From: Jasper
Date: Monday, July 24, 2006
Time: 09:46:37 PM
Solitairea1, …Lipscomb’s review hits and misses in precisely the ways he says Fuhrman’s analysis hits and misses. He got the things Fuhrman got right that were obvious he followed what Fuhrman wrote and illustrated and compared it to the physical evidence; three shots, three hits, nearly impossible to miss. He did not get the all-important fact that the title of Fuhrman’s book describes everything the original investigators should have done to solve the case, to approach it up front as a simple act of murder. I don’t know how Lipscomb missed what Fuhrman meant by “a simple act of murder,” but he did. In doing so he also missed what Fuhrman said about too much evidence. Fuhrman made a strong case that the shear volume of evidence was a hung encumbrance in the investigation and the Zapruder film was more deceptive than enlightening in getting the basic facts right. ………… The only way Lipscomb could have missed the real timing range of the shots as Fuhrman explained it and with shooters who DID get off those shots in that time spread was to ignore what Fuhrman actually wrote. You have to slow down and give your brain a little workout to follow all of Fuhrman’s analysis on those points because they are not obvious. It does not appear to me that Lipscomb did that – as Fuhrman did not do in naming Oswald as the only possible killer. That’s the same problem I have with trying to get across some points that have to be true about Fuhrman’s roles in the Bundy murders. ………… Most people will follow you only so far then veer off thinking that you missed an “obvious fact” when they come to something that appears familiar but is actually quite different. It’s like driving on an unfamiliar racetrack where you have to slow down to get around the unexpected tight turns. People almost invariably take an easier and swifter turn onto a path they believe any sensible person would follow at that point – the obvious and familiar path they had in mind before they started. …………. I knew that Fuhrman was fully aware of this familiar-path phenomenon by the way he prefaced what he wanted to communicate at these points. This is the stuff most people skip to “get to the point.” The more preparatory information you have to include in your work to make a point that your readers are not familiar with, the more they skip. How many times, for instance, and how many ways have I written that the Bundy murders were NOT motivated by racial animus but by self-promotion? Yet, how many people missed this crucial point entirely (and keep on missing it) to judge what I say and demonstrate about Fuhrman though a racial prism they attribute to me? How many people have ever seen what I wrote about the Bundy murders in light of all the evidence that came out before and after I wrote it as a grisly publicity stunt for Fuhrman? …………... Fuhrman showed me that he knew what he was up against, that he had no intentions of changing the minds of the masses in one go and that he just wanted to get his work in the historical record. Lipscomb showed me a tad of academic snobbery in his tacit assumption that he is better equipped to understand and analyze the technical aspects of the case than Fuhrman is. Not true. But Lipscomb does have impressive credentials. With enough reviews like his Fuhrman will become a fixed part of Presidential assassination history simply because of his familiar name. --Jasper