The Longbow Papers

Link to Main Blog Page

Monday, November 22, 2004

Bosco Spills the Beans on O.J. Simpson Case

2:01 AM

A very public part of my past has taken on new life in our blog circles: my involvement with the O.J. Simpson murder case. As you know from earlier posts, this new eruption started over at The Peking Duck and quickly developed an amazing comment string. Although a story of mine written years ago was the catalyst for it, I have not been able to participate as much as I would have liked to due to other writing projects.

It has become so unwieldy, however, with a lot of uninformed commentary from people whom know me for the most part only through my books or television, that I am bringing it out for open discussion in these pages instead of in a comment string. If you have no interest in a ten-year-old murder case, please forgive this indulgence; if you do have interest, but do not know what has been said so far, the links are provided for you to catch up. Therefore, to wit:

Trial of the Century Folks: I am sorry that there seems to be a problem leaving comments at The LongBow Papers; I can't imagine what is wrong, since I am getting comments (how many I'm missing I do not know). I do know there is a lengthy and erratic lag-time between posting a comment and it actually appearing on the site as Mario reported. This lag forced Mario to leave the same comment several times because he couldn't tell if his comment "stuck." I don't know what to say but please try again, my friend.

To Jasper (and Susan Moore from Court TV website) specifically, and others in general:

Very briefly I will address yours and apparently Susan's "problem" with the Wasz/Kardashian/O.J. scenario here. I have long considered writing another piece on the matter, particularly now that Bill is free, but I am deadline-jammed on other publishing projects and discretionary time is at a premium. I will give it a couple of hours of work and see how far we get.

Foreword to a Sweeping, but Indisputable Statement:

What most folks don't know is that after instantly understanding the importance of Det. Tom Lange's tip that Bill Wasz's notebook was genuine and that it had not been in his possession since his arrest almost six months prior to the Bundy murders (I was part of the Simpson press corps who were told just the opposite by both sides in the summer of '94 when the notebook story first broke), starting in late 1996, I worked the Wasz angle with Bert Luper and Bill Hodgman for almost two years out of my own pocket before I took the almost completed story to Time Magazine. Then, with its resources, we worked it all the more deeply and thoroughly.

We were greatly helped by a top-notch private investigation firm we could afford with Time's budget. I am not talking about one of your run-of-the-mill one-man private eye companies; while I will not reveal its name under these conditions, I can say it specializes in high-tech corporate and civil lawsuit work such as the MGM Grand Hotel fire in Vegas and the silicon breast-implant case. They are very, very good at what they do.

With all of the above as background, I can categorically write the following: Everything Bill Wasz said about his activities with Kardashian and O. J. Simpson in the late fall of 1993 that was material or relevant to the issue and was possible to corroborate, checked out to be true. Everything. Period. Amongst the people that know, including past and current members of the Robbery/Homicide division of the LAPD, past and present members of the Los Angeles District Attorneys' Office, and a little more than a handful of other folks who were involved in the Wasz investigation with me, there is no dispute over the events in Bill's story.

However, there is and always will be one crucial fact that cannot be corroborated now by anyone (Kardashian recently died): Exactly what Robert Kardashian said to Bill in his rented Encino home one day in mid-December 1993. Since only Kardashian and Wasz were present, it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Kardashian asked Bill Wasz to kill Nicole Brown Simpson for a fee.

Certainly from all of the internal logic and circumstantial evidence we can strongly argue that Kardashian did in fact solicit murder, but we cannot prove it with physical evidence. That is why there are special rules of evidence in conspiracy cases.

Bill Hodgman's fervent desire during those days was that we get just enough to indict Kardashian on solicitation of murder with the belief that he would flip on O.J. and associates in a plea-bargain. I had no doubt that Kardashian would do exactly that. He had a history of close associates doing his prison time.

