD
UNDER NICOLE'S FINGERNAILS WAS A DEGRADED FORM OF HER OWN TYPE AB BLOOD.
reason should tell us, as far as typing blood goes, that the blood on
this knife was therefore consistent with the degraded form of nicole's
blood.

judge ito did NOT allow the knife as evidence BECAUSE THE CIRCUMSTANCE
OF ITS DISCOVERY MADE IT EXCULPATORY FOR SIMPSON!

the killers tried to plant the knife as a 'get out of jail free' card
for their patsy, but the cops were playing a more serious game of their
own.

kato's plot was much more bizarre.

bob

[me]

robert seigler wrote:
> ... it was designed to create no-j's and

> pro-j's, who would make the case their longtime hobby. the object was
> controversy, with kato and fuhrman featured as major players.

Yeah, when I see Mark Fuhrman and especially Kato Kaelin, the first word
that pops into my head is "mastermind"!

[robert seigler]

the general writes:

I remember reading an article in the Globe magazine which was taken from
Fuhrman's words to his psychiatrist. I didn't believe it when I read it.
Why? The same reason the psychiatrist didn't believe it. He overdid it
and told exaggerated stories about beating up suspects. He also told the
psychiatrist that he was in Vietnam. He was actually on a ship that was
just outside of Vietnam. He was never in combat in Vietnam. This
information came from his former wife, who had nothing but good things
to say about him, and was printed in the New York Times.

comment:

the bottom line here seems to be that fuhrman is such a liar that no
statements from him can be believed without independent documentation.
unless his former wife was also a shipmate, i'd assume her story was
simply HIS story given another filter. believe what you wish, but there
ought to be actual records to investigate somewhere.

bob

[robert seigler]

me writes:

Yeah, when I see Mark Fuhrman and especially Kato Kaelin, the first word
that pops into my head is "mastermind"!

comment:

yeah, and when i read a post like this, the first words to come to my
mind are 'ignorant shithead.' that's the power of first impressions.

bob

[L...@a1handicapping.com]

Bull Shit! I plan to be at the Pearly Gates a while
before OJ shows up. All I can say is I want to hang
around and watch him tell the Lord he didn't do it.
He had better hope to hell that God is a black racist.

> 1. OJ fled from the
>
> [comment: assuming the rest of this unfinished line, the 'flight as
> evidence of guilt' argument is weak to begin with. simpson DELAYED his
> arrest in what became the 'slow speed chase', but never made a proven
> attempt to flee the jurisdiction.]
>
> 2. OJ virtually confessed in his "suicide" note.
>
> [comment: but he DID NOT confess at all in this note, where one might
> expect him to. this 'virtual' quality is very much in the mind of the
> beholder.]
>
> 3. OJ changed his story many times.
>
> [comment: this fictional 'change of story' comes from weighing simpson
> real testimony against statements made by his lawyers, which are not
> testimonial. the differences are non-consequential and inadmissible.]
>
> 4. The night his wife was brutally murdered there is blood found on
his
> walkway and he has a cut on his hand.
>
> [comment: the blood is as plantable as the glove, and kaelin had an
> opportunity to wound simpson's hand in a moment of distraction AFTER
the
> murders.]
>
> 5. OJ lied about the shoes.
>
> [comment: he was at least mistaken about the shoes. i fact, much of
his
> wardrobe was supplied for public appearances, and he had 40 pairs of
> nikes alone. the famous murder shoes could easily have been worn for
one
> time only, retired ti his back closet, then taken for planting without
> being missed AND without him recognizing them later when a facsimile
was
> presented in court.]
>
> Even with any DNA the average guy would have been convicted.
>
> [comment: the framing of 'an average guy' would not have generated the
> motive to justify itself. 'the average guy' would not have the legal
> means to combat spurious 'scientific' evidence.] If you are going to
> propose this conspiracy theory then you could also consider the good
> tooth fairy did it.
> I
>
> [comment: if the tooth fairy monitored simpson's activities like
kaelin,
> found the illogical evidence like fuhrman, and fabricated a story like
> shipp, i would certainly regard it as a suspect. IMO, the ONLY
> alternative explanation for the evidence requires exactly the control
> possible to this trio, PLUS the desire of the police to suppress the
> real story of fuhrman's complicity. as such, it represents a solution
> which deserves BUT HAS NOT BEEN AFFORDED serious examination.]
>
> bob

[L...@a1handicapping.com]

Get off that fucking shit Bob.

In article <19281-377...@newsd-123.bryant.webtv.net>,

> to convict him of murder. in fact, it was designed to create no-j's

and
> pro-j's, who would make the case their longtime hobby. the object was
> controversy, with kato and fuhrman featured as major players.
>

[bony...@my-deja.com]

In article <7lj768$lpb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

L...@a1handicapping.com wrote:
> Bull Shit! I plan to be at the Pearly Gates a while
> before OJ shows up. All I can say is I want to hang
> around and watch him tell the Lord he didn't do it.
> He had better hope to hell that God is a black racist.

Bobbie Socks is just a wacked out as they come!

[me]

Hey, FUCK YOU, you demented little pea-brained shithead!

If you don't like people making fun of you, don't go around whipping up
stories about dirtbags like Mark Fuhrman and burned out surfer assholes
like Kato Kaelin pulling off the murder and con of the century!

[General495]

babsd...@webtv.net (robert seigler) wrote:

>the general writes:

>comment:

>bob

I have read the information that Fuhrman was not really in
Vietnam in several other books or magazines, but I can't
remember exactly when and where. I did remember the
NY Times article and the quote from his former wife. This
article was printed when the NY Times found out that the
federal investigation into Fuhrman had been completed.
The Feds never announced that the investigation was
complete, nor what their findings were. They just completed
a year's worth of investigation, failed to find any wrong-doing,
but didn't make their results public, so that people like you
could go on hating Fuhrman.

