[ Home | Contents | Search ]
Date: 03 Apr 2000
Remote Name: dyn1-tnt3-46.detroit.mi.ameritech.net
When I read your first letter, I was amazed at how much you sounded like Mark Fuhrman. I am still amazed at how much you sound like Mark Fuhrman. If you are, let's not pretend you're someone else. I don't want anyone to get the idea that you are a coward. I know better. But it looks bad. Your arguments could stand some polishing, too, just for the sake of your credibility and mine. They are so arrogant and irrational that someone else might get the idea that I made you up just to make myself look good-or was that the idea. How can I even respond to something that strategically obtuse without sounding like a smart-ass? But that's MY problem, isn't it?
On the other hand, I don't want to accuse you of being someone you're not based on a superficial resemblance to Fuhrman that could be accounted for in a number of other ways. The fact is, you two do seem to think alike about relevant and irrelevant evidence in respect to O.J. Simpson and Mark Fuhrman (if it makes it appear that O.J. did it, it must be relevant. If the same evidence also fits Mark Fuhrman, only better (size 12 shoes, charges of domestic abuse against OJ, over 6' tall, military training, light-colored SUV, etc.) it's irrelevant. And all of those movie links? Pure coincidence.
You evoke in your posts the same stereotypes Fuhrman does in Murder in Brentwood and in the interviews I have taped of him. And you use the same flawed logic. Come on, Chris-I need eyewitnesses and the murder weapon for Fuhrman to be guilty-and you have everything you need from the trial to hang O.J? Did you read any of Iago? Did you study any of the pictures? Did you work through any of the logic problems? Did you test any of my logical propositions? Which ones? Will you share with us the syllogisms you used to reach your "logical" conclusions and tell us what some of the fallacies are in my presentation? Will you tell us how you arrived at your conclusions without examining the facts?
You are obviously intelligent enough to know better. You must also know that most people aren't and that answering posts like yours eat up time I don't have to spare. You made the case that I expected Mark Fuhrman to make and you did it the way I expected him to do it (no rational alternative). Whether you did it because you are the same person or because you process information the same way, doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that you have given me no indication that you have read anything I wrote in Iago or The Smoking Gun past a line or two that can be used to mean anything you want it to out of context.
You have given me no indication that you read a single chapter of Iago or The Smoking Gun, that you examined any of the photos or diagrams, or that you gave any critical thought to what you thought you heard me say on Scott Anderson's radio show on the 28th. Why you chose to leave that impression, I can't say because I don't know enough about you to do anything but consider various possibilities. For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are not who you appear to be and that you wrote what you did without giving either of my books about Fuhrman a critical review. If that's wrong, please let me know. If it's right please answer this question. Why should anyone listen to you?