Pragma: no-cache
From: Jasper
Date: 26 Jun 2000
Time: 11:47:58
Jean,
I know Fuhrman did it. You know Fuhrman did it. Kari knows Fuhrman did it. Pat knows Fuhrman did it. Charlie knows Fuhrman did it. Chris Springer knows Fuhrman did it. The problem is we are in such a tiny minority that it doesn't take much for public opinion to sweep us aside. The controversy over the 11:00 phone call and the shifts in the entire timeline from the recital to the murders to make that call more likely than not have logical corollaries. Those corollaries make it absurd to even think about Fuhrman as a possible suspect. Why do you think John and Prien dismissed him so quickly and completely? Look at the corollaries to their position on what's important and what isn't and you will see.
I'll say this one more time and hope that it doesn't get lost…. Everybody here is smart. Everybody. Why, then, can't we agree on some fundamental aspects of the case that are available for everyone to see? Because our backgrounds, our research and our focus of attention is different. John and Prien have dismissed Furman as a possible suspect without considering any of the evidence against him. It took me weeks to see that Charlie was right about some things and Kari had the answer to other things. Kari just asked me why I didn't comment on John DeBello saying that he saw Karen Crawford pick up the glasses at 9:15. You may have noticed that I did comment on it several times. I spent more hours than you will believe every day for several days straight simply checking and cross-checking his testimony with other relevant data and wording my response so that it would not be misinterpreted. She didn't even see it. Maggie says that there is no question that someone called Mezzaluna from Dana Point at 9:37 and again at 9:40. Yet, there is no record of a 9:40 call, only Marcia's statement that there was one.
Denise Brown's use of a cell phone at the recital or shortly thereafter is critical to my thesis that the killer wore Bruno Magli Lorenzos to simulate the shoes that O.J. wore to the recital. If this is what happened, someone had to be at the recital to know what kind of shoes O.J. wore and to pass it on to the killer. For the "disappearing" trick with the shoes to work O.J. shoes had to be close to Bruno Magli Lorenzos for someone who was familiar with the brand to swear that O.J. was wearing Bruno Magli Lorenzos. Denise and Dominique told the police that they had seen O.J. wearing them. Bruno Magli was a brand of shoe that Nicole wore. Dominique did not identify the Lorenzos (Vannatter and Lange were wrong about that) but she did identify the logo. If Denise did use her cell phone to pass on the message it would be vital to hide it.
Denise and Dominique customarily made extensive use of their cell phones. So did Lou and Juditha. Why, then, did Denise claim that no one in the car on that long drive back to Monarch Bay (or Dana Point) on the 12th of June 1994 had a cell phone? Using the Themus Rule (look for what should be there but isn't) you have to wonder. You have to wonder why Denise was the only one asked this question and why it didn't come up until the civil trial. Occam's Razor says somebody in that car did use a cell phone and it was important enough for Marcia and Denise to lie about. There is a record of the 9:37 call. It did not have Juditha's home number on it (one reason O.J.'s new attorney's said the record was a fake) and there in no reason to believe that Karen Crawford was mistaken about who she talked to or when she got the call unless you assume that Maria told the truth about the call being made from Juditha's home. If Juditha had a GTE cell phone the mystery of the 9:37 call goes away and the myth of the 9:40 call to Nicole gets put in its place. Marcia said that was the last time Juditha talked to her daughter, which is the story she fed to Juditha and the one O.J.'s criminal attorney's stipulated to. The last call we do have a record for is the one that was, in fact, made from her home at 10:17. --Jasper