No one who has worked with the actual evidence, police interview notes, police reports, phone records, etc., doubts that Bill Wasz:

Sold small amounts of cocaine to Simpson and Kardashian in the fall of 1993;

Conducted surveillance of Nicole Brown Simpson for two consecutive days in early December during which he made written notes of where she went, and took pictures of her embracing an African-American man that was not O.J.;

Deliberately stole Paula Barbieri's Toyota SUV from a pre-arranged site;

Went into a self-destructive crime spree in the Toyota virtually guaranteeing apprehension immediately after telling Kardashian at gunpoint that he was taking the money and the Toyota but wasn't killing anyone, which, along with ripping off his cocaine wholesaler, made his odds of staying alive on his own on the outside more than a little long;

Was arrested in Newport Beach while attempting to flee on foot the scene of a crash of the Barbieri Toyota with a private automobile as a result of a high-speed police chase through the streets of downtown Newport Beach, doing so with a leg wound from a .357 magnum pistol that fired accidentally at the moment of collision;

Left a notebook with the Nicole Brown Simpson surveillance notes in the Toyota that was found within minutes of his arrest and handcuffing some 100 yards or so from the vehicle he never had access to again.

It is more than just interesting that Paula Barbieri refused to testify against Wasz for Grand Theft Auto, leaving the Orange County prosecutor dumbfounded, angry and suspicious.

When he was interviewed six-months later by a series of detectives about the Bundy murders Wasz gave up Kardashian's name consistently--and has ever since--even though the ex-con instinct within him knew that dropping O.J.'s name just once would have gotten him an instant ticket from Marcia Clark to a cushy spot in a witness program in Los Angeles.

There is another item that people need to know that helps explain why Bill Wasz was able to connect with high rollers; Bill had previously worked as an "enforcer" for an extremely successful Hollywood producer and Big Name money Player in the biz that I will not identify here.

Does Bill Wasz know anything about the events at Bundy on that bloody, busy night in June 1994? No. That is why I have always called my reporting of the Wasz story, "The Man Who Did Not Kill Nicole Brown Simpson," even though editors always changed it to something else. Of all the people associated with the case, we know for an absolute fact that Bill Wasz could not have killed anyone that night because he was in jail.

Does his story shed great light on the case? Absolutely. Exactly what? Ahh...there is where it becomes fun. Ladies and Gentlemen, the O.J. Simpson murder case is one of the best ever for nuance, complexity and human machinations.

Contrary to what many people believe, I did not "quit" the Simpson case--however, I did nothing to disabuse people from that belief, I readily confess. And I did go on with my life and work, but I have always kept the case simmering slowly on a back burner of my consciousness, coming out full-bore, but quietly, whenever I learned something new from a wide circle of sources.

For the first time publicly I will say this much: At least half of my work on the case I have not published anywhere, by choice, yet.

Based upon some the comments in the long string of comments at The Peking Duck, I think I need to briefly add a couple of nuggets:

Yes, I spoke with O.J. at length about the Wasz/Kardashian story. During a very surreal, lengthy conversation, O.J. kept trying to control the chat with his idea of fixing me up with Gretchen Stockdale, always saying something like: "Ah, Joe, I'm pretty upset with his (sic) book [American Tragedy] but I don't believe he would've done anything like that [Kardashian hire Wasz to kill Nicole]...but, I'm tellin' ya, Gretchen talks about you, she wants to take your course at UCLA, she's hot..." etc., etc.

Yes, O.J.'s inner circle was presented with everything in our Wasz case file. Of particular importance was a long session we had with Kathy Randa, O.J.'s secretary, and Kardashian's former secretary. She believed it all, and corroborated some matters further; she then recanted emotionally after others placed much pressure upon her.

Yes, Kardashian was called and advised that we were going to print with the story and would he like to comment. He screamed that he was going to sue, of course.

Yes, the investigation had an affect upon our subjects: O.J. and Kardashian had a shouting match, each accusing the other of "setting" him up with the Wasz investigation

Yes, Jasper, I did e-mail your site once and only once. It was about two or three months ago. It was a brief note to tell you that you are barking up a live--but ancillary--tree with your Fuhrman as murderer scenario. Let me suggest some areas you should look into:

Ten years before the murders at Bundy, Fuhrman first rented, then bought a home in Redondo Beach that was directly across the street--a single family, residential street--from a home that a company owned by O.J. Simpson and Robert Kardashian used in the production of pornographic films. This activity continued up to and well beyond the Bundy murders.

