 |
Chapter
25: A MINOR DISAGREEMENT
"Darden says Fuhrman is lying; Vannatter and Lange say the same thing. Now who is
more honorable, Lange and Darden, or Fuhrman? Who would you rather meet in a dark
alley?" —Christine Armas, social activist, OJI
In the midst of the excitement about Fuhrman’s polygraph, Phil
Rabne made the mistake of pointing out the difference between fighting and battering in a
spousal relationship. He really got into trouble when he suggested that Nicole might have
borne some responsibility for the 1989 incident that put the knot on her forehead and got
O.J. arrested for battering. That was too much for "nice guy" Judge, who jumped
all over him just as he jumped all over me without taking the time to understand what he
was objecting to. Yeah, the judge was at it again. This time, Phil was the subject of his
half-baked observations and full-fledged scorn. In addition to being attacked by other
OJG’s for the questions he asked about Fuhrman’s Polygraph... OJU or OJI, he was
getting the full OJI treatment....
Subj: Welcome to our world
Date: 97-03-20 17:48:13 EST
From: Hhhana
To: Rabne
CC: Pat, Trooper
Hey Phil— ....You can’t ask questions about the tester, the questions, or the
reliability of the test itself. You cannot question the blood, and certainly don’t
ever wonder in print if the relationship of the Simpsons might have been one in which they
both participated in fighting.
I was surprised to see the message from Judge. He’s sure a nice guy, must have
pushed his buttons with the violence thing. I hope he will take the time to re-read the
letters he finds so bad. There is a huge difference between battering and fighting.
Hope you catch the show on CNN. I’ll be glued to the tube —Paula
Subj: Re: Fuhrman and Vannatter
Date: Thursday, March 20, 1997 5:02 PM
From: Tiger
To: Rabne
CC: All
Phil— You’re getting a bit arrogant yourself. You want to judge the
questions? The test was administered by the most widely acknowledged polygraph expert in
the country, and corroborated by the head of the American Polygraph Association. What in
your background qualifies you to determine the validity of the questions? The two most
important questions asked if Fuhrman planted the glove at Rockingham, and if he actually
saw the bloody print on the back gate. In fact only the first question is really
important. If he did not plant the glove, the only person who could have left it there is
good old OJ himself. Give it up. —Tiger
Subj: Re: Welcome to our world
Date: 97-03-20 19:45:00 EST
From: Phil (Philip T. Rabne)
To: Hhhana
CC: Rabne [Editor’s note: If you don’t send a copy of your e-mail letter
to yourself, you may lose it. That’s how most of us lost most of our letters, that
weren’t copied by someone else, before we caught on], Pat, Trooper
Paula— I suspect Tiger is used to managing people (as in a staff). Her technique
reminds me of bosses I used to have. She tests to see what has effect.
I’m bad to "label people." Sometimes, it’s hard as hell to peel a
label off (of course I depend on just that fact). Not that I really feel "a
particular way" about someone, its just easier to manage that person, particularly if
you know how they’ll react to the process of being labeled (not so much the label
itself).
In all cases I go after behavior and not the person. That way the object of my
"affection" remains relatively unscathed unless they strongly identify with
their own behavior. In those cases I back off quick. No victory is worth making people
feel bad about themselves. —Phil
Subj: Re: Fuhrman’s test
Date: 97-03-20 18:29:07 EST
From: Cougar
To: Tiger
CC: All
Tiger— It is my understanding from what I heard last night that the questions were
asked just as Flea phrased them to Fuhrman originally. —Cougar
Subj: Re: Fuhrman and Vannatter
Date: 97-03-20 19:32:25 EST
From: Dable
To: Tiger, Rabne, Bull
CC: All
Tiger— I only heard the questions ‘did you see the blood on the Bronco
door’ and ‘did you see the blood on the bottom of the door’ (paraphrase)
and I think a direct question of ‘did you plant the Rockingham glove’. Did I
miss the question on the gate? He was not asked if he *planted * the blood on the Bronco.
And yes I, too, want to know what questions were asked....all of them. For if the
questions were not phrased to elicit answers that will settle some of these doubts, they
were ineffectual. —Dianne (Dable)
Subj: Re: The Biased Media
Date: 97-03-20 19:54:53 EST
From: Chameleon
To: Bull M
CC: All
Bull—I searched 56 sites that I have, and found not one word...even ABC Prime Time
Live...it wasn’t their Spotlight for last night...a piece that John C. did was their
Spotlight...haven’t found the transcript. Even did an extensive search of Court
TV...It is probably hidden away on someone’s webpage. —Chameleon
Subj: Re: The Biased Media
Date: Thursday, March 20, 1997 3:00 PM
From: Cougar
To: Chameleon
CC: All
Chameleon—I tried too with no more success than you had. —Cougar
Subj: Re: The Biased Media
Date: 97-03-20 22:30:56 EST
From: Tiger
To: Cougar, Chameleon
CC: All
Cougar, Chameleon— Could it be that we’re the only ones left alive on the
planet who really care? —Tiger
Subj: Re: The Biased Media
Date: 97-03-20 22:40:19 EST
From: Trille (Christine Armas)
To: Trooper, Puma, Dable, Connie (Connie), Hhhana, Pat, Cougar
CC: All
Hi guys— Wasn’t F. Lee Bailey SUPERB, he really demolished that gas-bag
polygraph "expert."