[robert seigler]

L...@a1handicapping.com wrote:

Re: OJ FRAMED - The Case Against Mark Fuhrman

Get off that fucking shit Bob.

comment:

oh, i get it now. there's really only one no-j in this whole group. he
just changed names. clever, ron, but boring.

bob

[robert seigler]

mr. emerling:

you forgot to mention that fuhrman is a racist pig who murdered nicole.

bob

[Alex]

David Emerling heeft geschreven in bericht <377D9AA8...@ix.netcom.com>...
>During the depths of the Fuhrman controversy in the criminal trial -- it was easy to hate him.
>Some hated him, not so much for his racist remarks, but more for his foiling and derailing the
>prosecution's case.

Now that's more than a little telling...

Alex

[General495]

babsd...@webtv.net (robert seigler) wrote:

>mr. emerling:

>bob

mr. seigler:

you forgot to mention that fuhrman is a nice guy
who has not sued you for libel for posting lies
about him that can be read by 90 million people
world wide.

the general

[robert seigler]

the general hat geschrieben:

mr. seigler:
you forgot to mention that fuhrman is a nice guy who has not sued you
for libel for posting lies about him that can be read by 90 million
people world wide. the general

liebstere marschallin:

es koennte sein, dass herr fuhrman fuerchtet das wahrheit. wenn man eine
schlange eine schlange nennt, das ist nur richtig.

bob

[Ejohns1999]

O J DID NOT KILL ANYBODY BECAUSE
I KNOW WHO DID. THE POLICE IN L A
IS SO STUPID BECAUSE THE KILLER
OF RON G. IS STILL OUT THERE AND
IT IS NOT O J . DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO KILLED MRS BROWN THAT
NIGHT? HE IS DIED.

FOR MORE INFO :
Ejohn...@aol.com

[pa]

O J DID KILL NICOLE AND RON AND I KNOW HE DID. THE POLICE IN L.A. IS
SO SMART BECAUSE THE KILLER OF RON G. WAS ARRESTED BUT DUMMIES LET HIM
GO HOME AND HIS NAME IS O.J. DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO KILLED MRS BROWN
THAT NIGHT? HE IS ON A GOLF COURSE.

FOR MORE INFO: ASK O.J.SIMPSON
===================================

Rollin' Rollin' Rollin'
Though the streams are swollin'
Keep them doggies Rollin' Rawhide,
Through rain and wind and weather,
Hell bent for leather,
Wishing my gal was by my side,
All those things I'm missing
good loving and kissin'
are waiting at the end of my ride.

[John Griffin]

Ejohns1999 <ejohn...@aol.com> wrote:
: O J DID NOT KILL ANYBODY BECAUSE
: I KNOW WHO DID.

No one has ever claimed that he did it because you know who did,
you fucking idiot. He did it because Nicole was questioning his
ownerhip rights.

>THE POLICE IN L A
: IS SO STUPID BECAUSE THE KILLER
: OF RON G. IS STILL OUT THERE AND
: IT IS NOT O J . DO YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO KILLED MRS BROWN THAT
: NIGHT? HE IS DIED.

: FOR MORE INFO :
: Ejohn...@aol.com

Yeah, you seem to be one who would be a veritable fount of knowledge.

[Alex]

me heeft geschreven in bericht <3778D3...@here.now>...
>Am I the only one (among those who see Simpson's guilt) who thought the
>whole idea was ridiculous at first?
>Alex wrote:

No I didn't.

Alex

>> the dead body of the woman and a younger man laying
>> beside her, I saw Paul Robeson in my mind’s eye in place
>> of the other black football hero and actor. I envisioned
>> him on stage with a bloody dagger in his hand and a dead
>> white woman with blond hair at his feet. I kept thinking,
>> Othello!
>>
>> Who didn’t?

[floresd...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, June 29, 1999 at 12:00:00 AM UTC-7, Alex wrote:
> From: http://smartfellowspress.com/Iago/chap2.htm
>
>
> Chapter 2: GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER
>
> "WE COULD HAVE KILLED PEOPLE AND GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT."
> —Mark Fuhrman, former LAPD detective, best-selling author
>
>
>
> One undeniable fact in the 1994 killing at 875 South
> Bundy is that somebody got away with murder. Most people
> think it was O.J. Simpson. If all you know about the case
> is what you heard from reporters and expert commentators,
> you are probably one of them. I know I was.
>
> Driving before dawn to work at a Ford design studio near
> Greenfield Village, I heard the jolting news on my car
> radio, "Nicole Simpson, estranged wife of actor/color
> commentator O.J. Simpson, was found stabbed to death..."
> As I stopped for the light at the intersection of the
> I-39 service drive and Rotunda, I flashed on the mental
> image I’d had of the ’89 incident involving O.J. and the
> woman who was now deceased. I had been stopped at the
> same light in ’89, en route to the same studio when that
> picture was first brought to mind by a radio news
> reporter describing Nicole as a "white female, later
> identified as the wife of O.J. Simpson." This time, with

> the dead body of the woman and a younger man laying
> beside her, I saw Paul Robeson in my mind’s eye in place
> of the other black football hero and actor. I envisioned
> him on stage with a bloody dagger in his hand and a dead
> white woman with blond hair at his feet. I kept thinking,
> Othello!
>
> Who didn’t?
>

