[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 5/18/03
Time: 12:06:22 AM
Remote Name: 68.73.55.117
Miss Marple,
Anything is possible with Fuhrman. I haven’t read Murder in Spokane but I did read Murder in Brentwood and Murder in Greenwich (did you get the tapes I sent you?). In each case he puts himself in the murderer’s “shoes” and describes the killings as if he was there. He says that a good detective has to do that.
The troubling thing about his description of the killings in Murder in Brentwood is that he packs it full of the emotions you would expect in a crime of passion but he gets so many essential details wrong that you know that HE KNOWS it couldn’t have happened that way. He does the same thing in Murder in Greenwich (the book and the movie). He makes a big thing out of the victim not being afraid of seeing the killer with a golf club in his hand (because she was used to seeing him with one) and then giving a vivid description of the killer coming up on her from behind and striking her.
Fuhrman is very big on details. The only way he could get them wrong is if he did so on purpose. It’s like he’s playing a game to see if anyone will catch what he did, confident that no one will.
Fuhrman was twenty-two years old when Martha Moxley was killed, fresh out of the Marine Corps and a rookie patrolman with the LAPD. I don’t think he killed Martha but I’m sure that he figured out who did and I have a strong suspicion that he did kill Greg Coleman, the Maryland man in the movie who told him that Michael Skakel confessed to the murders when they were in a rehab clinic together. In the book, Fuhrman calls him Batman. Coleman died of a drug overdose before the murder trial of Michael Skakel began. He could therefore not be questioned about what he told Fuhrman, which lead “Fuhrman” to solve the crime. –Jasper