The publisher that paid for the test is a extreme right-wing John Birch Society
publishing firm who called Eisenhower "pinko." And they publish all the kooks
like that other FBI agent who wrote about being in the White House, Aldrick, who wrote
that the Clintons had SEX TOYS ON THE WHITE HOUSE CHRISTMAS TREE!
I would not brag about ever having worked for the FBI or the CIA! Also if polygraph
tests are so reliable, Woody Allan, Anita Hill, Casper Weinburger were supposedly tested,
I don’t believe this at all, but if it is true then ANITA HILL IS TRUTHFUL AND
CLARENCE THOMAS SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO THE SUPREME COURT!
Also, it is obvious Fuhrman is a psychopath and they can lie with impunity because to
them lies don’t count. Also, he claimed that he definitely saw several BLOODSTAINS on
the door sill of the Bronco. That was never proven to be blood at all, let alone human
blood or OJ’s blood, so there is a demonstrable lie that slipped out. I don’t
suppose many people caught it. Also, it is very unlikely that with the amount of police,
technicians, prosecutors, etc. etc, that were at the two crime scenes, that no one else
would have seen the stuff that Fuhrman claims, except his partner. Obviously, they are
both getting a lot of money off the book.
And that Brad Roberts, although he was listed as a witness was never called. So why is
that? Is it because he didn’t know anything? The photos of the so-called Swiss Army
knives were too blurry to prove anything, and the clothes in the washer were
Arnelle’s underwear, and THIS CAME OUT IN A SIDE BAR AT THE CRIMINAL TRIAL. Judge Ito
made a joke out of it, but these sleazoids can say anything on these shows, they are not
under oath, they all disagree amongst themselves. Darden says Fuhrman is lying; Vannatter
and Lange say the same thing. Now who is more honorable, Lange and Darden or Fuhrman. Who
would you rather meet in a dark alley? —Trille
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: 97-03-20 22:45:31 EST
From: Margaret Richardson
To: All
All— Just got through watching Larry King Live. Anyhow, here goes, and I know the
stuff is going to hit the fan. I agree with F. Lee Bailey that the one question he
remarked about looked as though Mark Fuhrman lied. The blood pressure went bang! Of
course, when the question was asked again, everything was cool. Now, what pisses me off is
that I know the question was something about the evidence, but I can’t remember if it
was specific, or general, ie. a specific piece of evidence, or just "any"
evidence.
Also, F. Lee Bailey looked like the F. Lee Bailey whose career I have followed,
whose books I have read, and who, at one time, I thought was the greatest cross-examiner
to come along. The man can be fierce. The examiner hedged too much for me. First he
didn’t want this to become a circus, then he had to get permission from the publisher
(who paid for the test) and from Fuhrman.
What is so bad about submitting the test to a panel of his peers? If he is so very
sure, what could they have to say, but agree with him. Also, this was the very first time
I had ever heard anything about Bob Shapiro destroying the test OJ took. I can understand
stopping the test. I’m sure OJ wasn’t in any shape to take a lie detector test.
I know that if my husband had been brutally murdered, and someone wanted me to take a lie
detector test, I wouldn’t be in any shape to take one. In fact, I probably
wouldn’t even understand the questions. But, for better or for worse (and I have a
feeling it’s going to get worse) those are my thoughts. —Peggy
If Paul Minor had chosen to lie about the entire test or any part of
it, he could have. If he gave unconscious body language cues that the big questions were
coming, he wouldn’t have known. Minor and Fuhrman were the only witnesses to what
happened. There were no audio or videotapes made, no independent members of the press
invited, and no independent polygraph expert present in any capacity. In the end, the test
results were a matter of trust in Paul Minor, a man who would not submit his findings to a
peer review—unless given permission to do so by Regnery Publishing and Mark Fuhrman.