Please, tell me the statistical probability of the above happening coincidentally in a county the size and population of Los Angeles.

Jasper, Mark Fuhrman was very much involved with O.J. Simpson's life and business for at least a decade before the murders. I am not talking about responding to spousal abuse calls as a patrol cop, either. (Oh, what "assertion" about a Bruno Maglis comment coming from either Denise or Dominique are you talking about? Most of the civil trial testimony mercifully escapes me these days.)

"Following the money" is a good idea in any investigation. We did and we learned almost everything we needed to know, in time. For starters, follow: "R & R Entertainment," or many derivations of "R & R." There are literally dozens of such fictitious dba's registered to Simpson and Kardashian, that include nonexistent agents and partners with nonexistent phone numbers and street addresses. Mr. Simpson and Mr. Kardashian were apparently involved in lucrative, illegal activity for many years, mostly involving pornographic film production and distribution, and sports gambling. I wish you easier hunting than I had; the records at the county courthouse were not digitized or even microfiched when I went through them day after day in the late 90's.

There is so much more, but I should stop here for the time being, except for a closing caveat or two:

Don't let the physical evidence be the basis for concrete theories. As most of you know, I learned my forensics under Dr. Henry Lee. The Bundy crime scene, like almost all of the case, is not what it seems to be, on several different levels, mostly by design, but a significant part is due to the vagaries of bad luck and timing. That crime scene was not only tampered with, different people tampered with it at different times and for very different reasons. That was one busy crime scene BEFORE the police arrived "officially." Consequently, tread lightly when you swear by the physical evidence of that night unless you really understand the case long before it came down to that goddamn bloody shame.

Also, never forget that whatever happened that ugly night, perpetrated by whomever, there was at least one double cross planned and executed. Someone, a female, called the West L.A. Division station house at 10:30 and asked the desk sgt. if they were sitting on two stiffs in Brentwood? Some one wanted the police on scene much earlier than they actually were. Perhaps before O.J.'s plane left?

The Bundy murders were part of a complex plan, which not all co-conspirators knew completely--on purpose.

Remember that the "plan" only partly revealed to Bill Wasz back in December 1993 also was complicated with certain parts making little sense because the shell-game-with-patsy being set up was derailed when Bill went off on Kardashian.

There is enough to chew on for awhile, I hope.

2:01 AM / Editor / permalink 19 comments

Links to this post:

<\$BlogBacklinkControl\$> <\$BlogBacklinkTitle\$> <\$BlogBacklinkDeleteIcon\$>: <\$BlogBacklinkSnippet\$>
posted by <\$BlogBacklinkAuthor\$> \@ <\$BlogBacklinkDateTime\$>

19 Comments:

Joe, GREAT article. I have 3 show to do today. I will respond later tonight. Thanks,

Mario G. Nitrini 111

By mariognitrini111, at 2:31 AM

Dear Mario,

Thanks for the kind words. Three shows? Mario, take a break! I do not understand the problem people are having leaving comments. You are able to comment, it works for me, it works for Ellen, etc., but obviously something is wrong because I am receiving reliable reports from people who can't.

All the very best,

Joseph

By Joseph, at 4:03 PM

Message from Jasper Garrison (www.smartfellowspress.com):

Joe, *

Ancillary? I fear that you have underestimated Mark Fuhrman�s intelligence and mine. *

I know that the crime scene was not as it appeared. I know that others tampered with evidence. I know that Fuhrman wasn�t the only one with a hidden agenda for doing it. I found that these machinations were ancillary. *

I keyed on Fuhrman because he was the only one who appeared at every crucial point in O.J.�s life leading to the murders, the reconstruction of O.J.�s image and his celebrity-making murder trial. I keyed on Fuhrman because he had strong monetary and political motives and a phony, time-shifted alibi. I keyed on him because he was the only one who fit all of the characteristics necessary for the killer if the killer wasn�t who he appeared to be. I keyed on him because he stood 6�3,� wore size 12 shoes and walked with the toes of his feet oriented in the same direction as the killer�s (see Iago Animations). *