> Naturally, everyone I worked with pretended not to have
> an opinion on the case—you know, innocent until proven
> guilty and all that. It was much too soon to talk about
> Othello with no proof that O.J. had killed his ex. But
> what do you do with images alive in the popular culture
> that spring to mind with a key word or phrase? How do you
> get around the way the human brain is wired to "see"
> complete mosaics instantaneously with the stimulus of a
> few familiar tiles? Isn’t that what happened to
> Shakespeare’s Moorish general? Wasn’t it false bits of
> information from a trusted source that lead him to
> inflict the ultimate punishment for wrongdoing on someone
> who had done no wrong? Wasn’t the person really
> responsible for the woman’s death someone else? Nobody
> seems to remember that part of the tale. In America, sex
> and color still count too much. They are the "tiles" that
> color everything we think about men and women.
>
> We have become quite sophisticated in the language we use
> to disguise our true thoughts and feelings about race,
> but the essential messages usually come in loud and
> clear. For instance, everyone knows what is meant by the
> "candle power" of the jury that found O.J. "Not guilty"
> and the one that found him "Responsible." These and other
> racist code words complete the picture formerly drawn
> with one of Mark Fuhrman’s favorite words. If you’re an
> OJI, you’ve probably gotten a taste of "the black
> experience" whatever color you are.
>
> That attitude is no different at its core now than it was
> in the mid-’60s. That was when a modeling supervisor in
> Ford Motor Company’s Styling Center named Vic Clark
> greeted me with a warm smile, a hearty handshake and the
> words, "Welcome aboard! I knew a ol’ boy named Jasper
> back in Indiana. Now, that was one nigger that didn’t
> mind workin’."
>
> People like Vic still run things in too many places, but
> we can’t always tell who they are and what pictures
> they’re pumping into our brain to help us process our
> thoughts. Who, for instance, generated those stories
> about O.J. before he was arrested, stories that had me
> and everyone I knew saying, he did it? Right, Mark
> Fuhrman. Remember the blood-drops leading up the driveway
> (they actually went the other way), plus the bloody knife
> and the bloody ski mask police found in his bedroom
> closet (pure BS)? What about the gloves in his size (that
> didn’t fit), the dark clothes in the washer (Arnelle’s
> underwear) and the knit cap?
>
> I could see him wearing the cap. Hell, I had seen him
> wearing it. Millions of people shared that vision from
> his role in The Naked Gun. That’s why the cap never made
> sense to me. It convinced me that O.J. had to have been
> out of his mind to wear it.
>
> According to the media, there was no doubt of his guilt
> since he could have been innocent only if he was framed
> by cops. I asked myself, what cop would do that to a
> famous multi-millionaire who could summon the best legal
> resources anywhere to his aid? Who in the LAPD could hate
> O.J. that much, be that close to the evidence and feel
> that secure? Who could be so intelligent and so arrogant
> as to think he could convince the DA, misdirect the
> defense, and fool the whole damn world, all at the same
> time? Who could be so knowledgeable, so ambitious and so
> sure of the American mass media as to think he could use
> them to serve his personal ends the way Joe McCarthy and
> Ho Chi Minh did to serve theirs? Who would think that he
> could falsely implicate a man for murder, a man whose
> name is a household word, without putting a national
> spotlight on himself? What kind of man would want to put
> himself in that position? There couldn’t be anybody like
> that on the LAPD, could there? ....Nah!
>
> O.J. did it, I thought. He must have, but....
>
> Okay, so he flew into a jealous rage after seeing his ex
> with a younger man. Why did he take the time to dig up
> that cap before assaulting them? How could he have lost
> both gloves? What, specifically, set him off? For a black
> man of his status who had been busted and quietly
> forgiven in the national press for beating his white
> wife, it must have been BIG! He had to know that the
> police would think he did it. And why would a black,
> internationally famous, ex-football star and actor use a
> knife? ....Why would he use a knife? Doesn’t he know
> about Paul Robeson’s best known role, and the picture of
> him with a dagger in his hand. Hasn’t he ever heard of
> Shakespeare’s Othello?
>
> I was sure that all of these questions would be answered
> when the prosecution presented its case. In that I like
> to think of myself as a fair-minded person the way
> everyone else does, I told myself that I would reserve
> final judgment until I heard all of the evidence. Still,
> I couldn’t ignore what I heard until I’d heard it all.
> Marcia Clark’s opening was so impressive that it took a
> special effort to listen to the defense. What could they
> say to refute the evidence? So much of it. So scientific.
> So macroscopically and microscopically particular to
> Orenthal James Simpson. How could he not be guilty? How
> could one begin a rational process of evaluation with an
> honest presumption of innocence? It couldn’t be done.
>
> It was not, however, the defense that started my
> turnaround from OJG to OJU (undecided). It was Marcia
> Clark, Christopher Darden, and Brian Kelberg. The
> prosecutors failed to answer any of the questions about
> the motive and the weapon required to complete the logic
> of the physical evidence. If the condition of the bodies
> told them it was a rage killing, where was the evidence
> of rage in O.J. that night, or the mind-altering
> substance or event that would produce it? Not only did
> the prosecution serve up incidents that could have meant
> anything you wanted them to, they made it clear that they
> never—not for one instant—considered anyone but O.J. as a
> suspect. Where could they possibly go from there?
>
> I ran into the same thing when I joined the Court TV
> Discussion Group and tangled with some very bright and
> single-minded OJG’s. They were the ones who turned me
> into an OJI.
>
> The essence of proof is that it eliminates all but one
> possibility. If you consider only one possibility you can
> come to only one conclusion. There is no rational process
> of evaluation which can follow from that and no rational
> grounds upon which anyone can challenge it. All you can
> do is add more evidence or take some away. The conclusion
> has to stay the same, even when the coroner’s testimony