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: 97-03-20 22:45:31 EST
From: Bear
To: Peggy (Margaret Richardson)
CC: All
Peggy— It was explained on the show that the blood pressure rose in anticipation
of the question, in other words, before the question was actually asked, was it not? Of
course Bailey is going to make a big deal about that one, we didn’t expect anything
different from him. —Bear
Subj: Larry King Live
From: Tiger
To: Peggy
CC: All
Peggy—The only thing I am grateful for is that Bailey represents YOUR side. If he
were speaking for the OJG’s, I’d convert to your side in seconds. What a load of
crap. Bang? Are you serious? C’mon—your reaction was mapped out by us last
night. We knew exactly what you would say. The same tactic as in the trial was used
here—if you attack the test, attack the tester. Wait and see—There will be many
other experts who will corroborate the validity of this test. Then you will tell us they
are only saying that because they all hate black people. No matter. The idol will never
fall. —Tiger
Subj: Larry King Live
Date: 97-03-20 22:40:18 EST
From: Peggy (Margaret Richardson)
To: Tiger
CC: All
Tiger— Your reaction came as no surprise at all. But your remark about black
people did. That’s hitting below the belt, even for you Tiger, and I don’t
appreciate it. —Peggy
Subj: Larry King Live
From: Bull R
To: Peggy
CC: All
Peggy—So now you are a polygraph "expert" just like the has-been Bailey.
Tiger had it right and we all expected this scenario. Bailey showed what kind of great guy
he is by his recount on the OJ polygraph and Shapiro hiding the charts. Does that tell you
anything about the ethics of these people? This is truly a strange phenomenon that no
matter what factual evidence is presented, there will always be someone who takes the
opposite view that is supported by facts and denies the obvious. It is, and unbelievably
continues, to be so laughable. —Bull R
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: 97-03-20 22:55:09 EST
From: Lion
To: Peggy (Margaret Richardson)
CC: All
Peggy, what did you expect Bailey to say? I’m sorry! You are agreeing with Bailey
and you don’t even remember if there was a "direct" question as to
planting! Bailey represented Simpson; did you expect him to change hats now? Bailey could
not KNOW unless he was God if Fuhrman planted geraniums, never mind the glove. He took a
chance, and don’t kid yourself, he was all ready with his Plan B if Fuhrman passed.
When have you ever seen experts agree unanimously on anything? Of course if they
allowed 6 other experts to examine the test and give their opinions or interpretations the
results would vary. We show that over & over again in the two trials...Photo experts
disagreed, DNA experts disagreed, forensic scientists disagreed, and they ALL examined the
same test results. So why should a distinguished, highly regarded expert like Paul Miner
let Bailey railroad him into doing something that will be for naught? Bottom line, Mark
Fuhrman passed the polygraph test, O.J. Simpson flunked badly...End of story... —Lion
How does one begin to cope with logic like that? The polygraph test is
valid because expert A says so and, expert B agreed although experts C and D disagree.
Since experts in general disagree on the same evidence, a panel of experts would not be
able to agree; not 12 out of 12, or 9 out of 10 or 6 out of 8. But 2 out of hundreds or
thousands means that you can rely on the conclusion reached by the 2... What kind of
twisted mind wouldn’t go for that deal?
Subj: Fuhrman’s test
Date: 97-03-21 00:21:55 EST
From: Pat
To: Hhhana
CC: Trooper, Jaguar, Peggy, Dable
Well did you all see Fuhrman and Bailey on Larry King? What do you think? I think the
ex-FBI guy was paid by Fuhrman’s publisher to make sure he passed. He refused to send
the test to the American Polygraph Board or whatever it is. He sure did a lot of
stammering. I don’t know about you, but I believe Bailey. Why would the examiner not
send the result to the Board? He said it wasn’t his to send, he’d have to get an
OK from Fuhrman and the publisher of Fuhrman’s book, but he had just shown it to the
whole world on TV.
The OJG’s are going to say we are just sticking up for OJ. Poor MF was telling the
truth and we won’t accept it. Oh well. We’ll wait and see what happens.
—Pat (Crowe)
Subj: Lie detector
Date: Thursday, March 20, 1997 10:02 PM
From: Trooper
To: Hhhana
CC: Patricia Whetham, Peggy, Trille, Dianne, Chameleon, Kim, Connie, Rabne, Ted
Paula— Did you see that farce of a test? Is Minor another example of our crack FBI
at work?
Good Grief! —Jasper
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: Thursday, March 20, 1997 10:59 PM
From: Pat
To: Lion, Margaret Richardson
CC: All
Tiger—the direct question that had to be asked twice because his BP went up the
first time was, "DID YOU PLANT THE GLOVE AT ROCKINGHAM?" —Pat (Crowe)
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: Saturday, March 22, 1997 3:24 PM
From: Tiger
To: Patricia Whetham, Lion, Margaret Richardson
CC: All
Pat, the BP went up slightly, BEFORE the question was asked—therefore the repeat.
