Subj: I suspect Trooper1
Date: 97-03-04 18:22:15 EST
From: Tiger
To: Hhhana
CC: Trooper, Trille, Matlock, Rabne, Pat, Peggy, Judge, Dable, Connie, Ted
Hhhana— In this quest for other suspects, personally, I suspect Trooper1. He is
diverting suspicion to Mark Fuhrman (and Yamauchi) because he is a racist who hates whites
and Asians. Where were you, on that fateful night, Trooper? Will you submit your DNA
sample for testing? Perhaps you are a long lost identical twin of OJ Simpson.....and he is
truly innocent while you are guilty. Anyone for a game of CLUE? —Tiger
Subj: Uncomfortable?
Date: 97-03-04 18:22:15 EST
From: Hhhana
To: Tiger
CC: Trooper, Trille, Matlock, Rabne, Pat, Peggy, Judge, Dable, Connie, Ted
Tiger— Is Trooper173 really making you that uncomfortable? You are lashing out at
a person who is not involved in the crimes or in the trial in any way. He is interested,
as you once were.
You are no longer interested in the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. The
killer has been revealed to you and you are satisfied. There are still some of us who are
not. We all look at the people involved, try to make the link to someone else.
It’s a mistake to make fun of us. We are NOT jokes, idiots, or inferior in any
way. Our discussion has merit. If you are satisfied with OJ’s guilt and if you are
not interested in what we say, you don’t need to add anything to the theories we pass
back and forth. However, you really don’t need to attack any of us. —Paula
Subj: Re: Looking for Mr. Goodbar.....
Date: 97-03-05 08:42:08 EST
From: Pat
To: Tiger, Openminded, Dable, Hhhana, Wolf, Mike, Peggy, Mike, Matlock, Chameleon,
Connie, Lion, Bear
Tiger—This is beneath even you. —Pat
Subj: Re: Uncomfortable?
Date: 97-03-04 18:43:51 EST
From: Pat
To: Tiger, Hhhana
CC: Trooper, Trille, Matlock, Rabne, Peggy, Judge, Dable, Connie, Ted
Tiger— This is really not one of your more intelligent letters. Now you are
sticking up for Mark Fuhrman. There are those of us who don’t agree with you and like
to discuss other aspects of the case. Like Paula said, if you are satisfied, fine, but let
those of us who are not find our own answers. I repeat what Paula said, we are not idiots
or inferior or mindless which is the way you treat us because we have minds of our own and
don’t agree with everything you say. I thought that’s what made a discussion, to
explore different ideas and to look at things from different angles. Your idea of a
discussion is for us to listen to your lectures and support your point of view. Your
superior attitude does not make you smarter than us, just more intolerant. —Pat
Subj: Amateur by whose standards?
Date: 97-03-04
From: Tiger
To: Hhhana
CC: Trooper, Rabne, Pat, Judge, Ted
OJI’s— Why have I become the focus of your concerns? Your evaluation of the
quality of my messages is flattering but inconsequential. I happen to believe that the
theory that Mark Fuhrman may be the real killer in the Simpson matter is so childish it
deserves a response in kind. You surely don’t have to agree or to approve. I have the
same right to express my thoughts as each of you.
I also appreciate the amateur analysis of my level of comfort with Trooper. Strange. I
wonder how you determine that. The amateur sleuthing is so sad. I thought I would point
out that the probability of Trooper being the killer is just as great as Mark Fuhrman, or
Marcia Clark (your next suspect?) Perhaps I, too, would like to see a more
"intelligent" level of discussion. The other "little kid" remark about
my being superior, also is interesting. It seems that this is Pat’s evaluation.
Perhaps she is right. If the shoe fits, I’ll wear it.
Speaking of shoes, explain the photos, the bloody prints; the denials. NOTHING in this
universe will convince some of you that the evidence in this case was beyond reproof. Keep
hunting. I will keep smiling. —Tiger
Subj: Amateur by whose standards?
