Subj: Re: No blood on stairs
Date: 97-03-23
From: Lion
To: Maggie
CC: All
Maggie—If you are suggesting that Simpson’s blood was planted at Rockingham,
perhaps you should know that Vannatter did not arrive with Simpson’s sample until
after 4pm on Monday, June 13th! The blood was seen in the foyer, in the driveway and in
Simpson’s upstairs bathroom 12 hours earlier. Would be pretty darn hard to plant
Simpson’s blood even before they took the sample from him, now wouldn’t it! As
for there being blood in the foyer and not on the white carpeting on the stairs, would you
walk on white carpeting with bloody shoes? You would take them off, wouldn’t you? If
your finger was dripping blood, wouldn’t you grab a paper towel from the kitchen
before you went upstairs to the bedroom? So, we have blood in the foyer, no blood on the
stairs, and blood in the upstairs bathroom. Really not that hard to logically put it
together! —Lion
Lion— He wouldn’t even need the paper towel—if he carried the shoes in
the hand that was bleeding the blood would just drip inside the shoes. —Cougar
Cougar— Certainly that’s another possibility! But, I have always contended
that the bloody shoes were in the black bag with the knife left out in the driveway
—Lion
Lion—Yes, I agree it’s more likely the shoes were in the black bag outside.
Of course the most simplistic way to stop the dripping (once he noticed he was bleeding)
is to stick the cut finger into the mouth—it’s almost instinctive to do that.
—Cougar
Maggie— It is my recollection that the 4 blood-drops in the foyer contained
"only" OJ’s DNA. —Chameleon
Subj: Good-bye for awhile
Date: 97-03-24 14:42:38 EST
From: Hhhana
To: Peggy
CC: Crowe, Trille, Trooper
Everybody— I have read the mail going back and forth and, of course, I am very
disappointed in the elevated status Mark Fuhrman has achieved among some. I was furious
when I read it, have tried to put the shoe on the other foot and imagine how OJG’s
feel when they butt up against those of us who still admire O.J. Simpson. Maybe it’s
a similar feeling...not sure.
I do know Mark Fuhrman to be a racist and a liar. Was he a good police officer? I think
it depends on your race and sex. If you are a white American male, he was probably
wonderful. Should he be a police officer anywhere? No!
...Mark Fuhrman, whose book is #1 on the bestseller list... is more dangerous now....
The more he feels accepted, the more powerful he will become. He was not a good cop. The
citizen’s watch group in LA had many complaints filed against him for brutality to
blacks. He is rotten to the core and cannot be allowed any status....
Please get a copy of the tapes....please read his words for yourselves. "The main
thing you need to know about niggers is the first thing out of their mouths is a f_____
lie" laughing... "you can’t bruise a nigger" These are words that will
haunt me always. I hate them, but I don’t ever want to forget them. If you can set
them aside, Mark Fuhrman will become a good guy and he is not. If we let him back in, we
are in much more trouble than many of you realize.
Many in this group KNOW OJ is the killer, some in the group believe him to be innocent.
It doesn’t matter which way any of us think regarding OJ. OJ is a snowball in the
summer. You’ll believe what you have to and I’ll believe what I have to. You
don’t agree with me, it’s okay. I’ll never agree with you unless OJ calls
me and says, "Paula, I did it." Again, it’s O.K.
But if we can only agree on one thing, should it not be Mark Fuhrman? Those who think
OJ guilty and those of us who believe him innocent can at least stand together against
Fuhrman and the likes of Fuhrman? There is no place in our country for him. —Paula
Subj: Re: Fuhrman’s clean record
Date: 97-03-24 21:32:09 EST
From: Tiger
To: Peggy (Margaret Richardson)
CC: Matlock, Maggie (Rita Lava), Cougar, Rabne, Pat, Chameleon, Puma, Lion, Bear,
Hhhana, Trooper, Jaguar, Judge, Dable, Diana, Connie, Ted, Wildcat, Panther, Bull
Peggy— I will not be put in a position of defending Fuhrman. Focusing on him is
falling into the same trap as in the trial. Fuhrman, so far as I am concerned, is no
different from any cop who deals with the lowest form of criminals—of any color or
race. They do not deal with them as gentlemen, and sometimes get down to the same level of
the street people they accost on a daily basis. I don’t know. I am not a police
officer or a criminal.
