[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 6/6/03
Time: 12:19:25 AM
Remote User:
John,
Your first response is so…so…imperceptive that I don’t know where to go from here.
Me: …I do not believe in “proving” theories...."
You: Then why in the hell are you writing books for other people to read containing your own theories?
Lets see if repetition helps… I do not believe in “proving” theories.... Maybe if I put “proving” in caps… I do not believe in “PROVING” theories...."
I use theories to TEST assumptions, not to prove conclusions. In practice that’s what “proving” theories means – proving (justifying) conclusions. Trying to prove theories is a mistake that almost everybody makes. I don’t. I ask a question (Who murdered Ron and Nicole?). I gather as much information as possible that could bear on the answer. I make tentative assumptions (O.J. did it, Kato did it, Shipp did it, drug thugs, the CIA, etc.) I create a theory consistent with the evidence that supports each assumption. To rule out bias, I then I attack each theory zealously by proposing questions that I don’t already have the answer to.
For instance, when my Kato-did-it theory required that someone drove the Bronco to Bundy and back to Rockingham I looked hard for objective evidence that THE BRONCO DID NOT MOVE. If such evidence didn’t exist I couldn’t have found it. If it did exist, the nature of prejudice dictated that this was the only way I’d be likely to see it.
The Bronco result was starling. I got the same startling results when I looked into O.J.’s claim that the photos of him wearing the Lorenzos were faked. These and other finding that I didn’t expect forced me to scrap a terrific “Kato-did-it” theory (Your theory minus the stuff you have from Mark Elliot) and a Shipp-did-it theory that was almost as good.
Now I had to reconsider the ridiculous idea that Fuhrman could have done it. Disproving that idea should have been easy. There were so many things I didn’t know and if the answer to ANY of them was “no,” it couldn’t have been him. If the answer to all of them was “yes,” it had to be him. Was he the right height? Could he have worn the killer’s shoes? Did he have a false alibi? Did he have a partner with a smaller shoe and a deeper voice? Did he live south of 875 S. Bundy? Did he enjoy blood? Did he have a friend inside of Rockingham and Bundy? Did he want to be in the spotlight? Could he have manipulated being the first investigator on the scene? Did he have an interest in the movies – in studying and copying from the movies that showed the same pattern as the evidence left behind by the killer? The list is very long, highly improbable and the answer to all of them is “yes.”
To do the EDTA test on the Bundy blood drops you have to have the blood drops. Where are they?
The reason it takes me so long to write so little is because I think carefully about what I want to say. I check my facts as well as I can in the time I have to do it. I consider the possible ramifications of the words I choose and I do a hell of a lot of revising and deleting. I would appreciate if you slowed down just a little when you read it so I won’t have to spend so much time responding to your shoot-from-the-hip responses to what I DIDN’T say.
I have already asked HUNDREDS of question that would have caused me to abandon Fuhrman as the killer if the answer to any of them had been “no.” I did this for over five years. I think that’s enough. --Jasper