Date: 97-03-05 00:01:03 EST
From: Hhhana
To: Tiger
CC: Trooper, Rabne, Pat, Judge, Ted
I don’t know why I feel the need to try to defend my statements, but I want to
just make one effort.
Actually, I’m not an amateur at assessing human behavior. I’m surprised you
haven’t realized it before now. I recognize highly educated and intelligent people
from their statements; don’t need to have them lay out their credentials for me. I
assumed you did, too.
In my note I used the words inferior, stupid, idiots. I was pointing out those of us
who hold an opinion opposing yours are not these things. In your message you use racist,
hate, childish, "little kid" and every one of them was used to describe good,
decent, and intelligent people who mean you no harm. Is there something wrong with this
picture?
If we choose to consider Mark Fuhrman as a possible suspect in the murders, an
appropriate response would be, "I don’t agree," period. If you think words
don’t hurt, you’re wrong. Trooper173 would certainly be the last person in the
world to accuse of hating Asians. I won’t address it because I’m sure he will.
As for Trooper being as much a suspect as Mark Fuhrman, it reminds me of something I
heard Vannatter say about OJ and Robert Shapiro. —Paula
Subj: Re: Uncomfortable?
Date: 97-03-05 00:28:22 EST
From: Tiger
To: Hhhana
CC: Trooper, Trille, Matlock, Rabne, Pat, Peggy, Judge, Dable, Connie, Ted
Hhhana— Hey, I’m serious. I thought he was joking. There is a point at which
the theater of the absurd takes on an aura of reality. That’s dangerous. —Tiger
Subj: Re: Uncomfortable?
Date: 97-03-05 13:13:04 EST
From: Trille (Christine Armas)
To: Tiger
CC: Trooper, Wildcat, Connie
No Tiger— You did not think Trooper was joking. I have noticed that whenever
someone calls your bluff on one of your nasty remarks, you come back pretending you were
joking or that you thought the other person was, and you know very well from our
discussion how we feel. It is not enough to pretend that a remark was only meant to be
funny, it doesn’t take away from the poison you spewed. —Trille
Subj: Re: Uncomfortable?
Date: Wednesday, March 05, 1997 1:27 AM
From: Trooper
To: Hhhana
CC: Trille, Rabne, Pat, Peggy, Judge, Dable, Connie, Ted
Come on, Paula— You’re pulling my leg, right? Tiger can’t be that dumb.
NOBODY could be that dumb. I know she’s trying to cover herself for what she said
about me before. She was deadly serious then (she had just learned that I was a black
Vietnam vet) and it made her look ridiculous. That’s when Lion called a truce and
Judge jumped in to teach us all how to be nice. Tiger is trying to be sarcastic now (the
closest she can come to wit) but she must see what a parody she’s making of her own
analytical prowess. It’s supposed to be a mirror of my analytical inadequacy and my
reckless use of words—I think.
Any way you look at it, it’s great.
You were right about a newspaper (or whatever you said) picking up on this. I’m
still going to put it in a book. Now I’m sorry I zapped all of her other notes.
What do you say we advertise on the boards—send out a call for everybody’s
favorite big three (evil ones, three stooges) posts? What do you say?
Isn’t it interesting how Lion, Tiger and Bear went from the "big three"
to the "evil ones" to the "three stooges." We all use the names that
fit what they were doing at the time. I never thought they would totally fall apart like
that. It’s hard to gloat when your dreaded enemy turn out to be Larry, Mo and Curly
in drag. —Jasper
Subj: Re: Uncomfortable?
Date: 97-03-05 08:42:18 EST
From: Judge
To: Trooper, Hhhana
CC: Trille, Rabne, Peggy, Dable, Connie, Ted
Trooper— I did not jump in to teach anyone anything. I had observations and made
them. —Judge
Subj: Re: Amateur by whose standards?
Date: 97-03-05 03:44:02 EST
From: Tiger
To: Hhhana
CC: Trooper, Rabne, Pat, Judge, Ted
Paula— I really have no idea what you’re saying. I am speaking as honestly as
I can. I think the Fuhrman notion is childish, desperate, and utterly ridiculous.
