[ Home | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 9/15/00
Time: 2:23:34 PM
Jean,
You're dead wrong about the recital time. We went around on this a dozen times and if we go around a hundred times I'm beginning to think you are never going to see the fatal blow it deals to my position that Mark Fuhrman was the killer. I guarantee, however, that people as sharp as you are who thought that any Fuhrman-did-it scenario was stupid to begin with will embrace your recital end-time wholeheartedly.
The case is full of clues like that. Detectives with a lot of experience in murder scene investigations were convinced by the evidence they saw that it was a rage killing. No contrary evidence was ever good enough to shake that one belief. Almost everyone used the glasses to arrive at the conclusion that Ron was killed simply because he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. O.J.'s best timeline witness Denise Pilnack was so impressed with the blood evidence that she never saw how her own testimony put O.J. in the clear. Natalie Singer and Kathleen Bell were both horrified at O.J.'s acquittal because of the total weight of evidence against him. Singer said, "It was obvious he did it." She didn't think for a minute that her testimony about Fuhrman would be enough to make a difference. John Junet is so certain that the artificial nature of the thumps he described proves Kato made them up, that he is able to construct an entire scenario that makes him the killer. If you follow it closely you will see how everything he looked at fits together - and there is a hell of a lot of it. There are some pieces that don't fit very well and a lot them that he refuses to put on the table. But with the one I idea the Kato lied about the thumps you can build "a mountain of evidence" against him. If you have any doubt about that ask John. He will be glad to tell you.
You never know what piece of information is going to make the difference with a given reader. Usually one big thing or the cumulative affect of a lot of things. The recital time works for you only because you are willing to accept a host of corollaries that I find unacceptable. I think that most people who are not committed to a position on the case will agree with me that the time you are convinced the recital ended makes liars or fools out of a lot of people at Mezzaluna. It clears Denise (unless you want to use unsupported speculation to implicate her) and throws my Fuhrman-did-it scenario in the crapper. I know you don't agree with this but the point is, a lot of people will.
I can't know everything. I do know that Mark Fuhrman did the killing. I know that he had helpers and I'm 99% sure who those helpers had to be. I know because of thousands of bits of information of all shapes and sizes that had to fit just so into a MFG (Mark Fuhrman Guilty) framework. Where I made mistakes I have found time after time that the correct answer makes an event tighter fit. I'm talking about scores of "little things" that have to fit within a very narrow tolerance or they don't work at all. If that one piece you have about the end time of the recital is correct everything around it has to change to fit. When I tried to include it in the jigsaw picture I had it was the only thing that didn't fit.
Maybe a tapestry would make a better metaphor for what I'm trying to say. You can tug on the treads I have woven into the fabric of my position and the tapestry doesn't unravel. If you give the late end-time of the recital a good tug the whole thing comes apart. Jean, I have read your lips on this matter. I have also checked the arithmetic. I desperately urge you to check your arithmetic again. --Jasper