From: Jasper
Date: 10/6/00
Time: 7:49:09 PM
John,
I don't know what book you were reading that calls for all of those policeman being involved in the Bundy killings but it wasn't Iago. The problems with your criticism of my position are that 1) you don't seem to have a clue of what it is from one post to the next. 2) You haven't yet grasped the fact that I know a lot more about logic and problem-solving than you do (you have assumed that it must be the other way around). And 3) you can't seem to distinguish me from a certain type of conspiracy theorist. No matter what I say (me, Jasper Garrison), your rejection of it (your starting point) usually relies on what someone else said and what you believe about conspiracies theories in general.
I don't have a theory that Fuhrman did it any more that either of us has a theory that O.J. is innocent. I have the facts - all of the facts necessary to prove it a hundred times over. We know that O.J. is innocent because there is zero real evidence to say he did and scores of problems with the evidence used against him, problems that say he couldn't have done it. I know that Fuhrman is guilty, because he fits all of the evidence or all of the requirements for the evidence. If you'd really read ANY significant portion of Iago you'd know that I didn't think I could prove Fuhrman did it because there were so many special conditions (hundreds of them if you include the corollaries) that had to be met.
Furthermore, I didn't try to prove that Fuhrman did it. I tried to prove that he didn't. As you have noted before, there is a lot of baggage that comes with any Fuhrman-did-it scenario, a lot of special qualifications, and improbable conditions. I used those special qualifications, and improbable conditions as a checklist to eliminate him as a suspect. He met every one of them.
Your one killer theory tidies up some problems with the evidence - which is why I started with a one killer theory. But it also gives you 13 timeline witness who have to be lying in a coordinated way to protect Kato Kaelin (a 13-member Ad Hoc conspiracy?) or 13 witnesses who are coincidentally getting ALL of the relevant facts wrong in a way that clears the guilty man. Those witnesses are: Storfer, Stein, Karpe, Schwab, Aaronson, Mandel, Harmon, Telender, Pelnack, Heidstra, Ferrara, Lopez and, of course, Kato. You have to get the timeline right before you can say anything reasonable about what happened during that time. You followed a false timeline. You have never challenged yourself to examining the possibility that it might be a false timeline. You didn't even know the basics about Lopez and the Salinger's dog that freezes O.J.'s Bronco at 10:00 PM on the 12th in exactly the place where it was found at 5:00 AM on the 13th.
For every timeline witness there has to be a logical explanation for why they said what they did. There is. But there is no getting around doing the logic work with all 13 of those witnesses to take the guesswork out of the timeline. You can't just pick a timeline that works best with your theory; you have to find the right timeline and pick your theories that match the timeline. When you can't make it fit you know that it can't be right. The only theories I have been able to come up with that puts all of the evidence we have on the right timeline require five people, only one of whom was in a position to negotiate. I won't even get into the logic of a watcher at Rockingham and Bundy. The idea that they weren't there is illogical.
One more time…I do not propose an army of conspirators. I say there has to be five:
Mark Fuhrman - Planner, leader, killer, inventor and purveyor of spouse abuse story, size 12 shoes, former narcotics cop, bleeding killer theorists, questioner of Kato, finder of the bloodspot, the stick, the glove, etc.
Brad Roberts - Fuhrman's junior partner (argument/negotiation).
Ron Shipp - Junkie, subject to blackmail, spouse abuse expert, purveyor of spouse abuse stories, forgery expert, surveillance expert, former cop, knows Nicole, O.J., Faye, Denise and Fuhrman. Need to watch O.J.
Faye Resnick: Junkie, subject to blackmail, purveyor of spouse abuse stories, arrange time and place of meeting, steal keys, cap, call to make sure Ron was on time.
Denise Brown: Junkie, subject to blackmail, Steal glasses, plant them in gutter, scream O.J. did it
Oh yeah, John, your point about the conspirators breaking down and giving themselves away is well taken. Guess what? They did. All five of them. But you can't hear them if you refuse to listen. --Jasper