From: Jasper
Date: 25 Dec 2008
Time: 01:24:27 AM
Prien – It does not surprise me that you agree with anything I say as long as it conforms to something you have already decided is true. .................You continue to underestimate what I know and how I know it partly because you have no respect for anything I know that you don’t, anything I’ve done that you haven’t or anything I can do that you can’t. I still marvel at the way you “disproved” the Bronco turn study it took me many days to do with the study you did overnight using a toy car with angles and dimensions you pulled out of your ass. ................ More important by far are the things you say about yourself when you try to ridicule my work – much of which you skipped. I used to be astounded by the speed and finality with which you determined that this or that improbable fact was “absolutely impossible” until I saw why you kept doing it. You kept letting your “common sense” make the first and final decision on what was possible and what wasn’t whenever you encountered something that ran counter to your experience. If it sounded silly it WAS silly, period. If it didn’t look to you like it could be done, it couldn’t be done, period. ...............Most importantly, you STARTED your analysis of who committed the murders by rejecting anyone without the obvious institutional power to manipulate the evidence and witnesses against O.J. from the top down. If you get to Fuhrman at all in this analytical architecture it can be only in a subordinate role, not as a planner. .............. If you start with a list of characteristic that the killer had to have to leave the evidence he did and to know with life or death certainty what the RHD detectives, the prosecutors and the media would do with it, you get another list of characteristics. The victims’ wound patterns give you another list, and so on, until random probability of finding anyone who matches all of those characteristics becomes incalculably remote. On top of that, the killer had to do so many improbable things with improbable links to him, to the evidence and to certain key witnesses with improbable characteristics of their own, that the improbable links become defining characteristics of the killer. You call them “coincidences.” ..................Ludwig caught onto Fuhrman’s “improbability trick” very quickly. He was the first to articulate it and give it that name years ago. Dave C. picked up on the Reichstag fire pattern that Fuhrman used so effectively in “pointing his finger at O.J.” before anyone could see that the evidence against O.J. also pointed to him – without the truly impossible stories to go with it. As you have repeatedly demonstrated (and I expect you to do again), investigating what was truly possible isn’t necessary for those who think they have a superior grasp of reality than the rest of us. Eliminating the improbable is good enough, even when the explanation requires fake bodies, imported blood, an intricate cover-up involving ALL of the prosecution witnesses and somebody using cured dog legs with paws dipped in blood to fill in the blanks.—Jasper