That’s really the kindest thing I can say about it. I am not name-calling, I am
describing what I see. I cannot respect a perspective that has no foundation, and feel it
would be insulting to pretend that I do. If someone suggested that the sun was a light
bulb in the heavens, and presented a rationale for that idea, I would respond that the
idea was utterly ridiculous. There ARE childish perspectives.
Even your Vannatter comparison confuses me. When he said that OJ was no more a suspect
than Shapiro, he explained that he was referring to an official suspect. At that time,
there was no evidence to connect OJ to the murders, and while he might have had a possible
connection to the crime, there was no way he could have been a suspect. This, like the
1995 Fuhrman article, is irrelevant to any truths in these discussions. Funny, Trooper can
accuse Yamauchi of having motives to lie, and accuse Fuhrman of being a
murderer—that’s OK. No foundation, just choose anyone around and cast
unsubstantiated aspersions at them.
Do you guys think you know more than everyone on the Dream Team, all the investigators,
all the people who backed Simpson? Is anyone pursuing your theories, or would they be
laughed at in the real world? Paula, you cannot write the scripts for other people.
"I don’t agree" is not what I say to theories such as this one. No one
asked me, nor do they care whether or not I agree. My response was to the utterly
ludicrous nature of the idea itself. Suddenly it’s if "we" choose to
consider.... do you echo Trooper?
This was his baby—not yours.
...The man is filled with rage. He is disdainful of anyone who disagrees with HIM? He
dismisses people as if he were some pontiff on a throne speaking to peasants—and you
have to come to his defense? Paula, you and Pat have become the self-appointed attorneys
who defend others on this e-mail list. If Trooper doesn’t like what I say—he is
an adult, he can speak for himself, just as Ted could. The bottom line is that if
nonsensical statements are made, someone will call them what they are. In this case, it
was I. —Tiger
Subj: Fuhrman
Date: 97-03-05 12:55:44 EST
From: Peggy (Margaret Richardson)
To: Tiger
CC: All
Tiger—Before I start on anything else, please let me say that if I am writing to
anyone who requested to be removed from my mailing list, please contact me personally to
remove your name and I will be glad to do so. I know it can be infuriating receiving mail
from someone you have requested not to write and they keep doing it.
Tiger, your last couple of e-mails, though not addressed to me, have been hurtful to
the person they were addressed to. It’s hard for me to understand your defense of
Mark Fuhrman. I suppose the reason I haven’t been able to find anything about Mr.
Fuhrman since 1995 is because he resigned from the police force sometime in 1995 (I think)
and therefore no other information has been forthcoming. What I was speaking of was his
past "record." I have been attempting to access the California Court system to
find some written record of the 4 brutality lawsuits he is alleged to be connected with.
Also, I think it was public knowledge that the lawsuit involving him and another officer
of planting evidence was settled during the Simpson criminal trial.
Mark Fuhrman’s record stands on his own words. There actually was an incident that
occurred in 1978 at a LA housing project which was identical to what he described to Laura
McKinny. Since Internal Affairs records are not available for public scrutiny we
won’t know what their investigation found. I don’t think the LAPD is going to
come out and admit that everything he said to Laura McKinny is true. Look at the legal
ramifications of that.
Also, everyone has said, "Well, why hasn’t anybody come forward?" I
think because you are dealing with people that have had past experiences with the police
department and who probably realize what their life could be like if they did come forward
[Editor’s note: Henry Lee, a man as highly respected for his integrity as his
expertise, had both his integrity and his expertise questioned when he said that there was
something wrong with the blood evidence linked to O.J. by Fuhrman].
I think you and I have absolutely no idea how the police can make your life a living
hell if they choose to. And it doesn’t take an entire police force, just a couple.
The law firm I worked for in Muskogee, Oklahoma, defended policemen who had been
accused of brutality. We had two or three different counties that we represented the local
police departments, and some of the stories would make you hair stand on end. They made
the newspapers, so it’s public knowledge. I realize a policeman puts his life on the
line every time he goes out on the streets, and I realize that the majority of law
enforcement officers are good, honest people, trying to do their job. But, I also realize
there are people like Mark Fuhrman. And then someone like you comes to his defense, and it
boggles my mind.
