[ Home | Contents | Search ]
Time: 10:51:41 AM
You read Iago, so you know that it took me a long time to come around to the idea that the police did not "frame a guilty man." It took me even longer to arrive at Fuhrman as a likely suspect if O.J. didn't do it, mainly because he gave me the creeps (personal bias) and I thought he had an alibi (couldn't have done it).
It was Marcia Clark and the OJG's (O.J./Guilty) who turned me around bit by bit with their insistence on connecting the dots that drew a picture of O.J.'s guilt no matter what dots (evidence) they had to ignore to do it. The reason I kept stumbling so badly was because I didn't have the essential facts to connect the dots to the only person who really could have pulled it off. I knew that it had to be someone who could have left the blood shoeprints, who had ready access to a light-colored SUV, who had a base of operations South of Bundy, who understood how homicide detectives thought and operated, etc. On top of that, he had to have an extremely high IQ.
That was the problem with my thesis. The list of minority traits the real killer had to have was way too long, far too particular, too convoluted and, therefore, too unlikely to exist in the real world. But at every turn, Fuhrman's name kept popping up.
Throughout the presentation of the evidence in the criminal trial, I kept thinking, "This looks like an IQ test" and I couldn't shake the feeling that I had seen it all before.
I've written more than once that some people score exceptionally high on IQ tests because they have the "intellectual muscle" to bull their way through the tough questions. Others can do just as well or better with "intellectual finesse." This kind of finesse requires an ability to withhold judgment on "obvious" solutions (the opposite of what everyone else does) and to see simple, recurring patterns within larger patterns of varying shape, size or complexity.
In other words you can beat the test with a few simple tricks. In Murder in Brentwood, Mark Fuhrman demonstrates that he knows one of the tricks - the same trick that the killer used with the evidence he left behind on Bundy at the foot of Ronald Goldman. One such piece of evidence that points directly to O.J. Simpson creeping around in the dark, the bottom of his shoe and blood on his socks is the dark blue knit cap. Where did I see all of this before? In The Naked Gun.
Add Mark Fuhrman the great detective, and you get Michael Caine in Jack the Ripper wearing dark brown leather gloves as he describes a killer with a "Jekyll and Hyde" personality. You also get a myriad of "great detectives" from other movies and television shows seamless linked to each other and the Bundy murders by way of something "special" that Mark Fuhrman said or did.
What was so special to Mark Fuhrman about Michael Caine as the great detective with the brown leather gloves in Jack the Ripper BEFORE the Bundy murders? How about his research on warrantless searches? The case he used to justify going over the wall was People vs. Cain. --Jasper