> points to a suspect with a military background—someone
> who knew how and when to use both ends of a certain kind
> of knife as different kinds of weapons—someone who could
> procure such a weapon without calling attention to
> himself—someone who enjoyed drawing blood and watching
> his victims die.
>
> In my effort to fill the gaps left by the prosecution and
> the defense, both of whom made the same error of early
> exclusion, I ran into a wall that couldn’t be scaled,
> bypassed or ignored. It’s an attitude about the case
> characterized on both sides by the automatic rejection of
> any suggestion that the killer may have been someone in
> particular other than O.J. Simpson. It took me a long
> time to see it myself, which I never would have if I
> hadn’t worked for a Klansman at Ford named Vic Clark, and
> the killer hadn’t used the butt of his knife to
> incapacitate one of his victims. None of us wanted to
> accuse someone of murder before a worldwide audience
> without good cause. All of which was lucky for the man
> who became the number one best-selling author in the
> country after the verdict against Simpson in the civil
> trial was announced. That man, who, in one way or another
> is connected to every scrap of evidence against O.J as a
> wife-beater and a killer, is Mark Fuhrman.
>
> Anyone with as much as a passing interest in the case
> that made Fuhrman a hero to many who once despised him,
> has seen all of the evidence and heard all of the
> arguments against Simpson. Everything he said in his
> defense has been angrily rejected, stubbornly attacked,
> aggressively investigated and exhaustively explored—in
> that order. His every gesture that could be shown as
> evidence of guilt has been shown as evidence of guilt. We
> know every incriminating fact there is about the five
> blood-drops identified as his at the bloody murder scene
> and the blood he admits was his at his home. We know
> about his size 12 Bruno Maglis, his ill-timed cut finger,
> and the rare gloves and carpet fibers. We’ve seen the
> photographs and videotapes, we’ve heard the audiotapes,
> and we’ve heard from numerous expert witnesses. We have
> everything we need to conclude that O.J. Simpson
> butchered two people. That is, we have everything except
> a solid motive, a credible weapon and a clear
> opportunity. What’s missing is a line of reasoning that
> excludes any other possibility.
>
> Where is the evidence that excludes Mark Fuhrman? I’ve
> heard that he had an alibi which was confirmed by the
> LAPD, the FBI and F. Lee Bailey’s private detectives.
> I’ve heard Bailey’s top investigator, Pat McKenna, say
> that he was sure Fuhrman planted evidence but that he did
> not think the killer did. Bailey himself said that he
> "knew," Fuhrman didn’t do it. However, no one I know of
> has documented the evidence to support that conclusion.
> According to Fuhrman’s own testimony, only his wife can
> confirm his alibi, and no one asked her to do it. The
> law, of course, cannot compel her. However, I fear for
> her life if she or her husband should ever want a
> divorce.
>
> Planting ideas was every bit as important in the O.J.
> Simpson case as planting physical objects. "Spin doctor"
> Fuhrman, like Shakespeare’s spin doctor, Iago, was
> unquestionably on top of that, from the "ski mask"
> supposedly found in O.J.’s bedroom closet (item 17 in his
> notes) to the "haphazardly" parked Bronco. Evidence or
> ideas that were planted or shaped in some way by Fuhrman
> and his partner Brad Roberts influenced everyone closely
> involved in the case. What you get from most "informed
> sources" as a result, is what you can expect when you
> begin with your conclusion and work backward through the
> "relevant" facts.
>
> That kind of reasoning may be helpful in exploring
> possibilities. But when you have to jettison troublesome
> little facts that don’t add up to your conclusion and
> force-fit conjecture that does, it’s time to consider a
> different approach. It’s time to take the evidence as it
> exists, for and against the accused, and see what other
> scenario can be constructed. Then you have to throw rocks
> at it, and see how it holds up.
>
> In the absence of facts, some speculation will have to
> suffice, but it should be dependent on facts or subject
> to verification. For example, I could not find
> verification of Fuhrman’s shoe size for years, despite
> trying everything I know to get it. Based on his height,
> I assumed that his feet might fit into a pair of size 12
> Bruno Maglis. Either they could or they couldn’t. There
> was no reason for a question like that to have remained a
> mystery forever. But I sure didn’t have the answer until
> I bought a copy of Fuhrman’s book and figured it out from
> a photo of him in Nicole’s front yard with a size 10
> envelope by his foot.
>
> Based on the fact that Fuhrman was a police officer, I
> assumed that he had the ability to monitor cellular phone
> conversations with a police scanner. That, too, can be
> determined beyond any doubt. Based on the fact that he
> was an ex-Marine, I assumed that he had training in the
> use of both ends of a certain kind of knife as different
> kinds of weapons. Based on the fact that he enjoyed blood
> sports, I assumed that he used a knife with that kind of
> handle to skin and gut his prey. A Marine Corps survival
> knife and a good hunting knife both have the same kind of
> handle, so I know that he must have been comfortable with
> the feel of both of them. Ditto a German Stiletto.
>
> The fact that he said he enjoyed killing people and was
> one complaint short of making the Christopher
> Commission’s list of the LAPD’s most violent cops, tells
> me something else. It tells me that he probably had the
> first-hand knowledge he said he did of how it feels to
> take a human life. His police record shows that, in front
> of civilian witnesses, he pumped five bullets into an ATM
> robbery suspect, planted a knife by his hand and
> screamed, "Die, nigger! Why won’t you die!" He did this
> in front of two other cops who weren’t necessarily his
> buddies. What happened when the only witnesses were his
> buddies, or when there were none? In the words of Mark
> Fuhrman, "dead men tell no tales."
>
> Whoever killed Ron Goldman did it after a short fight.
> Think of a round in boxing. Believe me, two minutes is a
> long time in that kind of physical contest. The pattern
> of BLOODSTAINS on Ron’s shirt and pants suggest that he
> was on his feet for much longer than that after his
> initial wounds were inflicted. That is consistent with a
> short fight in which he was taunted and tortured long
