From: Jasper
Date: Saturday, April 14, 2007
Time: 07:31:00 AM
Lollie, …..Yes. This is Fuhrman talking about Nolan AFTER both trials and AFTER he wrote Murder in Brentwood. Why is Phillips the ONLY name that comes up in connection with this guy in a search of the trial transcripts? Roberts didn’t testify but Fuhrman did – twice. The first time (in the preliminary hearing) he left out Roberts. He said under oath that Phillips was his partner. In the ’97 20/20 program Fuhrman and Roberts made a big issue out of Marcia not calling Roberts as a witness. Why didn’t the plaintiffs call him in the civil trial? Why didn’t they call Nolan? Could he have somehow been “unavailable?” ……….Now think about this… In Murder in Brentwood, Fuhrman makes a big deal out of Roberts seeing the bloody fingerprint. He had to be consulting with Roberts as he was writing the book just to double check his “facts” with the man who could corroborate his story. How could BOTH of them have forgotten another man could corroborate the “fact” about the fingerprint in blood? How could they have forgotten Tom Nolan for all that time, especially with their buddy Ron Phillips (the older brother Fuhrman wished he’d had) to remind them. After all, Phillips did call Nolan in on the case and team him up initially with Roberts, didn’t he? ………How can all of those things be true when Fuhrman was writing his book? They can’t be. How could Phillips, Fuhrman and Roberts have forgotten Nolen existed during this time? Group amnesia? If so, it was temporary group amnesia. ………Now I see why Phillips didn’t say he saw the fingerprint. Fuhrman “hid it in plain sight (his notes). Phillips had to keep quiet about it when he handed Fuhrman’s notes to Vannatter or he and Lange would have checked it out. Why didn’t he want them to check it out? Could it be for the same reason they didn’t want anybody to check out Tom Nolan? Could it be that neither of them was there? --Jasper