Maddogg guest commentator, T.H. Johnson, Investigative Team Coordinator for OMIG (Ocean Medical Investigative Group
The case appears to begin for public purposes against Simpson at his house on Rockingham Drive early in the morning of June 13, 1994 somewhere between 5:00 -5:30 AM when Detective Mark Fuhrman allegedly discovers a matching right hand glove to the one found at the murder site. The new glove found on Simpson’s property is located under the air conditioner in the leaves along the south side pathway of the Rockingham residence where a guest house is located in which Kato Kaelin resided. From that point on, the allegations of murder appear to follow Fuhrman’s hyperbolic recitation in his book MARK FUHRMAN, Murder in Brentwood of how the discovery occurred. He states,
“Kaelin told me at about 10:45 PM he heard and felt a couple of loud thumps on the wall above his bed”. “He went on to describe a limo parked outside the Ashford gate around the same time”.
Now Fuhrman sets the stage for creating his own fantasy of how Simpson got onto his own property. Others quickly chimed in promoting the false narrative that would have the arthritically plagued Simpson climbing over the fence near the guest house occupied by Kato Kaelin. Still apparently with the idea of malfeasance already planted in the mind of this disgruntled 19-year junior detective he would create his own fantasy of Simpson accomplishment. ;Feeling invincible from other acts of malfeasance which, according to an anonymous LAPD insider talking to the author Stephen Singular in Denver shortly after the murders took place, Fuhrman and other fascist police officers were protected by command officers in higher positions. If this is true, Fuhrman probably felt why not take the chance.
At the time the Simpson murder case begins, Mark Fuhrman is the subject of an internal affairs investigation for his neo-Nazi conduct of placing a swastika on or in a fellow officer’s locker because he was angered by the other officer’s selection of a Jewish wife. The allegation also included Fuhrman’s walking around the precinct on the weekend wearing Nazi paraphernalia. Joseph Bosco discusses this in his book, A PROBLEM OF EVIDENCE, Stephen Singular alleges in his book, LEGACY OF DECEPTION that the reports of Fuhrman’s conduct were true but handled at only the divisional level and downplayed. This no doubt was going to be a high profile case, S.I.D. detectives had now been assigned to take over; thus, it demoted his West Side Division peers to assistants. Fuhrman appeared determined to make the world recognize his prowess as a superb detective, notwithstanding those psychological impediments that may have held him back from being accepted within the ranks of the senior detectives like Phil Vannatter and Tom Lange in the Special Investigations Division.
Even though they had been members of the LAPD for 25 years, Fuhrman was approaching 20 years and yet could not make the grade of being considered as a top of the line S.I.D. detective. Thus, I believe Fuhrman was about to roll the dice and take the chance of engaging in corruption in order to prove them wrong by planting that glove on Simpson’s property. In his writing you can see that he thought he was special enough to be leading this investigation and shows resentment and disdain for both detectives Lange and Vannatter by shutting down his writing at 2:45 AM when Phillips walked into Nicole Brown Simpson’s living room where Fuhrman was writing his notes. Detective Phillips told him that they were no longer in charge of the investigation and with a sense of resentment the note taking abruptly ended.
While under cross examination during the actual trial Fuhrman affirms that the investigation virtually came to a halt at the murder site, and that LAPD officers simply stood out in the street for about an hour and a half waiting for the S.I.D. detectives to arrive, while doing nothing. It is during this downtime that the LAPD insider talking to Singular states that Fuhrman and someone else left the Bundy murder site and went to Simpson’s Rockingham residence the first time looking for evidence which they did not find.