The anticipation of a loaded question which has haunted you because of false accusations
for 2 years would make anyone a bit nervous. Repeating a question on a polygraph for
verification is standard operating procedure. —Tiger
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: 97-03-22 15:36:16 EST
From: Pat
To: Lion, Peggy, Tiger
CC: All
Tiger—If you believe that I’ve got some swampland for sale cheap. —Pat
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: Saturday, March 22, 1997 5:39 PM
From: Bear
To: Patricia Whetham
CC: Lion, Peggy, Tiger, Chameleon, Matlock, Cougar, Rabne, Bull M, Puma, Hhhana,
Trooper, Jaguar, Judge, Dable, Diana, Connie, Ted, Wildcat, Panther, Bull R
Crowe— I will again send out the message I had sent to you earlier regarding
question 15. Please read: Please read the following excerpt from the transcript of Larry
King Live. I had answered Peggy regarding this particular question, that his reaction was
noted 5 seconds prior to the asking of the question. My memory was correct. Perhaps this
will put any questions regarding this particular question (15) to rest once and for all.
—Bear
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: 97-03-22 16:20:05 EST
From: Pat
To: Bear
CC: Lion, Peggy, Tiger, Chameleon, Matlock, Cougar, Rabne, Bull M, Puma, Hhhana,
Trooper, Jaguar, Judge, Dable, Diana, Connie, Ted, Wildcat, Panther, Bull R
Bear— Don’t bother sending it again. I read it, I watched the show, I read
the transcript, I have the show on tape I just don’t believe it. I think Minor sold
out to the publisher. I do not think the test was conducted properly. If it was, why
won’t Minor send it out to his peers in the American Polygraph Association? Something
stinks to high heaven. Bailey did not ask him to send it to one of his friends. He asked
Minor to send it to the Association he belongs to and he refused. That makes me think
something is wrong.
MINOR: The two questions that I think would be of great interest is question 15: Did
you plant the bloody glove in Rockingham? And as you can see there is a rise of blood
pressure there. However, if you look very closely, that rise starts about five seconds
prior to the asking of the question, so that’s really not relevant and there was some
movement there possibly a little bit of discomfort from the cuff caused a little flexing
the muscle.
MORET: What was the answer to that question?
MINOR: He answered "no" to that question—did you plant the bloody glove
at Rockingham? "No." Now, seeing that there in close proximity in the rise of
blood pressure, I asked that same question a second time. Right here is question 15-R. It
just means question 15 repeated . And as you can see, there’s no appreciable reaction
there at all compared to the control question following immediately after that: Are you
afraid you’ll fail this polygraph test?
MORET: Why did you ask that question twice?
MINOR: I saw the rise of blood pressure immediately prior to the asking of the
question, and just to make it a clean chart and to make sure that I wasn’t
overlooking something, I re-asked the question a second time. And I also ran these
questions again on another chart in addition to this. But this is how it came out. There
was just no reaction there.
And again, as I said, the biggest reaction is out here at the control question, and the
way polygraph works is you compare the reaction here to the reaction here. And, of course,
the control question is far and above that. The other question that would be of interest,
is number 16—right here. Did you plant any evidence in the Simpson case? Did you
plant any evidence, meaning at either residence? And of course, at 16, there is no
appreciable reaction there at all. —Pat (Crowe)
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: Saturday, March 22, 1997 6:27 PM
From: Bear
To: Patricia Whetham
CC: All
Crowe— Bailey wanted the polygraph expert for the LAPD to do the test. Do you not
think that "that stinks?" Something is definitely wrong when Bailey wants to
involve any part of the LAPD in this... —Bear
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: 97-03-22 16:54:42 EST
From: Pat
To: Bear
CC: All
Bear— ...As for Bailey wanting the LAPD guy to do the test, he said it was because
he was familiar with LAPD and it’s officers. The something definitely wrong is Minor
not wanting to send it to his own association for review. That smells to me of cover-up.
—Pat (Crowe)
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: 97-03-23 10:48:18 EST
From: Bear
To: Pat
CC: All
Crowe—Bailey challenged Fuhrman to take the test in early Feb (I believe) of this
year! I would say that he took up the challenge very quickly, don’t you? I think your
last sentence says it all. It wouldn’t matter if the APA did review the test
results...in your mind he had lots of time to "practice," therefore whatever
their conclusions were, would be incorrect in your eyes! Tell me why you then insist on
the APA reviewing them? —Bear
Subj: Bailey’s request...