I know you are set in your convictions that OJ committed these crimes, and if it is
ever proved to my satisfaction that he did, I will be glad to admit I was wrong, but until
that time I need to be free to explore my avenues without ridicule. I will say one thing
to Lion, thanks for answering my article with your article in defense of your thoughts,
rather than putting me down for my thoughts. I know you also are set in your conviction
that OJ is guilty, but it’s nice to know you at least will listen even though it does
not change your opinion, and you will bring forward something for me to look at and
digest.
It hurts me to hear people call each other "stupid" or
"inarticulate," or refer to them as "flat-earthers." We all have our
own ideas and opinions, and in this country we are free to stand on the corner and shout
them to the world. God, now I’m lecturing, and I don’t mean to do that. Anyhow,
just thought I would get this off my chest. —Peggy
Subj: Re: Fuhrman
Date: 97-03-05 14:09:10 EST
From: Hhhana
To: Peggy
CC: Tiger, Trille, Trooper, Judge, Rabne, Pat
Peggy—Your message to Tiger was wonderful and kindly put. My hat is off to you;
you are a special person and we are all lucky to have you as a part of this group. There
can be no attempt to disguise personal insults and the feelings they cause. I have been
trying for awhile now to have a friendly dialogue with all in the group and find it cannot
be done, due to the exact things you try to point out in your previous message which I am
proud to attach to this message to you. The words we have been seeing have no place here.
You expressed it eloquently and with heart. —Paula
Subj: Re Fuhrman
Date: 97-03-05
From: Tiger
To: Peggy
CC: Hhhana, Trille, Trooper, Judge, Rabne, Pat
Peggy—If you want to open a discussion about Fuhrman, I’m game. This is not
about Fuhrman. It’s about the murder of two people. I am not about to defend or
defile Fuhrman when we are discussing the guilt or innocence of OJ Simpson, because that
is the issue I am addressing. The Fuhrman issue was successfully used in the criminal
trial to divert the jury from the irrefutable evidence that was presented. I am not about
to participate in a similar diversion.
It is my absolute, irrevocable position that the suggestions that Mark Fuhrman (or
anyone else) committed the murders is without basis, without foundation, without evidence,
and a shot in the dark by those of you who will look in every direction but at the
evidence compiled in this case. To suggest Mark Fuhrman may be the real killer is, to me,
as absurd as suggesting that a UFO with hostile, invisible aliens committed the murders,
because that would explain the absence of evidence to the contrary. I cannot say these
things without appearing to be condescending. That is not my intent.
As I said to Christine—other than my description of Trooper as a person who has
decided that some of us are not worthy of his responses—I do not publicly discuss the
people in this group. Rest assured that I have, and will respond to any personal attack on
me—but I have tried to be respectfully honest about my views—by commenting on
the content of the message, not the messenger.
For example, if one of you claimed that DNA can present a false positive test result, I
would tell you were totally wrong. If you insisted that DNA evidence was "junk
science" I would answer that your remark was uninformed and childish. That would be
my perception of the truth. If you want us to play little games, I cannot. I respect all
opinions, so long as there is some credible basis to their formation. I cannot pretend to
respect opinions that are, in my opinion, the expressions of ill-informed or immature
judgment. My comments are addressed to the opinion, not the person.
I, too, can make unfounded statements that deserve the same description. When that has
happened, I have come back with information to show the basis for my statement. That NEVER
happens with the OJI’s. We just get a harangue on the (true) racial history of this
country—and the racist nature of the OJG’s. That is usually followed by a
statement about how everyone has the right to an opinion. You all certainly do. You may
believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny, too. And I may consider those childish
and unfounded conclusions for an adult mind.
Finally, I’m really amazed at the focus on my evaluations of what is being said
here. I am not important; the issues are. Come up with ONE believable challenge of the
evidence in the trials, and we are in business. —Tiger
for Adobe PDF
version of Chapters