In the meantime, while waiting and doing nothing in the street they are all violating a recent agreement meant to heal the dispute between the Los Angeles County Coroner’s Office and the Los Angeles Police Department, a festering wound that continued between the two departments. It had been settled for the moment that the coroner’s office would be called as soon as possible to examine the bodies of murdered victims at a crime scene. In this case, precious time was lost in determining the liver temperature as well as other changes to a deceased corps that could help in accurately establishing the time of death. By the time that the S.I.D. detective Vannatter finally called for the coroner to come, it was almost 10 hours after the police arrived the night before. Vital measurements associated with the time of death were lost and now left to subjective assumptions, such as dogs barking to establish the time the victims were killed in what was to be a high profile trial.
In his writing, Fuhrman appears to reserve a special disdain for what he considered to be the incompetence and stupidity of Vannatter; his vitriol for this veteran detective is palatable. Vannatter appeared to take no copious notes as Fuhrman, and seemed to be acting in a shoot from the hip posture in decision making that irked Fuhrman to no end, especially when overriding Fuhrman’s decision to have the Bronco towed immediately and dusted for evidence. Vannatter overruled Fuhrman and was in essence perceived by Fuhrman to be showing him that he was in charge of this investigation.
However, Fuhrman, it appears was plotting to have the last laugh in placing himself in the indispensable position of having to come through him in this high profile case. It was Kato Kaelin who had now given Fuhrman the ingredients for the narrative he was about to spin, but first he’d have to remove Kaelin from the vicinity. Fuhrman writes
“I asked Kaelin to follow me out of his bungalow”…”By that time a door to the main house had been opened”….”I walked inside with Kaelin and asked him to sit down at the bar and wait for someone to come and talk to him”.
With the malleable misfit, Kaelin, firmly out of the way, Fuhrman could begin to execute his plan. He needs though to be certain of the whereabouts of the other detectives. Thus, Fuhrman states,
“Unfamiliar with the house I walked towards the sound of voices which led me to the kitchen where Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter were standing. Phillips was talking on the phone, Vannatter was closest to me so I asked Phil would he talk to the guy at the bar?” “Vannatter appeared to acknowledge my question, so I continued outside….to the southside of the bungalows where Kaelin had described the thumping on the wall”.
Now the table was set, there was no one to impede Fuhrman from engaging in a corrupt act of malfeasance that would set in motion the most infamous trial of the 20th century. According to Fuhrman’s book about the Simpson case, he found the glove under the air conditioner attached to the wall of the bungalow in which Kato Kaelin stayed. Fuhrman would go on to say, after finding the glove “I scrutinized the immediate area, looking for evidence of blood, footprints or disturbed ground, but saw nothing”.
Now he’d tossed the dice and the most crucial piece of evidence tying Simpson to the murders had been found by Detective Mark Fuhrman. These foregoing remarks of Fuhrman’s would become crucial as we further examine his claims.
They would be crucial in as much as Fuhrman would later return to Rockingham with detective Brad Roberts after being sent back to the Bundy Murder site by Vannatter to compare the glove there with the one found on Simpson’s property. In his book, the exhilaration of Fuhrman reaches a level of extraordinary excitement when he and Roberts return to Rockingham to make additional discoveries that only he, and Roberts discovered. The key evidence was blood drops they found near the Bronco on the sidewalk and 8 drops near the inside Rockingham gate leading towards the front entry. However, this is blood Simpson alleged came from nicking his finger on something sharp in the Bronco while retrieving his cell phone the night before. The cuts on his finger would soon be examined by medical doctors and determined not to be consistent with a knife cut since they were too ragged to be done by such a cutting instrument.
Yet for Fuhrman, Vannatter and Lange, it appears that now because of the discoveries at Rockingham the case was virtually solved, they had targeted their primary suspect, O.J. Simpson.
Two overhead views of the Simpson Rockingham residence.