Date: 97-03-23 13:19:09 EST
From: Lion
To: Pat
CC: All
Pat (Crowe)— That’s a valid question Bear is asking. If you are of the
opinion that "the results don’t matter" why are you supporting
Bailey’s demands? —Lion
Subj: Re: Poster Boy
Date: Sunday, March 23, 1997 11:39 AM
From: Trooper
To: Patricia Whetham
CC: Hhhana, Peggy, Trille, Dianne, Chameleon, Kim, Connie, Rabne, Ted, Maggie, Jaguar
Pat—The fact that so many OJG’s have embraced Fuhrman with such pride and
glee on the basis of the test (taken in private) that we all saw re-enacted on Larry King
Live, ought to remind them of something. Remember how the OJG’s you knew reacted to
Fuhrman’s first appearance on the witness stand?
I do.
I was at work where I was surrounded by them. They were hi-fiving each other and saying
what a jerk Bailey was for bringing up all that nonsense about Fuhrman being a racist.
They could see for themselves by Mark Fuhrman’s smooth, steady performance that the
detective had been unfairly branded a racist for a few insensitive words he may have used
over ten years before. Anyone who said otherwise was clearly injecting race where it
didn’t belong—but you know how THOSE PEOPLE are. If Fuhrman said he hadn’t
used the "n" word in 10 years, he hadn’t. Anybody with half a brain could
see that for themselves by comparing what he said and how he said it to everything else he
said and how he said it. The man was a star!
That was their first test of Fuhrman’s credibility and their first
"proof" that Bailey was the MF, not MF. Now it’s happening again. The
multitude is again embracing Mark Fuhrman. Don’t be surprised to see him run for
political office soon. And don’t be surprised to see him win. It’s at times like
this that I wish I could hide my country from the world and say, "That wasn’t
really us you saw, not deep down in our heart of hearts." But if I did say that, what
would happen to my credibility?
Your embarrassed American friend —Jasper
Subj: Re: Poster Boy
Date: 97-03-23 12:49:50 EST
From: Pat
To: Trooper
CC: Hhhana, Peggy, Trille, Dable, Chameleon , Kim, Connie, Rabne, Ted, Maggie, Jaguar
Jasper— Things like that don’t just happen in America I’m sorry to say.
They happen here too. I watched a movie this morning about Little Rock Arkansas, in the
late fifties when integration was ordered by Eisenhower. It is so upsetting to know that
things like that happened so few years ago. I know the problems are still there and I know
it was just a movie but what those kids had to go through to attend a white high school.
It just makes my angry that we haven’t moved further away from this garbage. Oh well.
I guess change takes time but sometimes it seems as if it’s crawling instead of
flying. —Pat (Crowe)
Subj: Brutality vs. frame-up
Date: 97-03-22 15:34:05 EST
From: Maggie
To: Bull
CC: Chameleon, Pat, Trooper, Lion, Bear, Rabne, Matlock, Tiger, Hhhana
Bull—Hi! My name is Maggie and I’d like to address something in your post.
Police frame-up was used indirectly in the Rodney King case. Anyone who wanted the public
to believe that it took that many police officers to "keep King down" on the
ground was engaging in a frame up. That may not have been pled in the case but it was
implicit to the defense of those police officers that people believed that Rodney King
"deserved" the brutality that was shown in the video. —Maggie
Maggie— Welcome, please post your messages at the top, it is easier to follow that
way. Can you not see the difference between brutality, of which some police are surely
guilty, as well as some civilians (noted case in point, OJ), and frame-up, not cover up
but frame up. Sure you can tell me of many cases of police brutality, but I challenge you
to tell me of one case, anywhere in the USA, that the defense was "frame-up"
Can’t you see the difference? —Bull M
Bull— I think frame-up and cover-up are interchangeable in the OJ case. When
something is covered up (i.e., framed in a different way) then other things may be taken
the wrong way. For instance, the glove on OJ’s property—why did the police jump
on that as proof that OJ was a suspect? (I always wondered why they related the glove to
OJ before they ever met OJ to begin with. That’s weird.)
In California, land of the "strange stalkers of stars" (Madonna had a guy
jump a fence and enter her property, Teresa Saldana had a guy stalking her almost on her
doorstep, Rebecca Shaeffer, etc.) why wouldn’t the police’s first gut reaction
be "The killer came from Bundy to Rockingham," not "Oh now I know OJ is a
suspect." (Remember Vannatter claimed that he was used to dealing with celebs so
theoretically he would relate the glove to other celeb stalking cases.)
Thus the frame-up begins when the police "rush to judgment" and declare that
OJ is the guy who committed the crime, without an in-depth study of the relation of drug
crimes, (Faye Resnick, with drugs, had lived at the Bundy address one week prior to the
tragedy and Ron was carrying a white envelope about the size of a "drug stash."
