[ Discussions | TOC | Search | Post | Reply ]
From: Jasper
Date: 10/17/02
Time: 2:32:33 AM
Remote Name: 66.72.164.108
Often someone has addressed a message to me on the Iago Discussion Board or e-mailed me to ask how I could suspect Fuhrman of the murders when all of the evidence pointed to O.J. Clearly they had not read Schulman's Frame of the Century, watched the documentaries that implicate Jason, read the articles that implicate Kardashian or spent much quality time on John Juno or Dick Wagner's site.
The Bundy killer sprinkled breadcrumbs of evidence down many roads that lead to many doors. The door you end up at depends on which breadcrumbs you follow. I followed them all and the one door they all lead to is Mark Fuhrman's.
Those of you who read Iago in Brentwood from beginning to end know from the e-mails that marked my evolving conviction that Fuhrman was the killer that all I had in the beginning was a shaky theory. That theory was loaded with "ifs," which is what made it so shaky. There were just too many things I didn't know, any ONE of which would have scuttled it IF the answer was "no."
The theory could work only IF Fuhrman: had a false alibi, stood close to O.J.'s height, wore size-12 shoes and walked with his toes pointed straight ahead. He had to have a partner with a smaller shoe and a deeper voice. He had to have driven a light-colored SUV on the night of the murders. He had to have a base of operations south of Nicole's condo and contacts close to O.J. and Nicole. He had to have some connection to all of the evidence against O.J. found on Bundy and Rockingham. He had to be a convincing liar AND an egomaniac who craved the spotlight. He had to be highly skilled in planting evidence and diverting attention away from himself as a possible suspect. He had to be able to influence the course of the investigation from the outset. He had to know how police detectives process a crime scene, how prosecutors interpret evidence and how bad most people are at judging time.
That's a long list of qualifiers to keep my "Fuhrman-did-it" theory afloat, but it is by no means the end of the list. The closer you look at any aspect of the crime or the investigation the more specific you have to be about whether or not Fuhrman could have had anything to do with it. That's what I did and that's way I quit calling it a theory. Somebody committed the murders and left behind the evidence to incriminated O.J. Simpson. Once you eliminate Simpson you can make a case for other suspects but if you can't do it without accounting for the role of Mark Fuhrman in the Simpson's lives prior to the murders and his role in the investigation afterwards.
That brings us to another essential qualifier for the killer. He had to have a better than average understanding of human psychology, behaviors that we are all prone to just because we're human.
Apart from Fuhrman's physical characteristics, his contacts in and out of the LAPD, etc., and the fact that either he or his partner "discovered" ALL of the evidence at Rockingham that implicated O.J., you have Fuhrman standing next to witness after witness who SUBSEQUENTLY recalled seeing things his way.
This is the kind of stuff you could have learned from reading Psychology Today or watching Psychology Classroom on Public Television in the early '90s. You see it with Lange in his second interpretation of the "blood trail" on Bundy (his first interpretation was that the blood could have dripped from the killer's knife). You see it with Lange, Vannatter, Clark and Gonzalez in their impression of how the Bronco was parked. You see it with Gonzalez, Thompson, Fung and Aston in their recollection of blood inside of the Bronco. You see it with Det. Harper "recalling" blood in the maid's room when Fuhrman was interviewed on Primetime Live. You see people jumping to conclusions and digging in their heels. You see what appears to be the practical application of Psychology 101. -Jasper