When we analyze the statements by Fuhrman of the discoveries at Rockingham of the blood and the glove, distance becomes a credibility problem. We estimate the distance from the street of Rockingham where the Bronco was parked to where the glove was found on Simpson’s property to be at least 210 feet or an estimated 70 yards into his property. According to Fuhrman he found the glove underneath the air conditioner outside of the guesthouse in which Kato Kaelin was residing estimated at a hundred and some plus feet beyond the front main entrance. When Fuhrman returned to Rockingham with Brad Roberts and they found droplets of blood inside the gate at Rockingham, on the Rockingham side walk, and outside of the Bronco. His statements place the blood close to 200 feet away from where the glove was found on the Rockingham property and where Kato heard the thumps on the outside wall.
In the rhetoric of how Simpson got onto his property without being seen by the limo driver, Allen Park, they have O.J. walking or running 210 feet along the fence line separating his property from his neighbor, Salinger’s property. Thus, from a mathematical and physical standpoint, based upon their alleged narrative of how Simpson entered his property Simpson would have walked 210 feet twice. He would pass by his front entry twice, once on his neighbor’s property to climb over the fence and drop the glove near the guest house where Kato allegedly heard pounding on his wall. Once over the fence and on his side, he would then return 200 feet inside of his property, passing the front end of the house again, to go towards the Rockingham front gate to leave 8 blood drops.
That amounts to 410 feet or 110 feet longer than an NFL professional football field. He then would have returned in the opposite direction about 100 feet to enter the front door of his home, now making a total of 510 feet. How did he do that without dropping any blood along the way in the leaves from Kato’s guest house to the front gate? Fuhrman stated that he found no blood in the area near the guest house where he found the glove, nor foot prints leading away from that location. The distance Simpson traveled based upon analyzing Fuhrman’s narrative to enter his front door is the equivalent to one and 3/4 NFL football fields.
There is no cogent logic that would justify a conclusion asserted by Fuhrman of how Simpson entered his property, yet his proclamation became the basis of the prosecution’s narrative for charging O.J. Simpson with murder. If the mandatory distance to be traveled of 410 feet does not make sense as to how Simpson would have deposited both the glove and the blood, then deductive reasoning, based upon factor analysis, implies that Simpson probably deposited the blood inside the front gate from a cut he sustained searching for his phone. He told that to Detectives Lange and Vannatter this during their interrogation of him upon his return from Chicago on June 13, 1994. The blood drops location is consistent with how O.J. stated he entered his front gate on Rockingham.
However, as far as the glove is concerned, factor analysis also suggests that if Simpson entered through his front gate and deposited drops of his blood in that general area, before entering the front door of his residence, then it is implied that someone other than O.J. Simpson deposited the glove an additional 100 feet beyond the front of his house down the far side of his residence outside Kato’s bungalow guest house. The implication is that the person who found the glove, Detective Mark Fuhrman, deposited that glove in that location in order to frame Simpson.
Diagram above of Simpson’s Residence on North Rockingham and route taken. Below is Simpson on residence’s side path to Kato’s bungalow.
Fuhrman claims he was able to determine Simpson’s behavior, and describes him as being panicked. However, the description of everyone else who encountered Simpson on the night he caught his flight to Chicago describes a persona of Simpson that contradicts Fuhrman’s description. Virtually everyone he encountered at the airport describes Simpson as being cool, calm, and collected. No one describes him otherwise, and certainly not the detectives who interrogated him after Simpson returned in an emergency from his Chicago trip that morning. He even volunteered against the advice of his lawyer to cooperate in going to the police headquarters to be interviewed by Detectives Vannatter and Lange and provide them with a sample of his blood. Given the conditions of Ron Goldman’s knuckles you would assume that Simpson would have marks and bruises on his own body but as you can see he had no such marks.
Thus, Fuhrman’s account of something regarding Simpson that he can only speculate has no merit because at no time do we see Simpson in that emotional state described by Fuhrman, even including in video-taped images of Simpson by news organizations upon his return from Chicago. He calmly cooperates while being placed in handcuffs when videotaped walking onto his own property by LAPD officer Thompson on the morning of June 13, 1994. This is not the only thing Fuhrman would be wrong about, he appears to establish a pattern of embellishing information and evidence that the public must assume to be true by granting Fuhrman the privilege of presumption based on what he alleges. However, our investigative organization, OMIG, does not provide anyone or anything the privilege of presumption. We must always examine everything that anyone has said for its veracity, to see that it stands up and is consistent with what is being alleged.