> after he could put up a fight. Mark Fuhrman’s taped
> characterization of his attitude toward fighting,
> killing, torture, and Jews, was as close to a confession
> as was ever heard in the case. It was what the autopsy
> report said about the killer.
>
> Fuhrman told Laura Hart McKinny that he killed people in
> Vietnam, but he told F. Lee Bailey that he never got off
> the ship. He told one psychiatrist that he had been a
> machine-gunner. He told Bailey that he had been a
> military policeman. Because Judge Ito sealed his military
> records, there is no telling what he really did. All we
> have is his word on tape that he enjoyed killing people
> and watching them suffer—and complaints from a few
> survivors in California that agreed with him.
>
> Until I began the final chapters of this book, I thought
> the timeline was open to debate. I was wrong. There is a
> systematic way of eliminating the speculation. Until I
> discovered that process, I was willing to allow that the
> defense’s timeline witness might have been mistaken.
> Still, the prosecution’s timeline rested on the testimony
> of a man whose powers of observation and recall were
> demonstrably unreliable. It assumed that Allan Park’s
> hindsight was 20/20 when he didn’t recall seeing the
> Bronco before he saw O.J., and irrelevant when he didn’t
> recall hearing the Bronco return. The fact that he
> recalled seeing another car that wasn’t there would tend
> to support O.J.’s alibi. The fact that he never said he
> saw the Bronco , even when he was leaving for LAX, would
> also tend to support O.J.’s alibi.
>
> Paradoxically, a Bronco that never moved during the
> killing works against the most plausible theory that O.J.
> was framed. The only way a perfect frame could work,
> would be if O.J. didn’t have a solid alibi and the people
> setting him up knew it. By the same token, the setup
> didn’t have to be perfect if the killer was sure the
> prosecutors would argue imperfect evidence as though it
> was perfect. It had to be a cop who knew people like Gil
> Garcetti, Marcia Clark, and Christopher Darden in 1994 as
> well as we have come to know them since. It had to be
> someone who knew how to reel in Marcia Clark from a sea
> of deputy prosecutors in advance of the murders, with
> ironclad assurance that he would get her. Warrant
> problems + spouse abuse allegations = Marcia Clark, up
> front, on the scene and eager to help the cops.
>
> In California, the rage killing of one person would not
> normally carry the penalty of death. The murder of two
> people in a particularly brutal way is supposed to, on
> grounds of "special circumstances." In other words the
> double homicide could have been an attempted triple
> homicide, with the media and the law as weapons selected
> by the killer to torture and kill his third victim, O.J.
> Simpson.
>
> The only way all of the evidence in the case makes sense
> is if you see it as a made-for-television drama staged to
> make the accused and his chief accuser look like
> something they weren’t. You have to see it as a grisly
> publicity stunt by which Mark Fuhrman sought to call
> attention to himself and launch a new career as a
> best-selling author and media personality.
>
> For two years, my theory had gaps of its own, left by an
> absolute refusal of anybody with the resources to
> investigate the possible involvement of Fuhrman in the
> murders, to do so. For OJG’s the MFG idea was too silly
> to contemplate. For OJI’s it was too risky.
>
> Here is what I mean by, risky:
>
> 1). O.J.’s Alibi—If the only way that a premeditated plot
> to frame O.J. could have worked for Fuhrman is if the
> Bronco had been stolen and returned, O.J.’s alibi goes
> with it.
>
> 2). Phillips’ Call—Fuhrman said he wasn’t on call that
> night. If he had no way of knowing he’d be called to the
> crime scene by his boss, Ron Phillips, he couldn’t have
> planned the killing or carried out a successful frame.
>
> 3). Fuhrman’s Alibi—If an investigation proved that
> Fuhrman was a speaker at the Police Protective League
> picnic he was supposed to have been attending at the time
> of the killing, his alibi would prove that he didn’t do
> it.
>
> 4). Other Loose Ends—A real investigation of Fuhrman as a
> murder suspect could prove that the shoe didn’t fit worth
> a damn, either literally or figuratively.
>
> The only reason that the evidence against O.J. ever
> looked impressive is because he was the only suspect.
> When there was no more proof that he committed the
> murders than there was that Fuhrman did, there did seem
> to be evidence that pointed to both men and some that
> pointed only to Fuhrman. Moreover, the quality of the
> evidence against Fuhrman has always been on an entirely
> different level. The facts and circumstances that
> incriminate him could not have been altered, anticipated,
> manipulated or misrepresented by another party to frame
> him. Not so with the evidence against Simpson.
>
> Much of that evidence, in explicit or implicit form, can
> be characterized as look-alike—duplicates or close enough
> approximations to be identified as O.J.’s by description
> or type. The Swiss Army knife, the German Stiletto, the
> expensive Italian shoes and the sports utility vehicle
> that Robert Heidstra saw on Dorothy all fall in that
> category. Even some hair and fiber evidence was made up
> of types of hair and fibers traceable to someone other
> than Simpson if anyone had cared to do it. And the blood?
> If the possibility of tampering by Mark Fuhrman or Brad
> Roberts did not exist, neither would much doubt of O.J.’s
> guilt. Only it does exist. In fact, with a little inside
> help here, a purloined key there, and the right spin on
> the wrong questions, it would have been easy for either
> of them to do it.
>
> The balance of evidence falls entirely in favor of
> Simpson and decidedly against Fuhrman:
>
> Item: The shoeprints left by the killer implicate O.J.,
> but could have been worn by someone else for that
> purpose. They could have been worn by a man with motive,
> means, opportunity and size 12 Bruno Magli shoes. They
> could have been worn by a man with contacts in Nicole’s
> inner circle who knew how much the Bruno Maglis resembled
> shoes O.J. wore to his daughter’s dance recital. If you
> don’t know it now, you will learn that Mark Fuhrman fits
> that description in every respect.
>
> Item: Strong evidence suggests that two knives were used
> by one man to cause the different kinds of bruises on the
> victims’ skulls and the bloodshed that made the
> shoeprints possible. All of which points to an