The idea that O.J. and Kardashian were involved in pornography and illegal sports betting through dummy companies is not shocking. I don�t even question it. O.J.�s livelihood depended on his image. Hiding his involvement with anything of that sort is consistent with his need to protect his image. It has nothing to do with the way he conducted himself around other people in public or private. The Iago hypothesis does not require O.J. Simpson to be a saint. It says only that his personality was not consistent with the picture of him FIRST drawn by Fuhrman in his 1989 letter to the city attorney. *

Fuhrman gives a fuzzy date of the incident in the �fall or winter� of 1985, which creates a false timeline for documenting O.J.�s �continuing abuse� from 1985 to 1994. All of the �documents� on that timeline have Fuhrman�s name on them somewhere including the �diary� found in a safe deposit box in �94 with photos of Nicole�s �battered� face. Lou Brown took one of those photos in 1979 when Nicole appeared as an extra in O.J.�s TV movie Detour to Terror. O.J. said the injuries to Nicole�s face in Lou�s photo where make-up. Lou said that he never saw evidence that O.J. abused Nicole. Denise said that she took the photo in 1989 (see Animation on Iago Discussion Board). The shelf life of the film was one year. The film was dated 1979. The movie was released in the month and year (1980) that Fuhrman�s second wife divorced him. That�s the ex he told his LAPD shrinks he would have killed along with her lover if he had caught them. *

Fuhrman lied about the year he witnessed the baseball bat incident. It wasn�t in 1985. It was in 1984, the year you now tell us he purchased a home across the street from the house where O.J. and Kardashian set up their pornography and illegal sports gambling base of operations. The following year, Fuhrman struck up a friendship with Ron Shipp � a man with direct access to O.J. and Nicole, a spouse abuse instructor at the LA Police Academy whose last assignment before he left the LAPD in 1989 was in forgery. That year, Fuhrman also stuck up a close relationship with Laura Hart, whose only screenplay writing credentials were in soft porn, like the features produced for cable and video by Playboy � which co-produced O.J.�s Detour to Terror. *

Fuhrman name George Foreman, Michael Jordan and Larry Bird as his favorite athletes of all time. He said that basketball was his favorite sport. Yet, the predominate sports metaphors he uses are baseball metaphors, which would probably make Ty Cobb his favorite athlete. I followed up on the corollaries to these associations combined with Fuhrman�s thrill-seeking personality and found no reference to him participating in high-risk recreational activities. A guy like that had to get his adrenaline fix somehow. I came up with the things he said he did on the McKinney tapes and high stakes gambling. *

Fuhrman looked to me like a man who bet heavily on sporting events, who won big with George Forman, The Bulls and the Celtics and lost big betting against the Tigers in the �84 Word Series. Mark Thurmond was the star pitcher for the losing Padres. Tiger bats �murdered� him. If I was right, I expected to see more Fuhrman associations to fall, the �Fall Classic� and baseball bats. I saw them in TV-movie producer Mark Fuhrman�s Murder in Greenwich with baseball bats smashing pumpkins as a metaphor for murder. *

Iago says that a man fitting Mark Fuhrman�s physical description, talents, ambitions, military background and official role in the investigation of the Bundy murders had an obsession with O.J. and Nicole. No one else matched all of those characteristics. I guessed that the obsession started with O.J.�s role as the boxer in the 1978 television movie Goldie and the Boxer and motivated his successful efforts to be assigned to West LA in 1984 when he lost his appeal for early retirement. From there you can chart a line though all of the people, places times, time shifts, locations and circumstances necessary for him to plan the killings, carry them out and reshape the image of O.J. Simpson. *

You get Fuhrman�s 1984 move to Redondo Beach, his version of the baseball bat incident time-sifted to 1985, the �89 letter to the city attorney, the 1992 boasting of his affair with Nicole and her telling him of O.J.�s �continuing abuse.� You get Nicole�s 911 call in November �93 where she makes a reference to O.J.�s �record� � a record that existed only because of Mark Fuhrman�s letter. Then you get the murders, with Mark Fuhrman as the first investigator on the scene and the investigation with all of Fuhrman�s observations, theories and discoveries leading to the Rockingham glove. You get the stories of O.J., the man Fuhrman described in his letter from others, chiefly Faye Resnick and Denise Brown. Now we can add William Wasz. *