Fuhrman contradicts himself on several occasions that simply defy common sense. He calls Simpson overly immaculate in terms of how meticulous he kept things at his personal residence. Yet Fuhrman claims to have found an out of place sock on Simpson’s white carpet in the middle of the bedroom floor with blood on it as opposed to being in the dirty clothes hamper to be washed. The intent of Fuhrman is to always strengthen his accusatory narrative, which is full of all types of unsubstantiated allegations regarding Simpson in this matter. The problem with that sock is that an LAPD photographer who photographed the master bedroom did not see a sock on the floor when he took photos at a location already designated as a protected crime site by lead detective Phil Vannatter by 7:30 AM after Fuhrman showed him the glove he “found” on Simpson’s property. No one was allowed on the property after that so there should have been no disparity in photos taken of the bedroom, but there were. One photographer took pictures of that room and floor with no socks, another took photos of the same area with socks found there.
The sock that was found would have a blood spot on it at the ankle that forensic criminalist, Dr. Henry Lee, would find had the same pattern on both sides of the ankle. This implied an improbability; that the blood somehow traveled through Simpson’s ankle to be deposited on the opposite side of the sock at the exact opposite location. That revelation raises questions of Fuhrman’s credibility.
You have the prosecution by December 1994 attempting to dispel allegations that Simpson’s blood contained a blood preservative in it, only found in high concentrations lining a blood collection vile. One of the prosecutors on loan to the LADA’s office from Northern California’s Alameda County, Rockne Harmon, intended to dispel such dangerous and ridiculous rumors, and intended to discredit the investigative journalist that introduced such spurious allegations to the defense team prior to the actual trial beginning. This was Denver, Colorado writer, Stephen Singular.
By January 1995 prior to the trial starting, Deputy Prosecutor Harmon had the sock sent off to the FBI laboratory along with other swatches of blood to be examined. Subsequently, several weeks later, to the LA prosecutor’s dismay the FBI returned with an answer, the blood had tested positive on the sock and other blood swatches from the murder site. They all contained something that should not have been there, the blood preservative EDTA. These type of continuous irregularities not only undermined the presumed guilt of Simpson, but cast doubt on all of Fuhrman’s allegations of what occurred in this infamous case.
According to the Denver author Singular’s, LEGACY OF DECEPTION, the investigation at Simpson’s residence began about 3 hours earlier that morning of June 13, 1994, somewhere between 3:00 and 3:30 AM when it is alleged that Fuhrman went there with another officer searching for evidence of Simpson’s guilt. Not finding any, the two officers allegedly were heard arguing with each other for leaving the Bundy crime site and going to Simpson’s Rockingham estate. This is one of the things Fuhrman would criticize senior detectives Phil Vannatter and Tom Lange for doing, leaving the murder site of Nicole Simpson’s Bundy residence and going to O.J. Simpson’s Rockingham residence, rather than having a separate set of detectives go there to avoid contaminating two different potential crime sites, since we now know that Simpson was always a prime suspect.
What Fuhrman seems adept at doing persistently is discounting the significance of others in conducting an investigation and passing the blame onto others rather than taking blame himself for inadequacies related to the Simpson investigation. It becomes a recurring theme in his book, MARK FUHRMAN Murder in Brentwood. While he stays busy throughout the book diminishing the inadequacies of others, the one thing that is recurrent in Fuhrman’s statements either in his book or in his trial and pre-trial testimony is the inconsistency in the evidence in his narrative of the crime.