> ambidextrous military history buff (combined sword and
> dagger fighting style of 16th century Italy—home of the
> Stiletto, with the long blade held in the right hand and
> the short blade in the left). That’s Fuhrman, not
> Simpson.
>
> Item: The long-bladed knife with the heavy handle and
> hammer-like butt used to incapacitate Nicole was not the
> one O.J. purchased at Ross Cutlery, but one just like it.
> The way it was used points to a military man. The way the
> short knife was used to torture and kill Ron Goldman,
> points to a martial artist who enjoyed making people
> suffer. That’s Mark Fuhrman—who searched O.J.’s house and
> said he found evidence of a missing Swiss Army knife
> after another detective found the Stiletto unused.
>
> Item: The German Stiletto could have left wounds
> consistent with a Swiss Army knife and vice versa.
> Therefore, had either knife been found by Fuhrman or
> Roberts in their search of O.J.’s home, nothing could
> have stopped them from pulling a switch. "The" murder
> weapon could have been found with Ron’s, Nicole’s and
> OJ’s blood on it in an alley one block south and two or
> three blocks east of Bundy, with no way for O.J. to prove
> it was a duplicate of the missing one. Imagine what
> Jeffrey Toobin would have said about the candlepower of
> anyone who believed a claim like that.
>
> Item: I was so focused on the hammer-like quality of the
> weapon Nicole was hit with, I forgot about the thin blade
> that cut her until I saw it again during Dianne Sawyer’s
> interview with Fuhrman after the civil trial. While
> Stilettos may be advertised as hunting knives, I kept
> thinking that "the" murder weapon was a conventional
> hunting knife. I’ve seen lots of hunting knives and more
> Stilettos than I like to admit. I’ve seen only one like
> Sawyer had on the table during her Prime Time Live
> interview with Fuhrman. That’s when I remembered that I
> had seen it in O.J.’s criminal trial. It not only fits
> Fuhrman better as a weapon of choice, it’s one that O.J.
> could not have procured in secret. Fuhrman could have.
> What would a homicide detective like Fuhrman have to gain
> by procuring a knife identical to the one O.J. bought at
> Ross Cutlery, then searching his house for a murder
> weapon after O.J.’s ex was found with her throat cut?
> ...Give me a break.
>
> Item: The Rockingham glove points both ways. That is, it
> would if had fit O.J.’s hand. Several witnesses commented
> on how surprisingly large O.J.’s hands were. No one ever
> said that about Fuhrman’s hands.
>
> Item: Assume that O.J. dropped the glove in a bumbling
> rush to sneak into his house at 10:45 P.M. Does the
> "trail of blood," that Roberts pointed out at Rockingham,
> and the wet, sticky condition of the glove with no debris
> on it when Fuhrman reported finding it at 6:06 the next
> morning support that assumption?
>
> Now assume that Roberts planted it.
>
> Where was Roberts during and after Fuhrman’s talk with
> Kato and before Fuhrman found the glove? Why did he make
> no reports of his activities? Why did Phillips stumble
> over Roberts’ name on the witness stand and imply that
> his partner was Tom Nolan instead of Fuhrman? What was he
> doing with the blood on O.J.’s driveway before Dennis
> Fung intervened? How did he end up driving to Bundy
> alone? Why is there no record of when he came to
> Rockingham or how he got there? Why didn’t we know until
> both trials were over that Roberts and Fuhrman were both
> involved with "finding" the socks on O.J.’s rug? Why
> didn’t Robert Heidstra get a chance to hear his voice?
>
> Item: Neither the bumbling rush theory nor the plant
> theory make much sense unless you assume that the killer
> or killers planted both gloves. Simpson’s only reason to
> plant them would have been to prove they didn’t fit his
> unusually large hands—which opens the question of what he
> could gain by leaving the cap and the shoeprints. The
> plant theory makes perfect sense if Fuhrman was the
> killer who gave one to Roberts to plant where he knew
> he’d find it. He had a good excuse (three bangs on Kato’s
> wall) to look there. Fuhrman knew about the Rockingham
> glove before anyone else who wasn’t directly involved in
> the killings. He is the only man who can be tied directly
> to that look-alike glove which held the look-alike knife
> [Image] that killed Ron Lyle Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.
> Item: At Rockingham, Fuhrman followed a lead to the
> right-hand glove that he should not have known about
> because he wasn’t supposed to be on the case, let alone
> at Simpson’s estate without a warrant. His link to that
> glove and the undisturbed ground around it was his idea.
> He put himself there and negotiated some thorny high
> hurtles to do it. The idea that the Bronco was parked
> suspiciously "crooked" was Fuhrman’s idea. The "bleeding
> killer" theory was his, as well as the "people in need of
> assistance" inside the Rockingham walls—the shaky grounds
> for entering the estate that guaranteed Marcia Clark’s
> role in the case.
>
> Everything that points to Fuhrman as a killer out to
> frame O.J. was exclusively within his control or the
> control of his friends. That is not true with any of the
> evidence against O.J., which is the essence of my problem
> with the case against O.J., and the core of my case
> against Fuhrman.
>
> At every turn where the most improbable set of
> circumstances would have to exist to clear O.J. and
> implicate Fuhrman that’s what we find. That goes for the
> long list of rare characteristics the killer and his
> associates would have to have. The same goes for all of
> the missing, duplicate, altered, misrepresented or
> switched items of evidence that would have to exist at
> all the right times and places with access by all the
> right people. It would require misdirection and a
> knowledgeable use of the power of suggestion.
>
> Perhaps you’ve noticed that a stage magician uses all of
> these things to take advantage of how human perception
> works—the tricks of the trade to make a convincing
> illusion.
>
> That is not simply a tall order to fill; it is so
> unlikely by the laws of random probability as to approach
> the infinite. O.J. Simpson was framed by Mark Fuhrman for
> a murder committed by Mark Fuhrman with the assistance of
> his partner Brad Roberts, his old friend Ron Shipp,
> Nicole’s "best friend" Faye Resnick, and her sister,
> Denise Brown. The only member of that quintet I have any
> doubt about is Denise—but only the tiniest bit—and only
> because it’s hard for me to come to terms with sororicide
> for money.
>
