From: Jasper
Date: 05 Apr 2009
Time: 05:23:25 PM
Rovaan – Everything I did in 1984, Diary of a Hitman, Rube and Mark, etc., going all the way back to the Fuhrman at the Movies chapter in Iago in Brentwood, comes from what Fuhrman wrote in Murder in Brentwood about jumping to conclusions and following ALL clues. ...........Chapter 2, page 16: “On any investigation, you can’t jump to conclusions and then try to make the evidence fit your theory of what happened. Instead, you must to [typo in book] let the evidence speak for itself. And you have to listen to it. Every aspect of the case must constantly be questioned. You must try to put yourself in the suspect’s mind and walk through the crime in different ways. What did he see? Was the suspect mad or methodical? Was he sloppy or neat? Was the crime planned or spontaneous? Was this the work of a professional or an amateur?” ..............On page 56 Fuhrman says, “Focusing on detail is what being a detective is all about. All evidence is important, and you should not judge it until you’ve collected and analyzed it. At the very least, you may then know conclusively that the evidence will not help you. You may walk down a few dead ends, but at least you know where those roads go. You have to follow up on every possible clue until you are certain you have learned everything you can from existing evidence. Very seldom do you find a smoking gun, or even a bloody fingerprint. Most murders are solved because of the LITTLE DETAILS, many of which were passed over in the Simpson case by the investigating detectives from Robbery/Homicide.” ............... Most murders are not solved “because of little details,” as Fuhrman says in is Murder in Greenwich movie about the incompetence of the Greenwich Police in the 1975 investigation of Martha Moxley’s murder. He says, “They ignored the obvious....” In most murder investigations, focusing on the obvious evidence – not the little details – is what being a detective is all about. What’s obvious to experience homicide investigators is not always obvious to the public but in either case, the operative word is, “obvious.” ............... The evidence leaves no room for that kind of investigative methodology. It has conclusions built in for any experienced homicide detective AND people in general looking at the evidence and applying common sense to analyzing it. We got it in 1-2-3 stages. Stage 1 pointed immediately to a category of killer that included O.J. Stage 2 pointed to physical characteristics of the killer that fit O.J. (and Fuhrman) like a glove – so to speak. Stage 3 involves everything associated with Fuhrman going back to 1984. ...............Tom Lange put it best when he said that he looked for exculpatory evidence when everything started pointing to O.J. Yet, two hours after he joined his RHD partner Phil Vannatter in the investigation (with the “help” of Ron Phillips and Mark Fuhrman) he had more than enough to fix his sights on O.J. to the exclusion of any other suspect. .............. Following Fuhrman’s “little details,” usually lead to the movies. I could not keep them straight without extensive fact-checking. Neither could Fuhrman. That’s why they bleed into each other and why the way they come together with 1948 is significant. –Jasper