I am not about to judge the words above the deeds. All I say, and stand by, is that
Fuhrman’s past has no bearing on this case. If you believe he planted the glove,
eliminate the glove from the evidence, and you still get a murderer named Simpson. Fuhrman
passed a polygraph with flying colors. Enough said. There is enough sleaze in this case,
on both sides, to go around many times. I really have no interest in a discussion of the
other personalities, unless it adds to a discovery of the truth about the murders.
I’d like to know how many times Bailey has used the N word in the past ten years. You
can bet it was more often than Fuhrman. —Tiger
Subj: Fuhrman’s clean record
Date: 97-03-25 14:57:43 EST
From: Peggy (Margaret Richardson)
To: Tiger
CC: All
Tiger: You say you will not be put in a position of defending Fuhrman, yet this is the
second time this month that you have done so. On March 3rd you wrote "Fuhrman was
stupid. He spent all those years earning a clean record as an officer in one of the most
difficult areas to police in the country." And then your latest post about his clean
record. Whether you like it or not, you are defending Fuhrman.
I’m beginning to see a trend here. It’s kind of a thrust and retreat type of
thing. You thrust with Fuhrman’s clean record, and the minute someone comes back with
anything refuting that clean record, you retreat into the "I will not be put in a
position of defending Mark Fuhrman" mode.
Maybe there are some of us who feel Mark Fuhrman’s past has a definite bearing on
this case. I can only request of you what you have requested of me. When you make a
statement, prove it. You have commented twice, within one month, about Fuhrman’s
clean record. Where is your proof? I have given you mine, and since Mr. Fuhrman passed his
lie detector test with such flying colors, we know he doesn’t lie. Of course, he was
not asked about the "N" word or about Kathleen Bell. I agree with Matlock. I too
wonder why he wasn’t asked about Kathleen Bell. That would have been one way to tell
whether he or she was lying. He has continually denied saying anything to Kathleen Bell.
Perhaps his publisher who footed the bill for this little fiasco didn’t want any
questions asked that would show the world what kind of individual Mr. Fuhrman is. So,
Tiger, since you, Lion, Bear and Bull are always so fast to demand proof from us (and I
think I speak for the majority of OJI’s), let’s see some "proof" of
Mr. Fuhrman’s "clean record" and distinguished career on the streets
protecting us from the criminal element out there. —Peggy
Subj: e-mail
Date: 97-03-24 15:04:18 EST
From: Peggy (Margaret Richardson)
To: Pat
CC: Maggie (Rita Lava), Rabne, Hhhana, Trooper, Dable, Connie
Hi Pat— You know, what is so strange is that when you and I, or I and Paula, or
Jasper want to talk we do it between each other and don’t subject the rest of the
group to our chitchat. But the one-liners between the Big 4 will go on forever, I guess.
Diana Fleming wrote to have her name off the list, which I have done. She said she had 350
messages, and I’ll bet over 1/4th of them were the one-liners. Personally, I
don’t even find them funny.
Anyhow Bear and Tiger have requested a list of questions. It may take me a day or two,
but I plan to go back over a lot of stuff, and get a list together for them. I will
probably send them to you, Paula, and Jasper first and see if you all can add any and then
we will send them on and see what kind of answers we get.
I can just see it now; "the DNA, the blood-drops, the photographs, the Bruno Magli
shoeprints, the hair, the knit cap, the fibers!" Or, "well that doesn’t
have anything to do with the fact that there were 30 inconsistencies in OJ’s
testimony," or, "Mark Fuhrman is just misunderstood"—I thought I would
gag on that one.