We know it did not contain drugs but a crazy drug addict desperate for drugs might not
have known it.) and celeb stalking (in view of those I earlier cited ). I never understood
why the police did not research this case from every angle especially since the world
seemed to be watching right from the start. —Maggie.
Maggie—You are making some big leaps in regard to the rush to judgment. After
declaring Rockingham a crime scene based on the evidence that was found, Simpson became a
suspect. They questioned him that day, but remember they did not arrest Simpson until the
initial blood testing came back and linked Simpson. That evidence, along with others such
as no alibi, the Bronco, etc. is when they issued a warrant. There was no rush to
judgment, the evidence pointed only to Simpson. They did look for evidence to clear
Simpson but found none. And they did check out other leads as they came in.
Also, as I stated in other posts, the defense did have Pavelic and other investigators
looking into your areas of concern, such as Faye Resnick, and found nothing. They are the
ones that came up with some of the bogus witnesses, such as Rosa Lopez and Gershias, and
we know what happened with them. They were the ones to dig up dirt on Fuhrman etc. So
don’t think for a minute that the defense didn’t try to find evidence to clear
Simpson. They did, but came up empty. And now with Fuhrman passing a polygraph, I think it
is time for some clear and logical thinking to begin on the part of the OJI’s and the
guilt of Simpson. However, I haven’t seen any integrity in that regard. —Bull R
Apparently Bull R hadn’t read Lange and Vannatter’s book, "Evidence
Dismissed: The Inside Story of the Police Investigation of O.J. Simpson."
That’s what it says, on the cover, "..Investigation of O.J. Simpson,"
and that’s what the book is about. The only evidence they looked for or followed up
on was that which they thought would help to convict O.J. Simpson of murder. They
couldn’t understand, for instance, why Marcia Clark refused to call a credible
witness who could testify to seeing O.J. throw something in a trash can at the airport.
O.J.’s PI’s knew why. It was because O.J. was on camera at LAX from the time he
got out of his limo to the time he got on the plane, and all of the trash cans had been
searched. In other words, the LAPD detectives acted just like our OJG’s. Whatever
pointed to innocence they ignored, misrepresented or forgot. Whatever pointed to guilt
they accepted without question even if crucial elements were missing or they didn’t
quite add up.
Subj: Re: Frame-ups
Date: 97-03-22
From: Pat
To: Maggie
CC: All
Hi Maggie— Welcome. I like the way you think. Don’t let the OJG’s get
you down. Bull must have read Vincent Bugliosi’s book as what he says above about
police frame-ups comes directly from there. I am definitely an OJI so welcome again and I
look forward to hearing more from you. —Pat
Subj: Re: Frame-ups
Date: 97-03-22 16:54:49 EST
From: Maggie
To: Bull
CC: Peggy (Margaret Richardson), Matlock, Tiger, Cougar, Rabne, Pat, Chameleon, Puma,
Lion, Bear, Hhhana, Trooper, Jaguar, Judge, Dable, Diana, Connie, Ted, Wildcat, Panther
Bull— ...I should tell you that I do not nor did I read tabloids or watch "OJ
is guilty" based talk shows. My comments come from the trials, as well as LKL show
who allowed both sides to be represented.
My arguments are my arguments, not rehashing from the defense. I do not accept leaps
made on the basis of speculation that the detectives didn’t have the benefit of
hindsight. They had something that should have been better — 90+ years of experience
that says when you come upon a scene you investigate thoroughly instead of speculating
with "on the spot screenplays" based on what someone remembers happening 9 years
earlier at another location (MF 1985). A thorough investigation would have taken a few
weeks and would have included a drug theory even if later it was disproved. (LA has a
known drug scene). You do not look at a glove and say "OJ did it" unless you
know that it is OJ’s glove and you saw him wearing it earlier that night maybe!!!
Since that didn’t take place well... —Maggie
Maggie— ...Let’s put this to rest. You are overlooking the totality of my
post. The fact is that the defense had more investigators that just Pavelic and they
turned over every rock to find anything on Resnick and her connections. You are making an
incredible leap based on nothing more than speculation. The LAPD had the incredible job of
following up on leads submitted to them from the public, no matter how ludicrous those
claims were. It may not have been Lange and Vannatter, but it was other detectives.