The unidentified woman�s 10:30 call to the police station, by the way, wasn�t to West LA where Fuhrman and Roberts were assigned. It was to the Wilshire station where a long time delay was built into the actions of whomever received it. The only thing it did was create the illusion that the murders had already occurred � a time shift. No matter who got the call, no one could respond without a reported crime at a specific location. The caller did not report a crime or give an address. There would be no investigation until the West LA coordinator called his lead detective � Mark Fuhrman. *

Dominique�s identification of the Bruno Magli Lorenzos (with O.J. wearing them) can be found in Lange and Vannatter�s Evidence Dismissed (pages 215 and 216). Your reference to Denise saying that she saw O.J. wearing them is on pages 75 and 76 of A Problem of Evidence. --Jasper *

I do not intend to post anymore until I can see a way to post something that sticks. If I can't get past William Wasz I might as well be watching I Love Lucy reruns. Some things are not a matter of opinion. William Wasz is a con man. He has done everything I thought he would do to sell his story and it has worked. There is nothing more I can do to change it and absolutely no hope with Joe Bosco. If any of you change your minds about him it will because of something you found not because of anything I said or can say or demonstrate. Good luck. --Jasper

By Anonymous, at 8:38 PM

[Below is the answer I left at The Peking Duck knowing the difficulty some readers are having leaving comments, only to come back later and find the comment above.

Jasper,

Do you smoke your socks? I will be very brief, I don't want to do this on my dear friend Richard's site, I'd rather do it at mine.

We agree! You ninny! I was on to Fuhrman as a principal murder suspect before we picked a jury. Believe me I never underestimate Mark Fuhrman's capacity for evil, I stared him down eyeball to eyeball, he blinked first.

I said "ancillary" because there is far more to this picture than anyone's candidate for lone assassin-in-heat, also Marcia's simplistic choice, the wrong choice.

What happened at Bundy was the work of a number of people, some of them very much working at cross-purposes, deliberately, at slightly different times. Everything you list about your boy can just as easily fit into his motivation to be part of something illegal and grandiose but also instrumental in a plot to dethrone the totem.

This just wasn't a one man job, folks. That's my problem with so many "theories." Study the people, their relationships, and their secret paper trails and you'll find the killers, all of them.

If I have more to write about this line of thought, I'll do it on The LongBow Papers.

All the very best,

Joseph]

UPDATE Comment to Jasper:

You arrogant piece of puffery. When you have a chance to learn something about the case from people who know the players and evidence firsthand you buttress your self behind the same kind of shortsighted crap that sank Clark and Darden.

I covered murder as a profession and a calling for a lot of years. The best lesson I learned from all of it is to never fall in love with a theory first, middle and last: you go where the case takes you, not where you want to take the case.

If you want to work the murder beat as a pro, Jasper, learn to listen more and talk less.

Joseph

By Joseph, at 11:33 PM

Jasper,

It's amateur investigative journalists like you that make it doubly difficult for the real ones to communicate with the misinformed. I just read through your post above again and all of a sudden I had this overwhelming sense of seeing this movie before and it came back to me: You're reciting a litany of my reporting on Fuhrman from years ago! I introduced most of that stuff to the public.

By the way, I don't have a copy of my O.J. book with me in China, so quoting me won't do much good. I haven't looked at the book or my notes and papers from the criminal trial in years.

Also, have you suddenly had a personality transplant? I had you figured for a decent sort. Shows to go ya...

Joseph

By Joseph, at 1:41 AM

Hi Joe. Mario here. Joe, I left you a Post and a question about Dale St. John, Town and Country Limo service owner, Rocky Bateman, and Patrick Mckenna on the Peking Duck yesterday because I couldn't get on your comment board. I hope you can give me an answer to my post on the Peking Duck.