Fuhrman says that it was not impossible for him to plant the glove at Rockingham, we say poppycock; there was plenty of opportunity for him to collect a glove and plant it. After all, he testified that all investigation ground to a halt at about 2:45 AM when Detective Phillips came into the living room of Nicole Simpson’s residence where Fuhrman was writing his findings and announced that their division had been pulled off the case as the lead detectives and replaced by the senior detectives who would be arriving from the Special Investigations Division (S.I.D.). For the next hour and a half, well after 4:00 AM, Fuhrman testified that the police officers were doing little more than standing in the middle of the street talking to one another about other things, like where to have breakfast later that morning.
In his 1997 published book he describes a blue piece of plastic as a common blue gauze wrapper found near the glove, and attempts to assert a far-fetched theory that the piece of stick he found on Simpson’s Rockingham Drive boulevard came from a fence that Simpson’s Bronco ran into and got lodged in his bumper or wheel well and fell out on the landscaped boulevard of Rockingham Drive by the Bronco. However, Fuhrman apparently did not read the 1995 authored book by Stephen Singular, LEGACY OF DECEPTION, that has an anonymous LAPD source inside that department communicating with Singular in Denver, Colorado a month and a half after the murders, August 1, 1994. The LAPD insider approached Singular because of their distrust of those in the corrupted justice system of Los Angeles County.
Everything the anonymous source told Singular who passed it on to the defense stood up when they checked it out starting in August of 1994. The source stated that it was Fuhrman who broke that stick off of a back fence either on Nicole’s property or adjacent to it. It was broken according to the insider to handle the glove he would plant at Simpson’s Rockingham residence; the blue wrapper was alleged to be all or part of an evidence collection bag used by LAPD detectives to collect evidence. The defense would later tell Singular that they had found a piece of the fence at Nicole’s which looked as though that piece of stick had come from there. Both items would, 7 months later, be reluctantly acknowledged by Det. Tom Lange during cross examination and cooperatively by Det. Mark Fuhrman during direct examination, of being found at Simpson’s Rockingham estate.
What is quite noticeable with Fuhrman when discussing his personal role in the investigation is his heightened need to make his recitation dramatic relative to any particular discovery and what appears to be a narcissistic ambivalence towards accuracy. Notwithstanding the number of times he denied using the N-word within the prior ten years, when challenged. Everyone, myself included, as well as the jurors thought and said in their book, Madam Foreman, that it was absurd for Fuhrman to lie about the use of the N-word, since they felt the stress of the job in the areas he was working could have provoked its usage. However, telling that lie appeared to be no big deal to Fuhrman, as it does not appear to be in any other situation that he chooses to discuss. He simply ignores the fact that people will fact check what he says.
Take Fuhrman’s remarks in his book concerning the testimonies of what he alleges that medical examiners stated about the type of knife that was used. According to Fuhrman, as he states on page 198, Murder in Brentwood, “the testimonies of Drs. Golden, Baden, and Lakshmanan concur that the victim’s wounds were caused by a single-edge knife”. That statement is simply not true, except in the case where the apostrophe in the word “victim’s” may be intended as an escape door for Fuhrman if challenged about the veracity of his remark, or again to shift the blame towards the interpreters of his meaning. He’s in position with the spelling to say that he meant only Nicole Brown Simpson’s wounds and not Ron Goldman’s, and if so, his sentence would be correct since Nicole’s wounds appear to be delivered by a single edge knife.
However, according to another medical analyst with access to Dr. Golden’s autopsy reports, Dr. Henry S. Johnson, author and chairman of the Ocean Medical Investigative Group, states that a left handed assailant was the likely perpetrator of the wounds found on Nicole’s body. The delivery of those 4 stab wounds to the left side of Nicole’s neck, with the sharp edge of a single edge knife pointing to the rear over her left shoulder, as well as the coup de grace, that nearly decapitated her was highly probable delivered by a left handed assailant, and not a right handed one as O.J. Simpson.