Whatever witnesses were not used by the prosecution could and in some cases were used by
the defense. Listen, your argument on conspiracy to frame Simpson doesn’t hold any
water. It’s the usual speculation. You are ignoring the evidence that pointed only to
Simpson. This is an old bogus defense argument that doesn’t get any better by
rehashing it. —Bull R
Margaret Richardson wrote:
Maggie— Welcome. And thanks for the insightful input. But, be prepared. It appears
you are an OJI or OJU, so get ready. I hope you have a good sense of humor and a nice
strong back. Right at first the OJG’s may be polite, but as we go along you will get
dumped on, bad. I agree with you as far as why the police did not investigate further. It
just reinforces Vannatter’s lie about "OJ not being a suspect." In
Bosco’s book he refers to the fact that only hours after the murders were committed ,
Marcia Clark stated she "knew OJ was the killer, all the evidence was a trail leading
right to OJ." I think the DA needed a high profile case, and needed to win a high
profile case since he had done so badly on the Menendez brothers, and others. He was only
re-elected by a narrow margin from what I understand, and that margin was probably some of
the people who believe OJ was guilty, and voted for that reason to re-elect him. I think
that’s why this case just won’t be laid to rest until these questions are
answered, and although you will receive all sorts of rhetoric from the OJG’s you
probably won’t get any direct answers to your questions. You will hear a lot about
DNA, Bruno Magli shoeprints, blood-drops beside Bruno Magli shoeprints, and photos of O.J.
in Bruno Magli shoes, but don’t question the time frame, the "wet" glove at
Rockingham, Mark Fuhrman’s role in the case, Faye Resnick’s involvement, any of
the testimony in either case, or any police misconduct. It just didn’t happen.
—Peggy
Subj: OJ Simpson
Date: 97-03-22 20:31:09 EST
From: Jaguar
To: Tiger, Lion, Pat
CC: Bear, Peggy, Chameleon, Matlock, Cougar, Rabne, Puma, Hhhana, Trooper173, Judge,
Dable, Diana, Connie, Ted, Wildcat, Panther, Bull M
Lion, Tiger, Pat— I’m convinced. Those who believe he’s innocent will
believe that until the day they die. Those that think he’s guilty will never change
their minds...
Until the day we pass on into the great unknown, people will be debating this case with
unflagging conviction on both sides. Just think, for the rest of our natural lives, people
will be asking...
"Do you think OJ Simpson was framed?"
He is locked into our inner consciousness now, an archetypal symbol of the Fallen Hero,
giving rise to a new eternal antithesis more universally compelling than Truth and Beauty
because there is no unity: Are you OJG or OJI? And attached to these designators are all
the social differentiators that no civil person would overtly broach: race, education, and
intelligence—"You think he’s innocent? What are you, black or stupid?"
Instead, we wage our battle between the polarities of totality and plethora, assembling
and disassembling, pitting logic against intuition, science against mysticism, objectivity
against pure belief as the evidence is hashed and re-hashed without refrain.
And so we march forward, harbingers of the new millennium, divided more deeply than
religion about the blood on the socks and the pictures of the Bruno Magli shoes... no hope
of reconciliation here, just the endless cycling of arguments that will slowly evolve,
shift and simplify over time until all that is needed to set us apart is: are you OJI or
OJG? ‘Nuf said.
There are larger, more important themes here, but they get lost in all the muck. I
mean, really, what do these differences—OJI v. OJG—say about us, as people, as a
society? The trials themselves are like suns that will never set, but there’s
something to be found in both the light that is cast and the shadows—why don’t
we look? There are plenty of things to learn from all of this, about ourselves and each
other, that we would have never known before... and that is worth thinking about.
—Jaguar
Subj: OJ’s living space
Date: 97-03-23 01:18:57 EST
From: Peggy
To: Tiger
CC: All
Tiger— ...It seems that anybody who saw something was subject to prosecution or
run out of the country. Great police work. Why is it so hard to admit that just hours
after the murder Marcia Clark stated "OJ did it, he’s a wife beater, he’s
guilty,"? Vannatter lied when he said OJ was not a suspect when they went to
Rockingham. And why was it necessary that four, count them, four detectives, two who were
in charge of the crime scene at Bundy and two who had been there previously, had to go to
OJ’s? I mean is it the policy of the LAPD to just leave the crime scene and go to a
man’s house to tell him his ex-wife had been killed? Why didn’t these four
detectives go to the Brown home to tell them their daughter had been killed? At the time
they went to OJ’s did they even know who Ron was? In their eyes this was OJ from the
get-go, and I think you all know that. —Peggy
Patricia Whetham wrote:
Why did it take Fuhrman 2 years to take the test? Why just when his book is out does he
finally take it? How many other practice tests did he take? Too many unanswered questions
to take the results seriously. Pat (Crowe)
Pat— More unanswered questions: Why didn’t Simpson take the stand in the
criminal trial, was he afraid of something? Why did Simpson flunk the prelim polygraph?
Since the defense had already done a prelim, why didn’t they continue and go on? Was
it because Simpson did so badly, they knew to continue would be disastrous for Simpson?