Let’s work on a list and see if we can get them to put their money where their
mouths are. Phil, I have included your name, but if you’re not interested that’s
okay. Let me know what you think. —Peggy
Subj: e-mail
Date: 97-03-25
From: Trooper
To: Peggy
CC: Maggie (Rita Lava), Rabne, Hhhana, Dable, Connie, Pat
Peggy— What can I tell you? These people are gone. I stopped conversing with them
a long time ago—at their request, and they still send me tons of their useless junk.
It’s like I told Trille, I think it’s a deliberate plan to keep us from getting
anything useful done. Don’t know now how we can include them in the book. Maybe if I
approached them now, the games would stop. What do you think? —Jasper
Subj: Re: Fuhrman’s clean record
Date: 97-03-26 01:03:21 EST
From: Tiger
To: Peggy (Margaret Richardson)
CC: All
Peggy— The LAPD spent thousands of hours investigating Fuhrman. Nothing came of
it. The proof is in the absence of any complaints against the man during his entire career
on the force. In fact, just the opposite. He was considered a very good cop, and worked
with a Hispanic partner who vouches for Fuhrman’s fairness. The Bell incident goes
back lots of years, and has no relevance on the case. I don’t go back and forth, as
you suggest. I just don’t want to get sidetracked from the issue at hand. I have
never seen a case in history where the vocabulary of an arresting officer was put on trial
[Editor’s note: Just flashed on a session of Congress before W.W.II when the Rape
of Nanking was summed up as an argument over a bean patch in China].
I don’t want to defend Fuhrman, that is true. But, if need be, I will. If you want
this discussion to become a Fuhrman Discussion group, I’m just not interested. There
has not been one shred of EVIDENCE to back up any wrongdoing by Fuhrman in this case. I
remember when Jesse Jackson made a remark about "Jew York." He apologized and
life went on. If you show me evidence that OJ is less guilty because Fuhrman said the N
word at ANY time, I’ll consider it seriously.
You are using backward logic. You are saying Fuhrman planted evidence. The burden of
proof is on YOU, not on me to substantiate that. You are saying he was a racist cop. The
burden is yours again. If we eliminated every cop who used the N word or any other racial
slur, we’d have no police force. Let’s train our cops to become more sensitive
to minorities, and clean up our acts all over the country. But let’s not say that OJ
is innocent because Fuhrman used the N word or did anything else outside of this case,
unless YOU have proof. —Tiger
Subj: Re: Why am I surprised?
Date: 97-03-30 15:37:06 EST
From: Pat
To: Trooper, Trille (Christine Armas)
CC: Hhhana, Peggy, Dable, Chameleon, Kim, Connie, Rabne, Ted, Maggie
Trille and everyone—Hi. You know up here in Canada, a lot of people think we
don’t have a problem with racism but that’s baloney. Maggie probably knows this
more than I do as she lives in a big city. I think racism is everywhere. It’s just a
matter of degree and openness. Not far from where I live now there is a place that was a
stop on the underground railway when the slaves escaped and ran to freedom. We all like
that idea, I think of being unbiased etc. but I’m not so sure it’s real as much
as it is an ideal. Well we can only hope that someday "people will be judged, not by
the colour of their skin but by the content of their character" I think that’s a
wonderful quote and I think of it a lot. —Pat (Crowe)
Subj: Re: Why am I surprised?
Date: Sunday, March 30, 1997
From: Trooper
To: Hhhana
CC: Christine Armas, Patricia Whetham, Peggy, Dianne, Chameleon, Kim, Connie, Rabne,
Ted, Maggie
Paula— We cry for our country (our continent) together. What gets me more than
anything else is how blind people are to their own bigotry. They say that their feelings
about OJ have nothing to do with race, but when you read the e-mails, you know,
absolutely, that it isn’t true.