Another question. Have you ever heard of PORNO Star and Producer Ron Jeremy? I spoke with him on 8 different occasions. Leave it that. That is MY question.

Thanks Joe,

Mario G. Nitrini 111

By mariognitrini111, at 9:20 AM

By mariognitrini111, at 9:23 AM

Joe, I posted a message for YOU, JASPER, and Bill Wasz ON the IAGO message board. I would bring it over here but I don't KNOW how to do it. I am very Computer Stupid. Please read it.

Thank you Joe,

Mario G. Nitrini 111

By mariognitrini111, at 10:45 AM

By mariognitrini111, at 10:56 AM

Mr. Bosco, Ni hao,

My name is Brian Murray and I am an engineer living and working in Taiwan (you know, that pesky, independant minded neighbor across the straights). I have been following the OJ case since day one, albiet from afar, like most Americans. I recently have a renewed interest in the case since joining the Courttv forum a year ago to mainly follow politics (another subject we share an interest in). I had read both trial transcripts years ago and since joining in the debacle at Courttv have read them again in their entirety. I have also read the main literature available about the case and all the theories floated around. I have focused mainly on the testimony and scientific evidence because I have found most conspiricy theories do not fit the evidence and some are downright wacky.

I have always known there is more to the case than meets the eye and have not been totally satisfied with what I know so far. That is why I am extremely interested in what you and Bill have to say. I have followed your work for years and find you to be not only credible but also sane. After reading your "forward" I have to say I am intrigued to say the least. I am especially interested in your comments about not letting the physical evidence be a basis for concrete theories. I know this to be true because after studying the evidence for years, no conclusion can be reached; too much smoke and mirrors. I had hit a dead end until I came across these boards.

I will continue to read all the posts and then submit some questions. I believe the truth lies somewhere in all this mess.

Brian Murray

By Anonymous, at 11:58 AM

Mario,

I know this sounds strange, but I don't have a copy of my book on the Simpson case with me in China. It's a long, very sad story, that infuriates me almost into apoplexy if I think about it even for a moment, but it will suffice it here to say that three crates of my personal papers and library that we shipped ahead of us in the summer of 2002 never arrived, ever. The personal loss was huge; but not crippling, all of my important files are safe, many of them unfortunately half a world a way from me, but very, very safe.

There are certain basics of the publishing business, particularly with the handful of publishing giants left after the crash, one of them is that some books are more time-driven than others. William Morrow & Company wanted the book out in early fall of '96, basically a year after the verdict in the criminal trial; Morrow wanted us to beat Toobin by a week. It was frantic the last few weeks, they brought me into the main office in New York, and I literally typed the last words just before press run; Toobin beat us by a couple of days, and all hell broke loose, again.

What I'm getting at is if you want me to explain exactly why I included any one quote from so many, I need more of a reference than the McKenna quote above. Just from first blush, however, I'd offer that it was part of a larger riff and that "fact"--which at the time I had no reason to look askance at--came along for the ride. Some of the McKenna interview stuff was from the first few months of the murders; Pat is great copy, a colorful character to drink with; he is also a dear friend who I'd trust taking my back any day of the week. I know nothing of your beef with him, and I'd like to leave it there, as you also are a trusted friend.

Anyway, in book-length journalism of a case like Simpson, any deadline is premature. My knowledge of the case continued to grow every day; the book was a slice of it frozen forever in time at about August 30, 1996, a very long time ago. My knowledge is still growing.

All the very best,

Joseph

By Joseph, at 12:17 AM

Hi Joe. I have no beef with Patrick Mckenna. He KNOW's Dale St. John was not OJ's regular Limo Driver. He KNOWS Rocky was OJ's Regular Limo Driver, Like a lot of the main players do...

I remember us discussing at your apartment that you WERE in a big RUSH to get your Book Problem of Evidence out and I remember you told me your publisher wanted it FAST. I Understand.

That is a terrible shame of your boxes getting lost and I sure hope they surface for you Joe.

I know you have a lot of friends in the OJ case that, well, Legally they got a Big Time problem with me. We'll just leave it at that.

Joe, NOW that you KNOW about Rocky Bateman, Dale St. John and the LIMOSUINE company CONSPIACY, What do you think of this? That's my question.

