[ Home | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 3/23/01
Time: 10:11:15 AM
Charle,
What are you thinking?!!! Everything you say MAY be true - except for the part about Fuhrman. There is no EVIDENCE against Fuhrman if the Wasz story "checks out."
O.J. likes part of the Wasz story because it agrees with the theory he developed early on that Nicole was the victim of a drug hit and Faye Resnick is the key to what happened. I doubt that he likes the part where Wasz has Kardashian arranging for him to make a drug deal with O.J. in front of O.J.'s Rockingham estate. I doubt that O.J. likes the part where Wasz has him approaching his car the way Fuhrman described him in his '89 letter to the city attorney, only without Nicole and the baseball bat. In this story O.J. is complaining loudly and crudely about the price.
O.J. has been his own worst enemy in grabbing "the good parts" of stories like this and running with them without considering the logical corollaries. He likes the story about Nicole being alive when he left for the airport, too. He also likes the story of the killer wearing size 9 shoes. He likes every story that puts him so far in the clear that even a fool could see his innocence - without ever considering the fact that only a fool would try to frame him with evidence like that.
Jolana knows all about the so-called secret video of the killing. She was kind enough to post it on The Smoking Gun Board where she, Jean and I went over it piece by piece. In the end, It think we all saw what you will if you do likewise. It's bullshit.
I understand that O.J. liked that story, too (I'm dying to hear what he says about the gambling).
If you buy Wasz's account of the Kardashian connection, Fuhrman becomes a peripheral character, at best, to a vast conspiracy involving a whole lot of people who are a hell of lot more interesting and acceptable as murder suspects to the public at large than Fuhrman is. In Iago, Wasz is the peripheral character. He is the "type" of person that Fuhrman COULD HAVE used to do things he could not do. But I have NO PROOF that connects Fuhrman to Wasz. Neither does Chris Springer or Donald Freed. Joe Bosco has shown no interest in making the attempt.
The only person in the world who has made a big deal out of the Ron Shipp, Faye Resnick, Denise Brown connection in print is yours truly. You read it in Iago. You won't see the relevance of that three-way connection articulated anywhere else including the civil trial deposition of Denise Brown that I got it from. O.J.'s attorney's never made the connection to Mark Fuhrman.
I have SPECULATED that there might be a real link between Wasz and Fuhrman as I did with Faye and Denise before I found it in the deposition. But if there is, I doubt that anyone can prove it. The value of a man like Wasz to a man like Fuhrman in the case I make against Fuhrman is that there is no traceable association between them. Unless he confesses to one, you'll never be able to prove one existed. That was also the case with Fuhrman's relationship to Ron Shipp. If Carl Douglas hadn't tricked Shipp on the witness stand into admitting that he knew Fuhrman very well (Douglas had no evidence that he did, only the fact that they worked for a while out of the same station at the same time) their relationship never would have been disclosed.
Nobody wants to hear that a nazi nobody could have pulled off something as big as the framing of popular celebrity for two gruesome murders to advance a PERSONAL white supremacist agenda, and to promote himself as a sure-fire moneymaking writer. They want to hear that it was done by powerful forces, preferably connected to organized crime of the CIA. Now we're talking politics. Liberals do not want to hear about dirty Democrats. Conservatives do not want to hear about dirty Republicans. So the chase is on for villains in high places who don't challenge the party line. There is nothing like a Liberal/Conservative debate for making the truth a low priority. --Jasper