What happened to OJ and what is continuing to happen to him and his youngest children,
is beginning to look more and more like an excuse for millions of Americans to show the
resentment they had all along for OJ’s place in their lives. It’s like seeing
people who had to be kind to a rich uncle they despised, stripping the gold off of his
coffin with glee. As long as OJ was OJ he had to be treated with the respect and
admiration his accomplishments entitled him to or it would reflect badly on us. Now that
he can be called a murderer, even if you have to close your eyes to a "mountain of
evidence" that says he isn’t, he is entitled to nothing. He’s just another
nigger.
Pay no mind to the "n" word. It’s not really important. As Tiger so
astoundingly noted in defense of Mark Fuhrman, it’s not the word that counts,
it’s the deed.
God forgive them, for they are seriously fucked-up. —Jasper
Subj: Re: Why am I surprised?
From: Christine Armas
Date: Sunday, March 30, 1997 12:30 PM
To: Trooper
CC: Hhhana, Patricia Whetham, Peggy, Dianne, Chameleon, Kim, Connie, Rabne, Ted, Maggie
Hi guys— Trooper, how perfectly you expressed it, that people only behaved nicely
when they had to, and now we see how they really are! Notice the racial beating in
Chicago, indicative of the new lack of shame, they are only young men but they thought
that everyone thought it was OK to be a racists and do something about it. Those young men
were only acting out what they thought they saw around them.
One reason I like Pres. Clinton so much is that he overcame his Southern "poor
white trash" background and is not a racist. He was able to see beyond the hate and
evil that was all around him. Of course, it helped him that he got an education, esp. his
time in Oxford and Georgetown. I don’t know if you know this, but Sen. Fulbright
apparently was a racist and it pained the people who otherwise loved and respected the
Senator that he was so blind in this area. I guess that is what it is, blindness, and it
affects people who are thought to be educated and intelligent. But this blindness is a
disability. You know, Ronald Reagan had it, too, only his ideas were that racism
didn’t exist. That in a way is even worse, not even acknowledging it.... —Trille
Subj: Re: Why am I surprised?
Date: 97-04-04 01:08:03 EST
From: Trooper173
To: Trille
CC: Hhhana, Pat, Peggy, Chameleon, Kim, Connie, Rabne, Ted, Maggie
Hi Christine— Four or five days ago, I promised you a letter in response to the
one you wrote about the racist attack by the five boys in Chicago, and the reasons for
your feelings about Clinton, Fulbright and Reagan. Here it is:
As always, your observation about the effects and manifestations of racism went to the
heart of things. The boys in Chicago, who were arrested for brutalizing a kid because he
was black, were as much victims of racism as the boy they assaulted. The same is true of
all the folks on the bottom of the economic pyramid who have put billions of dollars into
the pockets of the media elite by their appearances on television. I mean sponsors,
producers, anchors and commentators of "mainstream" news and information
programs as well as sponsors, producers and hosts of talk shows like Jerry, Sally, Jenny,
Montel and Geraldo.
Give the people what they want and they will reward you. "The people" want to
be entertained. They want their emotions stirred. They want to feel superior to somebody.
They want to see their favorite stereotypes in "real life" so they can rest
assured that their feelings about "them" are justified by "reality."
It seems there is little that some people won’t do for attention of any variety
and nothing they won’t do for applause. Why the Chicago case got national attention,
I don’t know. Since the verdict in the criminal trial of OJ Simpson, incidents like
that have been popping up all over. It’s almost as though they are in retaliation for
what black men on television seem to be doing to white people in general, especially white
women. Within the past year or so, television has shown me so many faces of black men who
raped or killed white women, and those who were accused of raping or killing them, that I
am conditioned to expect it.
Knowing that a white woman is far more likely to be raped and killed by a Ted Bundy
than a Rufus Jones, doesn’t matter. I picture a black male perpetrator and a white
female victim whenever I hear a news report of a woman being sexually assaulted. I’m
sure that the Chicago kids did, too. Black women assaulted by black men don’t get
much air time. Poor white women assaulted by poor white men don’t either. This is the
numerical truth of the situation, but it’s not what we’ve been seeing lately.
What does get airtime is what leaves an impression.