Why did Simpson deny taking a polygraph at all? Was it because he scored a minus 22, one
of the worst scores that could possibly be obtained? Far beyond someone who is anxious or
nervous! Why did Fuhrman pass with flying colors and Simpson fail miserably? Pat, I am
convinced you are in denial, and I don’t mean the river in Egypt! —Lion
Pat—It seems to me that the fact that Fuhrman was willing to undergo the test
indicates that he is willing to put his ‘money where his mouth is." When Simpson
does the same thing, I believe the OJI’S will have something to point to. Of all the
people who would want to convince the public of his innocence, it should be Simpson. Some
of you may not like Fuhrman, but he had the courage to hang out there for all to see.
Where is O.J? —Tiger
Dianne— I know next to nothing about polygraphs, so my thoughts are based on
nothing more than logic. But, a control question that elicits a true answer can also be
used as a measuring stick to determine when an answer is a lie, logically. If you ask a
control question like, "Is your name Mark Fuhrman?" or, "Are you in
Washington DC right now," the answer "yes" would indicate he was telling
the truth and be reflected as such on the polygraph. That would then be the reference
point to determine when the polygraph is indicating deception...Basically, it is what you
were saying in reverse! Seems to me the control questions can be asked either way, to
elicit a lie, a bit harder, or to elicit a true answer which then can be compared to the
rest of the questions asked —Lion
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: Friday, March 21, 1997 11:58 AM
From: Philip T. Rabne
To: Lion
CC: All
Lion— It’s also nice to have a response to an obvious lie so as to have a
baseline for comparison to other possible lies. I’m bothered by the steady increase
in BP throughout the session. I wish I knew what it meant. Care to hazard a guess?
—Phil
Phil—Probably that he was lying his damned fool head off. I don’t know how
anyone can believe anything he says. Now he’s become the poster boy for the
OJG’s. It’s disgusting. Funny how their memories can change. He was a real dog
during the trial and now he’s the cop of the century. Well my problem is—either
Fuhrman or Vannatter and Lange are lying. Which one or ones? —Pat (Crowe)
Phil— I’ll try to answer your question regarding the rise in BP using simple
logic, since I am neither a doctor or an expert on polygraph testing...I can only imagine
the stress factor of being accused of something so evil after 20 years as a law
enforcement officer and living with that accusation for 2 ½ years. Why wouldn’t his
BP rise in anticipation of the "tell all" question he knew was coming? I would
be more concerned if there was no change at all! That would certainly indicate total
control, perhaps indicative of someone who was well rehearsed. So you see, I view the rise
in BP as a normal occurrence to a question that is extremely disturbing, rather than to
see it as an indication of a lie. —Lion
Subj: Re: Larry King Live
Date: Friday, March 21, 1997 11:52 PM
From: Matlock
To: Rabne, Lion
CC: All
Phil— Re rising blood pressure: "Because of the pressure on the upper
arm’s artery caused by the blood pressure cuff, tests are limited to no more than
seven minutes." F. Lee Bailey, The Defense Never Rests, page 23. —Matlock
Subj: Re: Who’s lying?
Date: 97-03-23 10:40:44 EST
From: Lion
To: Pat
CC: All
Pat (Crowe)— Polygraph test says Fuhrman is telling the truth! Polygraph test says
Simpson is a liar, which also makes him a murderer! A double murderer! Court TV recorded
THIRTY inconsistencies after a little more than ONE day’s testimony by Simpson!
Vannatter is just a man looking to retire with his wife, Rita, to a farm...
There is only one person with the best reason in the world to lie and that’s the
murderer, Simpson...and if I had to choose between Simpson and Fuhrman as a poster boy, I
am afraid it would have to be Fuhrman! Are you familiar with the Eric Harris case that
Fuhrman was involved in? Eric Harris was an African-American who was charged with
murdering a white man in LA... Fuhrman was the cop who fought tooth and nail to prove he
was innocent, and finally got the charges dropped!! Do some research, I’m sure you
will find documentation of this... —Lion
The name is Aarick Harris. Fuhrman’s efforts on his behalf
followed his testimony in O.J.’s preliminary trial. Similar instances of Fuhrman
behaving in a conspicuously non-racist way don’t go back much farther than that. Put
yourself in his shoes (size 12 Bruno Maglis). You have committed murder, perjury, witness
tampering, and evidence tampering. You have a ton of racist baggage that you know will be
used against you in court. You are, in short, vulnerable on many fronts, despite your
cultivation of minority supporters in advance of the murders at 875 S. Bundy. Can the
Aarick Harris case help you? Ask Lion, she’ll tell you all you need to know.
Click Here for Chapter 26 |
for Adobe PDF
version of Chapters