Goldman on the other hand appeared to be attacked by both a single edge knife delivered by a left handed assailant with two dozen double edge stab wounds to the right side of his face and neck delivered most probably by a right handed assailant. This has been analyzed thoroughly over the last 19 years, from 1996 to 2015, by Dr. Johnson, and discussed in his year 2000 book, Double Crossed for Blood.
Hence, the word “victim’s” is not used in that manner to imply that Fuhrman is speaking about a single victim, since he doesn’t define who it is he’s referring. ”Victim’s”, instead of victims’, is used incorrectly to imply that all the doctors concurred in their belief that only a single edge knife was involved in the killing of both Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. Yet, below is the actual medical examiner’s testimony three days after Fuhrman took the witness stand during the preliminary hearing. On July 8, 1994 Dr. Irwin Golden, who was the only one who actually performed the autopsies stated the following words during his testimony:
Dr. Irwin Golden, Deputy Medical Examiner, Los Angeles County Coroner’s Department, July 8, 1994, O.J. Simpson Preliminary Hearing.
19 (Q) Regarding the knife wounds, is it your finding
20 that there were two types of knife wounds on both
22 (A) There are two morphologically different types
23 of stab wounds on the victims. Namely, some of the
24 stab wounds on the victims are indicative of a
25 single-edged blade for the reasons that I indicated.
26 They have both a round or blunt end and a pointed end.
27 And other — some of the wounds have a
28 characteristically double pointed or forked end, which
01 would indicate that they could be made by either a blunt
02 end instrument, or knife,
or a double sharp end
03 instrument. In other words, a two-edged knife.
05 And there’s no way that my determinations can
06 tell the difference between those, so there are two
07 morphologically different types.
When Mark Fuhrman discusses the time in which the glove was photographed at the South Bundy residence of Nicole, it appears that he cannot distinguish between daylight and darkness. The official time of sunrise on Monday, June 13, 1994 was 5:41 AM, Fuhrman stated in his book that he and Detective Phillips arrived back at the Bundy murder site at approximately 7:00 to 7:15 AM at which time he allegedly asked the LAPD photographer Rolf Rokahr to take a picture of him pointing at the glove near the foot of Ron Goldman.
It turns out that under cross examination, Rokahr admitted that the photograph of the glove he took was taken about 3 hours earlier between 4:30 and 4:40 AM, which meant that it was taken in darkness and not in daylight.
Below is LAPD Photographer Rolf Rokahr’s testimony.
MR. NEUFELD: All right. So, sir, if, as you told me yesterday, that it was approximately 4:10 in the morning when you encountered Mr. Fuhrman at 875 Bundy at the time that he was having you take pictures of items of evidence that were in and about the green foliage, would that be sometime between 4:25 in the morning and 4:40 in the morning based on your estimate, sir?
MR. ROKAHR: I would say it’s fair.
MR. NEUFELD: Did Mr. Fuhrman–I’m sorry. Did Detective Fuhrman instruct you to take any pictures of him pointing at objects of evidence?
MR. ROKAHR: No, he didn’t. I requested him to point to the evidence.
MR. NEUFELD: Okay. And was the evidence that you requested him to point to the glove and the hat?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And that would be the glove and the hat at Bundy; is that correct?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And did you at that moment take pictures of Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove and the hat?
MR. ROKAHR: Yes, I did.
MR. NEUFELD: And, sir, was one of the reasons that you asked Detective Fuhrman to point to the item is because it was nighttime and thus, the glove was difficult to see?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
MR. NEUFELD: And as to the 34th picture, Is that Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?
MR. ROKAHR: That is Detective Fuhrman.
MR. NEUFELD: And in 35, is that also Detective Fuhrman pointing at the glove?
MR. ROKAHR: That is also Detective Fuhrman.
MR. NEUFELD: And those were the last two pictures you took on that first roll of film during the night at Bundy on June 13th–in the early morning hours of June 13th, 1994?
MR. ROKAHR: That is correct.
Again, it raises questions about Fuhrman’s veracity given his failure to tell the truth about what otherwise are trivial issues.