Our common visions are what drive us all in a common direction. We behave according to
how we see things and what our print and electronic eyes and ears on the world allow us to
see.
During the ’60s and ’70s we saw enough to be ashamed of our bigotry. In the
’80s there was a subtle change with a profound effect that culminated in how a
majority of people judged the jury in the OJ Simpson murder case. Rosalynn Carter said it
best in her observation about Ronald Reagan: "He made people feel comfortable with
their prejudice." To hold a set of values that effectively kept black people (and
others like them), "in their place," by allowing for a few high-profile
exceptions to the rule, all people needed to do was call themselves, conservatives.
Fulbright was no conservative. He understood that many of the conservative polices that
kept poor blacks from improving their lot, hit poor whites even harder, because in terms
of absolute numbers, there were more of them. The image of Fulbright being a good-guy
comes from his "opposition to the war in Vietnam."
The war is where I got my first taste of the power of images now being used against OJ
and OJI’s like us. The truth is, there were racists, assholes and fools on both sides
of the Vietnam debate, but most people only saw the ones on my side. I bet you never even
heard of thinking, caring Vietnam vets on "the wrong side of the issue."
Bill Clinton and I fought on opposite sides in that war. His side won. They persuaded
the country that the Viet Cong and the Khmer Rouge were the good guys. They convinced the
public that we had nothing to win and no way to do it. Conviction is what wins wars.
With the peace movement’s victory came genocide on a scale unmatched since WWII,
and the entrenched Americans who won their war against Americans like Dennis and me,
firmly in power. They have one thing in common besides the pride they took in "ending
the war": They made the American people comfortable with their lack of concern for
anyone but themselves. They led us into our new role in the world as covert, low-risk
mischief-makers who could peacefully coexist with genocide.
I got so fed up with that policy of complicity by non-action, that I wrote and
published a book, a copy of which I sent to the President as soon as possible after the
books were printed in July of ’95. I never made money or got recognition for any good
I was able to do, but when I heard Clinton and his advisors using arguments almost
word-for-word from my book to justify sending American troops to Bosnia, I knew that I had
won a battle that mattered.
With our OJ book, we may be able to win the war.
Your friend —Jasper
Subj: Re: Grand Jury Testimony
Date: 97-03-31 21:38:47 EST
From: Kim
To: Trooper
Trooper— Why are people so quick to discount Faye Resnick anyway? May the forces
of evil become confused on the way to your house —Kim
Kim— Beats the hell out of me. I know she’s important. OJ thinks she’s
the key to finding the killer. But she may be a decoy—someone the killer knew that OJ
would fix on to divert attention from himself. Whoever the killer is, he’s a master
manipulator who understands human psychology better than most. I just wish I knew more
about Resnick’s friends and her relationship to Kato. What do you know about them?
—Jasper
Jasper— I think Resnick would make a good suspect. She’s cunning,
manipulative, did/does drugs, and knows OJ’s layout pretty well. I’m not sure
about her friends. But it is possible that she and Nicole were fooling around with Ron.
Maybe a little lovers spat gone wrong? —Kim
Maggie— What I’m trying to do with the book is to raise the level of our
e-mail and CTV thread conversations about OJ to the national level of debate. The fact
that you and at least three others are Canadians puts us in an even wider arena of ideas.
I want everybody north of the Rio Grande to know that there are intelligent people who
believe, for intelligent reasons, that OJ is innocent. I want people to see how the
evidence against OJ compares to the evidence against Fuhrman. I want them to consider the
possibility that the murderer might be Fuhrman and that the "travesty in
Brentwood" could be a disaster for all of us down the road...
...It is possible for "the little guy" to do big things with the written
word. I’ve had some huge successes with letters to the right people at the right
time, and with a book that I lost money on but I know has done some good. It’s not
every day that you get to use the special gifts God gave us to right a terrible wrong. To
me, it’s a moral obligation to do more than just talk. —Jasper
for Adobe
PDF version of Chapters 20-28