> From the outset of the case when O.J. didn’t appear to
> have an airtight alibi, something wasn’t quite right. He
> didn’t have a compelling motive either, not for a popular
> public figure who wasn’t under the influence of an
> enraging precipitating event or a mind-altering drug.
> Furthermore, if he had any reason to believe that a
> critical inspection of blood and trace evidence would
> hurt him, why did he hire the world’s leading forensic
> authority, Dr. Henry Lee, to do his own investigation?
>
> Dr. Lee, who is normally sought out by prosecutors, did
> not trust the integrity of any of the blood and fiber
> evidence (remember the cockroaches in the spaghetti?).
> The reasons he gave were never convincingly rebutted. His
> offer of his services to the prosecution in their "search
> for truth" was declined. Furthermore, his ability to do
> his job properly was rudely, deliberately and
> consistently sabotaged by the LAPD and the DA’s office.
> Had a civilian done as much to a prosecution forensic
> expert, he would have been tried, convicted and thrown in
> prison for obstruction of justice.
>
> The idea that O.J. is guilty has corollaries, which, of
> course, are like in-laws. When you take one member of the
> family as your own, you have to take them all. Here is a
> short list:
>
> 1). On the day he got a "Dear John" voice-mail from Paula
> Barbiari, he secretly procured, used and disposed of an
> unusual knife identical to the one he was known to have
> bought at Ross Cutlery—or a large Swiss Army knife that
> no one can show he ever owned.
>
> 2). He kept, unused in his home, the twin of the German
> Stiletto used in the murders—or the large Swiss Amy knife
> came out of a small knickknack box.
>
> 3). He put on a blue knit cap exactly like the one he
> wore in the movie, The Naked Gun, to help disguise
> himself.
>
> 4). He put on a sweatsuit of which there is no record and
> no trace of his ever having in his home, took off his
> Reeboks and sweatsocks and put on his dress socks and
> casual dress shoes.
>
> 5). He drove his white Bronco to an area where it and his
> distinctive gait would tell the neighbors who he was,
> regardless of what he wore on or over his head if he were
> seen.
>
> 6). He parked the Bronco on Rockingham, ran through a
> neighbor’s yard next to Kato Kaelin’s guest house while
> dripping blood on his driveway, jumped a fence, and
> accidentally banged into Kato’s wall three times.
>
> 7). He strolled back to the front of the house with the
> shoes somewhere other than on his feet and the sweatsuit
> with blue/black fibers still on his body, unconcerned
> that the chauffeur saw him coming from where he dropped
> the bloody glove.
>
> 8). He ran upstairs, cleaned himself up, and dispose of
> the knife, shoes and sweatsuit and all of its
> fibers—except for the ones he left on the socks—and was
> ready to go to LAX in less than 10 minutes.
>
> Odd things do happen. Unlikely events are not the same as
> impossible events, as I am constantly reminded by the
> mind-bending coincidence of being in the same place five
> years apart when I heard the different news stories about
> O.J. and Nicole. Therefore, I can accept without much
> question three or four of those improbable corollaries to
> the proposition that O.J. did it. But even if some of
> them didn’t cancel out others, how could I accept all
> eight? And that’s the short list. The long list has
> several times as many improbable corollaries.
>
> That brings us back to Mark Fuhrman with his violent
> hatred of black men and mixed couples. What on Earth was
> he doing on the police force, let alone on the case of a
> famous black man suspected of killing a white woman?
> Please don’t say O.J. wasn’t a suspect. Unless the killer
> is obviously someone else, the husband is always the
> number one suspect.
>
> Rosa Lopez testified that she heard two men talking
> between the houses the night before, men whose voices she
> didn’t know. The next day two men came by. One stayed in
> the car. The other one identified himself as Detective
> Mark Fuhrman. Both men spoke to her. Immediately after
> Fuhrman determined that she could not identify the voices
> she heard as his and Roberts’, the two men left.
>
> What bothers me about that visit more than the questions
> that weren’t asked, was the potential for foul play. If
> Mrs. Lopez had disappeared that morning, never to be seen
> again, there were no witnesses and no reports to say that
> either of them had ever been there.
>
> Fuhrman denied, at first, that he talked to her about
> anything. When the logic of an ace detective not
> questioning a potential witness to O.J.’s goings and
> comings became untenable, he said he didn’t realize who
> she was because the woman he talked to spoke perfect
> English. No other LAPD officer interviewed her about what
> she saw or heard. The LAPD sent a detective to talk only
> to Mrs. Lopez’s employer, Mrs. Salinger, who wasn’t even
> in the country on the 12th of June.
>
> Not until Robert Shapiro’s investigator, Bill Pavelic,
> erroneously reported that Mrs. Lopez saw the Bronco at
> the time Marcia Clark erroneously reported that the
> killing began, did Ms. Clark show any interest in Mrs.
> Lopez. Then she angrily accused the defense of outrageous
> misconduct in failing to tell her what she told them. The
> conduct of the district attorney’s office in failing to
> talk to Ms. Lopez, except for the purpose of protecting
> Mark Fuhrman and attacking her, has never been an issue.
>
> Fuhrman, of all the officers on the force, had the only
> opportunity to "discover" the most dramatic evidence
> against Simpson. The testimony of Rosa Lopez supports the
> idea that he might have been there before he was called
> "at home" by Phillips. In his own words, "I’m the key
> witness in the biggest case of the century. And if I go
> down, they lose the case...The glove is everything.
> Without the glove, bye, bye." He didn’t mention the
> splintered wood by the Bronco or the bloody fingerprint
> on the gate until much later. He never did mention the
> partial print on a lens of Judith Brown’s glasses or the
> fact that the lens disappeared.
>
> For a long time I believed that the shoes may have been
> O.J.’s at one time despite his denials. The trouble was,
> IF—and that was a big IF—O.J. had owned those "ugly ass"
> Bruno Maglis, how could he have owned up to it when the
> media were unanimous in saying ownership proved guilt? I
> wondered what would have happened if the people bringing
> us the news hadn’t been telling the world ahead of time
> what the evidence had to mean.
>