Let us take the discovery of the glove for instance at the murder site on Bundy and examine what Fuhrman states about the glove he found there. Fuhrman describes standing on the top landing of the front steps of Nicole’s townhouse looking east, out towards the boulevard of Bundy Drive. Under cross examination by defense attorney Gerald Uelmen during the preliminary hearing on July 5, 1994, is what Mark Fuhrman testified to below.
26 (Q) And I believe you indicated that you walked
27 out onto the sidewalk overlooking the scene where the
28 bodies were located?
01 (A) Yes, yes.
02 Q How far would you say you were from where the
03 bodies were located?
04 A I was directly above the female victim, which
05 was probably three feet. The male victim would have
06 been ten feet, twelve feet.
07 Q All right.
08 And from that vantage point, you first
09 observed the glove that you told us about?
10 A Not first, no.
11 Q When did you first observe it?
12 A We had flashlights. We were looking at the
13 female victim. We looked at the male victim.
14 I noticed the glove when I walked around to
15 the — after I exited the residence the first time and
16 walked around to the side — or the north side, north
17 perimeter of 875 Bundy.
18 There’s an iron fence and through that iron
19 fence you can get very close to the male victim. And
20 looking there I could see them down at his feet.
Furman’s allegation of when he first saw the glove is full of drama and differs drastically from the LAPD patrolman Robert Riske who was the first police officer to arrive at the murder site at approximately 12:13 AM on June 13, 1994. Fuhrman wouldn’t arrive until 2 hours later at 2:10 AM. Members of the Los Angeles Fire Department came to the murder site not long after Riske arrived. There is an incident report from the LAFD 19, which records the time of death as 00:45. Thus, officer Riske saw the glove at the murder site between 12:13 AM and 12:45 AM. Below is what officer Riske states during his testimony on February 09, 1994 under direct examination:
Q: ALL RIGHT. NOW, AFTER YOU MADE THESE OBSERVATIONS, SIR, AND YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE — AT THAT TIME TELL US WHAT YOU SAW.
A: I SAW THE ENVELOPE THERE, THE HEEL PRINT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE CLOSELY, THERE IS A GLOVE AND WHAT APPEARS TO BE A KNIT CAP UNDER THE PLANT ON THE RIGHT.
Fuhrman’s claims of when he first saw the glove as cited in his above testimony is highly suspect considering not only his rambling recitation of how and when he saw them but how he first came about seeing the alleged glove. The sidewalk tiles are 11 and ½ inches square at the Bundy site. Thus, the location of the glove as seen in the photo of Fuhrman pointing to it at the murder site on Bundy is no more than 3 feet 6 ¼ inches away from the first step entrance to Nicole’s condo. One glove is located partially on the side walk, approximately 7 inches from the front gate.
How Fuhrman can say he did not see the glove until he first went outside and around to the north side fence simply sounds fabricated. Fuhrman even states in his book, Murder in Brentwood, page 12, “Following [Officer Robert] Riske’s lead, we walked along the side of the walkway to avoid stepping in the blood or other possible evidence. Riske shined his flashlight to point out items of possible value. A dark-colored stocking cap and glove were beneath a small bush”.
All of the misstatements by Fuhrman make us believe that during his preliminary hearing testimony when he states:
“ looking there I could see them down at his feet”, his inadvertent slip of the tongue in referring to the gloves in the plural may not have been an inadvertent error at all. Given all of the irregularities associated with several of the statements made by Fuhrman regarding the gloves, the above statement may well have been accurate. It simply is another factor that supports our conclusion that Fuhrman was responsible for dropping that glove on Simpson’s Rockingham estate.