I am REALLY looking forward to you POSTING more GREAT INFORMATION about your Dealings in the OJ Simpson case. It helps me a great deal and I know other people are EXTREMELY interested.

This is great for me, Thanks Joe,

Mario G. Nitrini 111

By mariognitrini111, at 9:11 AM

By mariognitrini111, at 9:14 AM

(copied from The Peking Duck)

Joe,

I had no intention of posting again for as far into the future as I could see for several reasons. Two of them were the assumptions you made about the Iago hypotheses that aren�t true. I still admire you but I have not had much luck in communicating with journalists on equal terms. Somehow my words always get morphed into someone else�s beliefs. The ease with which you morphed my position into Marcia Clark�s says it all.

Your previous comments showed me that you do not know what my position is or how I arrived at it. They showed me that you did not know I HAD TO KNOW there were conspiracies within conspiracies with people working at cross-purposes. Your comments showed me that you didn�t think Fuhrman had the foresight and candlepower to use these machinations to his advantage or that I had the hindsight and candlepower to figure it out.

Fuhrman�s �capacity for evil� is ancillary (yes, Joe, that word did piss me off) and Iago does not posit a �lone assassin-in-heat.� It says just the opposite. Mark Fuhrman�s level of intelligence is paramount. Iago says that if O.J. didn�t do it, there had to be AT LEAST five conspirators working together. Each of them had to have special and highly unlikely characteristics. The mastermind had to have an extremely high IQ.

You and I know that there are fools (like Vincent Bugliosi) with impressive IQ scores and people more intelligent than they are who don�t. IQ is only one, flawed and commonly misunderstood measure of intelligence. In practice it can be a hidden handicap unless high social status and ruthlessness go along with it. Iago says that the killer was test wise and that he laid out the evidence the way IQ tests are lied out � to deceive.

Iago says that a methodical killer familiar with military ambushes and a particular ambush technique staged the murders to look like rage killings. He also had to
know what seasoned detectives and pathologists look for in a �rage� killing. It was much easier than in looked, with anomalous evidence appearing only where the killer and his accomplices had to improvise with Gigi, Kato and O.J.�s cut finger. O.J. still doesn�t know how HIS blood drops on his driveway can clear him. He hasn�t seen the Iago animations.

Iago says that the active killer had three motives � fame, fortune and influence. It says that he sprinkled red herrings all over the place the way master criminals do
in the movies and stepped in to solve the crime the way great detective do in the movies. Look at the clusters of evidence linked directly to Mark Fuhrman.
Where have you seen all of them before June 12, 1994? In the movies.

by: Jasper Garrison at November 23, 2004 09:34 PM

By Anonymous, at 7:10 PM

Thanks for the information. I would like to know more! I hope that you do indeed get around to writing another book regarding OJ/Kardashian/Wasz.

By Tammy, at 1:29 AM

What is the evidence that Wasz was hired by Kardashian?
Could he not have been hired by someone else and dropped the name "Kardashian" to divert from the true initiator.

By Anonymous, at 11:17 PM

Joe, You KNOW I have stated before that Det. Ronald Y. Ito is the Lead Detective in the Robert Blake case, and that Det. Ito is the Ringleader in the Murder for Hire PLOT to have me Assassinated and Killed because of MY involvement in the OJ Simpson Criminal case, and that Det Ito Suppressed CRITICAL Information I gave him in the OJ SIMPSON case that could have lead in other LEGAL directions... What do YOU KNOW FIRST HAND OF DET. RONALD Y. ITO?............

Mario G. Nitrini 111

By mariognitrini111, at 8:48 AM

By mariognitrini111, at 8:49 AM

Hi Joe. Joe, where have you been? My Gut feeling, like I have posted before on the "Peking Duck," tells me you are working on the OJ Simpson case. Am I right?

I hope you are doing OK. I KNOW you hae been asked several questions on your website about the OJ Simpson case. I am looking forward to seeing what your answers are.

Talk to you later Joe.

Mario G. Nitrini 111

By mariognitrini111, at 11:17 AM