> That is now a moot question because I now know the
> photographs were faked.
>
> But what of the cap that had to be his or one of his
> kids’, and the gloves Nicole bought "for O.J.?" What of
> the timing of the cut finger? What of Nicole saying that
> O.J. was going to kill her? What could these things mean
> if not what they appear to mean?
>
> If someone had set out to frame O.J., he would have known
> all of these things and anticipated how they would look
> with O.J. accused of murdering Nicole. He would have to
> have known the criminal justice system and the kind of
> evidence most likely to be given weight by the DA. He
> would have to have been willing to bet his life that the
> LAPD and the DA would zealously pursue the obvious clues
> left for them to pursue (District Attorney Gil Garcetti:
> "...truly the giant mountain of evidence that we have
> produced in court over these many weeks points to only
> one person—and we know who that person is."). It had to
> have been somebody who trusted other officers, and
> officers of the court, to back him "without having to say
> a word." It had to have been someone secretly affiliated
> with Faye Resnick, Denise Brown, an spouse-abuse expert,
> forgery expert, and friend of Denise and Faye—Ron Shipp.
> Did such a person exist? Yes. Mark Fuhrman.
>
> A frame-up, by definition, makes an innocent person look
> guilty. What kind of a frame would it have been if the
> evidence didn’t shout, "O.J. did it? Since a murder that
> a man didn’t commit could never be proven, the evidence
> against him would have to be circumstantial. The
> specificity of the evidence would have to be extreme. The
> amount would have to be overwhelming. It wouldn’t be
> enough for the killer to wear size 12 Reeboks that
> thousands of men could have worn. They had to be rare
> shoes traceable to O.J. Simpson, whether he ever wore
> them or not, as long as they were "missing" when police
> went looking for them. It couldn’t have been a pair of
> gloves that anyone could have owned, they had to be rare
> gloves traceable to O.J. Simpson whether he ever wore
> them or not. For DNA processing in the LAPD lab—where
> anything could happen with the theft of one key—a
> strangling wouldn’t do, especially with the knowledge
> that O.J. was given Swiss Army knives and had recently
> purchased a German Stiletto. Only a knifing would insure
> the proper picture in the frame and lots of blood on the
> scene to insure impressions of "missing" rare shoes.
>
> These are "little things" that only a
> brighter-than-average man who pays close attention to
> details would have considered important, a man exactly
> like Mark Fuhrman.
>
> If O.J. was the victim of a frame-up, the people behind
> it would have required several things: They would have
> required intelligence, as in smarts, and intelligence, as
> in access to biographical and tactical information and
> the ability to gather information on the fly. They would
> have required specialized training in silent kills,
> special knowledge of the victims, and specialized
> knowledge in homicide investigations. They would have
> required a thorough understanding of the Los Angeles
> County District Attorney’s Office, and how to get the
> prosecutor they wanted to handle the case up front.
>
> They would have required access to the incriminating
> items of clothing; close proximity to Rockingham and
> Bundy; access to both properties, transportation to them
> and between them in a vehicle that could be mistaken for
> a white Bronco. They would also have required patience
> and a simple, long-range plan that could be modified as
> needed over many months of waiting, if necessary, for
> unmanageable elements of a successful attack to fall into
> place. The plan would have to include one or more people
> who could be called on at any time for the appearance of
> an alibi but the alibi would have to be vulnerable to a
> critical inspection.
>
> Enough of these things applied to Mark Fuhrman to have
> justified an objective investigation of him as a murder
> suspect in June of ’93. He could have learned everything
> he needed to know about O.J. and Nicole through police
> records, tabloids, gossip shows, mutual acquaintances
> like Ron Shipp, Faye Resnick, Denise Brown, or the
> personal relationship he boasted of having with Nicole
> two years before her death. Although the shoes did not
> have to be Bruno Maglis, they probably were. Nicole bough
> Bruno Magli brand shoes for herself at Bloomingdale’s in
> New York. Fay Resnick went shopping with her in New York.
> Therefore, Faye Resnick could have furnished the shoes
> and gloves as well as the cap.
>
> If Fuhrman was as good at planting evidence as he said he
> was, getting the evidence would have been no trick at
> all.
>
> As far as smarts are concerned, Mark Fuhrman had enough
> to get dozens of people who should have known better to
> vouch for him after his violent, racist attitudes, on
> record since 1982, were disclosed. He got the Police
> Protective League (the LAPD union) to go to bat for him,
> and millions of others to believe in him and to attack
> anyone who didn’t before the McKinny tapes exposed him
> for the violent racist he was from 1985 to 1995. He
> showed that he could plan, organize and carry out
> extremely complex tasks. In the eyes of most Americans,
> he "proved" on the witness stand that he was a good cop
> falsely accused of racism by an unscrupulous defense
> team. For most people, even if he had been a racist at
> one time in the distant past, that had nothing to do with
> the evidence against O.J. Simpson. Mark Fuhrman persuaded
> two thirds of a continent that anyone who said his racism
> did matter was too stupid or too blinded by his or her
> own prejudice to see the truth.
>
> Fuhrman’s book, Murder in Brentwood, should have jogged
> some memories about the origin of that idea. The book
> begins, in earnest, with a phone call from Phillips and
> moves swiftly to the murder scene where he gives no hint
> of having known Nicole intimately. He then shows how he
> found the evidence and made the deductions that proved
> O.J.’s guilt. You’d have to be pretty dense not to see
> how right he is on the facts that say O.J. is the killer.
> They’re all there, all th...

[Kittens Magazine]

****Remember the blood-drops leading up the driveway
(they actually went the other way)**** I thought I was the only one who knew that the blood drops went from house to car. They still could be planted though. When OJ left with Kato, Rosa heard men in the garage and on the driveway. OJ's maid was known to keep old clothes of OJ's in the garage.