Additional irregularities in information pointed out by Bozanich and Bosco concerning Jill Shively and Robert Heidstra
According to Bosco, there was no intent on the part of Marcia Clark to go slow in this case. He alleges that according to another deputy D.A., Peter Bozanich, and deputy D.A. Lucienne Coleman, Clark was eager to charge Simpson with murder on the afternoon of June 13, 1994 after Simpson returned from Chicago and was interviewed by Detectives Lange and Vannatter. Allegedly, it was the District Attorney, Gil Garcetti, who decided it was too premature to arrest Simpson that day.
Keeping the integrity of the LADA’s office above reproach you would think would be a critical consideration for any prosecutor in the D.A.’s office. However, those like the seasoned veteran prosecutor Bozanich who voiced their opinions about a more deliberate approach to the Simpson case, would find themselves banished to the far remote branches of the LADA’s office out on the periphery of L.A. removed from the central office politics downtown.
It was Joseph Bosco who pointed out that the veteran detective, Phil Vannatter, made no notes while at the murder site. It is through Bosco’s insightful interviews of the banished Deputy D.A. Peter Bozanich, who was recognized as a capable and seasoned veteran of the D.A.’s office, that we are informed that Jill Shively was a fraud. She was the woman who allegedly saw OJ Simpson’s vehicle rapidly speeding through the intersection at Bundy and San Vicente Boulevard. However, Bozanich’s wife received a frantic call from her ex-brother in law, who was a soap opera actor, who told her Shively was a liar and a fraud who he had sued and won. He alleged that Jill Shively wouldn’t know her way to Brentwood, if her life depended on it. She was also, Bozanich claimed, on probation for some felonious act.
Marcia Clark and company would publicly claim later, after Bozanich told them of their problem with Shively, that the reason she wasn’t going to be called to testify was due to the fact that she had sold her story to a tabloid. Bozanich says that this was not the case at all, and certainly was not accurate. The real reason was because of Shively’s propensity to lie, and the fact that she had a criminal record.
It is Bosco who initially points out in his 1996 authored book that the prosecution’s witness Robert Heidstra, who he describes as that “wiry, fidgety little man, with the heavy French accent”, presented a problem for the prosecution’s precise time line for the murders. However, it would be the ego driven, myopic investigator, William Dear in his 2012 book OJ IS INNOCENT AND I CAN PROVE IT that reveals the real difficulty that Heidstra presented for the prosecution. With that discovery I must give him 5 stars, despite the shortcomings of his investigative work propped up with his professional name dropping. Dear, however, got it right when investigating Heidstra.
The prosecution had a rigid time line they presented to the jury for the murders occurring and the perpetrator, Simpson, leaving the crime scene by 10:35 PM. Heidstra, alleged that he was walking his dog in the alley behind Nicole’s condo when he heard a steel gate slam, a dog barking, and loud voices of a man, presumably Ron Goldman shouting Hey, Hey, Hey! Then he claimed to have heard the voice of an older black man hollering back in harsh angry words. The problem with Heidstra, according to Joe Bosco, is that he didn’t hear the gate slam, the dog barking, the Hey, Hey, Hey and the loud angry black man’s voice until 10:40 PM, which Bosco claimed undermined the prosecution’s precise time line for the murders completion and Simpson gone by 10:35 PM.
William Dear, on the other hand, made contact with Robert Heidstra a year after the murder trial during his own private investigation into the Simpson matter and he had Heidstra show him exactly where he was when he claimed to have first heard the “Hey, Hey, Hey” and angry voices. According to Dear, it turns out that Heidstra was not in the alley behind Nicole’s condo but in the alley on the block across the street and opposite of where Nicole lived. When Dear measured the distance from the alley location where Heidstra said he was walking his dog to the crime scene at Nicole’s condominium it turns out that the fidgety little Frenchman was over 440 feet away from where he supposedly heard the sounds of “Hey, Hey, Hey!” emanating. The distance of 440 feet again is the length of one and a half football fields from the location where the criminal activity occurred. The thought of a person standing in the alley that far away could be certain of hearing anything allegedly coming from behind the gate of the murder site is rendered absurd.