From: Solitairea1
Date: Saturday, April 14, 2007
Time: 04:00:29 AM
Jasper wrote: "Now I see in the context of questioning Tom Nolan's existence that there was a way around Spangler in putting him or someone playing the part of Nolan, on the case to hide Roberts as Fuhrman's partner. Spangler had no reason to know or care who he was on June 13, 1994. He wasn't a detective – not even a detective in training as you or I would think of it – because he hadn't been to detective school yet. –Jasper _______________________________ Which is making this "Detective Tom Nolan" look more and more like a phantom, or rather someone who played the part of "Tom Nolan." C'mon ! This "Detective" wasn't a Detective, hadn't been trained, and hadn't yet been to "Detective School." .... I also have the same questions about this "1997 Reuters Interview." .... You know, I can see how this could be "doable". After all, the Government does i all the time setting up people in Witness/Relocation Programs, complete with new Identities, Histories, a whole "Past Life" ALL Documented. So, WHY couldn't "Law Enforcement" have some program similar, but much more sinister ? When you also factor in the LAPD Secret Police, the Shadowy Police Protective League, and ALL the other Resources at their disposal, especially the Strong Connection to Daryl Gates, etc., etc., etc., I would NOT be surprised if in "Certain Cases", they would have used someone agent and/or LEO to play a bogus role of a non-existent cop. ...... I cannot find anything anywhere on this "Detective Tom Nolan". Except, when doing a search with "Detective Tom Nolan" LAPD, most of the many results are a character and/or characters in best-selling police novels by well-known authors. ..... And out of ALL the millions of words said about this case in court and outside of court, still NO ONE except for Phillips say's anything about this guy !?! .... And perhaps Fuhrman and maybe Roberts ? Please! They couldn't keep Brad Roberts name out of this, and they did all they could to do so. Roberts couldn't help but be caught on film either. And we are to accept that they couldn't hide Roberts, but had amazing success hiding "Detective Tom Nolan" !?! That just don't get it for me. .... And then there's the not so insignificant fact of Ron Phillips screwing up every time he had to say this guy "Nolan's" name??? .... I think it's a real possibility that Kevin DeVries not only used his good buddy Fuhrman's credit card to establish Fuhrman's alibi, but would have had plenty of time to make it back to play the part of "Detective Tom Nolan." ... After all, after Riske and Terrazzas arrived, and other Patrol Officers, no one had the responsibilities of the Detectives called to Bundy. So everyone had to wait 'til Fuhrman and Phillips got there, with the exception of taking the kids out of the condo and securing the crime scene 'til they arrived. .... The investigation would not be able to "officially" begin til Phillips and Fuhrman got there, which time-wise, gave them Enough Flexibility in case someone like DeVries got back from Pomona. .... And, that's what I'm thinking did happen. Now, if there is any way to prove that a "Detective Tom Nolan" was really with Roberts that night, I'd need some proof of that in order to believe it at this point. I wonder how we can find out just IF there's a real "Tom Nolan" who was really with Roberts that night. And likewise, I would like to know where Kevin DeVries was. And what they look like. Any ideas on how to find out anything on this "Tom Nolan" ??? ......... Solitairea1