[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 6/8/03
Time: 6:24:19 PM
Remote Name: 68.73.200.51
John, For some reason the reply button on you “analysis” post didn’t come up so I will answer it here.
The operative word is “and.” You can’t split this stuff up into little pieces after it has been assembled in a particular order with matching elements in all of the critical places and then attack the “assembled unit” piece by piece. Either all (not some) of the critical parts fit or they don’t. If they fit they’re right. If they don’t, they aren’t.
When I use the word “theory” I am talking about an overall explanation for the murders – an explanation that fits the facts in the case, as we see them. You cannot know in advance that everything you believe to true only APPEARS that way to you because of some crucial bit of information that you missed. You therefore have to make a series of assumptions based on the information that you BELIEVE to be true and see how your assumptions match up to subsequent experience.
In other words, you test each hypothesis that makes up your theory against information that you don’t have but have assumed must exist IF your theory is correct. In effect, you PREDICT that the missing information will surface in a way that rules out chance. IF enough information that you didn’t have before you constructed your theory matches your predictions, you no longer have a theory. You have a fact. Facts don’t change.
For example… You take a bolt out of one unmarked drawer and a nut out of another unmarked drawer. You look at the length and diameter of the bolt and the spread of thread pattern without measuring them. You look at the depth and width of the hole in the nut and the spread of its tread pattern. You don’t know if you will be able to thread the bolt through the nut but they APPEAR to be a match. You BELIEVE that IF you tied to thread the bolt though the nut it will screw in snugly and come out of the other side.
Several things could go wrong. The blot might be bigger or smaller than you thought it was. The hole in the nut might be bigger or smaller than you thought it was. The thread patterns might not match. An unseen nick, bur or spot of rust on the thread of the bold or the nut might prevent the bolt from screwing in all the way. However, based on your research and experience in such matters, you PREDICT that you will be able to thread the bolt through the nut and perform an experiment that will either confirm your prediction or refute it. You try to thread the bolt through the nut. The theory is not flexible. Either it will work they way you predicted or it won’t. That doesn’t mean it has to work perfectly. If you only have to remove a little rust or file off a bur it still works.
In my experiment with Fuhrman as the killer, I predicted that he would have over a dozen minority traits, a fascination with blood, an obsession with O.J. and Nicole, a history of excessive violence and a phony alibi. I picked a spot on the Bundy curve with several special characteristics where his lookout would be stationed (a spot that I didn’t know existed in fact). I predicted scores other things that had to exist if my theory was correct including a slew of special characteristics for the people I picked as his accomplices.
I will address your other comments in a separate post. –Jasper