Subj: Re: Fuhrman
Date: 97-03-20 04:27:35 EST
From: Wildcat
To: Tiger
CC: All
Tiger— While you are literally correct, you can "rehearse" for a
polygraph by convincing yourself you are telling the truth. If Simpson could do it,
Fuhrman could.
Has anyone here besides me ever taken a polygraph test and passed it when they were
lying? It’s remarkably easy to do. —Wildcat
Subj: Re: Fuhrman
Date: 97-03-20 12:57:10 EST
From: Bull R
To: Wildcat
CC: All
Wildcat—You weren’t examined by Paul Minor and 2nd opinion by Warren Holmes,
were you? Come on, the results are in. —Bull R
Subj: Re: Fuhrman and Vannatter
Date: 97-03-20 01:05:52 EST
From: Tiger
To: Chameleon, Dable (Dianne Able)
CC: All
Chameleon, Dianne— I hate to see this turned into an LAPD feud. It’s a
distraction the OJI’s will enjoy. His book is number one. Cochran’s book never
got off the ground. Ha, ha. —Tiger
Subj: Class Act
Date: 97-03-20 08:15:32 EST
From: Hhhana
To: Wildcat
CC: Tiger, Rabne, Pat, Bull M, Peggy, Lion, Trooper, Jaguar, Judge, Diana, Bear Dable,
Connie
You nailed it, Wildcat. Psych 101. —Paula
Subj: Flea Who?
Date: 97-03-20 09:03:39 EST
From: Hhhana
To: Tiger
CC: Rabne, Chameleon, Pat, Bull M, Peggy, Lion, Trooper, Jaguar, Judge, Diana, Bear,
Dable, Connie
Tiger—I watched the gauntlet drop on national TV. You are right up to a point. I
heard it a little bit different. Mr. Bailey challenged Fuhrman to take a lie detector test
performed by the tester of his (Bailey’s) choice. He then said he would pay for the
test and issue a national apology if Fuhrman passed.
I know you noticed how the questions were structured. Even OJG’s would have to
have noticed it. Did you see blood on the door above the handle? Yes. That doesn’t
say anything; the question to answer was "did you put the blood on the door?"
There was nothing computerized about this test.
I also would make the point Pat McKenna is the investigator still working the murder
case. He is an affiliate of F. Lee’s. They don’t do anything by accident. We saw
that in Mr. Bailey’s cross-examination of Fuhrman. —Paula
Subj: Re: Fuhrman
Date: 97-03-20 11:54:49 EST
From: Diana
To: Chameleon (‘Chameleon’), Peggy (‘Margaret Richardson’), Tiger
CC: All
Tiger—Poor post on my part. Of course, you cannot rehearse for a polygraph test. I
will be more careful in posting in the future. I meant that failing this test or passing
this test does not necessarily certify that the person is not being completely truthful.
If it did, the courts would allow it into evidence, or the laws would be changed to allow
every witness in a case to be hooked up to a polygraph machine when they took the stand.
That way juries would not have to guess at whose telling the truth, the polygraph machine
could tell them, instantaneously. —Diana Fleming
Subj: Re: Fuhrman and Vannatter
Date: Thursday, March 20, 1997 10:02 AM
From: Tiger
To: Dianne , Bull, Chameleon
CC: All
Dianne—There was no suspicion at any time that Fuhrman planted blood. He had just
come on the scene, and no blood had been taken from OJ. The argument is between Fuhrman
and Vannatter about a bloody print on the gate. Also, opinions are irrelevant in a
criminal investigation. There is not one shred of evidence, not an iota—that anyone
else but Simpson was at the crime scene. —Tiger
Tiger— Funny, I thought there were two victims present at the crime scene [Editor’s
note: The athletic condition of the two victims before the attack, and the wounds on their
bodies when they were found offered plenty of evidence that someone other than O.J. was in
the "killing cage" with them]. —Diana
Tiger— Everything we’ve seen has been based on opinion. What about the good
Dr. Werner Spitz? It was his "opinion" and he stated it. It was the
investigators’ "opinion" of the type of crime, i.e., personal vs. random,
vs. rage, vs. revenge, etc....
It really is possible to skate on a lie detector, Tiger, it really is. Read up on it.
There’s probably a web site telling everybody exactly how to do it. —Paula
Subj: Re: Fuhrman and Vannatter
Date: 97-03-20 13:22:16 EST
From: Bull M
To: Bull R
CC: All
Bull— There seem to be a couple of posters here that claim lie detector tests can
be beaten with a little practice and a little mind control. It’s easy they say. Duh,
they say. I did it myself, they say. Well I have a challenge. If these tests are so easy
to beat, why doesn’t (hasn’t) the great one himself, in over two years, taken a
public test to prove his contention that he is innocent? After all his dream team lawyers
said how smart and how incredibly sharp O.J. is, and he has certainly talked himself and a
few other stalwarts into believing his innocence. Come on OJ, didn’t you take Psych
101, or were you too busy beating up and raping young girls when you were in college to
study? — Bull
for Adobe PDF
version of Chapters