The importance of behavior and the evidence of lying

One of the most impressive items in this JBR investigation, to me, is when Trujillo and Thomas interviewed Patsy and John. When they were finished questioning Patsy, Thomas thought they should get a warrant for her arrest. The two could clearly see that Patsy was lying.

This was recently confirmed by Mark Furhman in his latest book which has a chapter devoted to the Ramsey murder. Furhman gives at least two examples, from Patsy's interview, of lying.

Now. Furhman was not present at the interview, but, from the answers Patsy gave to two lines of questioning, told Mark that she was lying. Can you imagine if Furhman could have been present to see the reaction and facial expressions as did Thomas and Trujillo?

One of the places where Furhman notes that Patsy is lying is when Trujillo asks Patsy why she thinks experts believe the ransom note writing looks a great deal like her own. First of all, Patsy acts as if she didn't know that. Can you imagine? Several months after the murder and no one told her that experts could not clear her of the authorship? Then, Furhman goes on to say that Patsy's response was way too long as she stuttered around and said maybe it was because the ransom note writer was a female, etc. Someone who was not guilty of writing that note would just say: "I didn't write the note, they're wrong."

Furhman is correct. However, there are so many instances where Patsy lies and contradicts herself in every interview, DOI, TV appearances, etc. that any one of US could have written a book too.

Of course she lied. When asked why the ransom note looks like hers, she couldn't very well have said it was because "I WROTE IT STUPID!" now could she?

LE overall believe the Ramseys are good for this crime. As much as that means, sadly it means nothing insofar as justice served

Me? I think Burke has the answers

I would love to see Fuhrman take this case on. Too bad he was part of a screw up, forever leaving the door open for the RST to trash him for his theory

Capricorn wrote:

I would love to see Fuhrman take this case on. Too bad he was part of a screw up, forever leaving the door open for the RST to trash him for his theory

I would love to see that as well. The RST spurn anyone who doesn't agree with them anyhow, so what's new? Look at how the Moxley case was resolved with a trial and guilty verdict after Fuhrman wrote his Greenwich book. Greenwich was another affluent town, even more so than Boulder. I have always wanted him to take a stab at the case.

Legal_Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>
I would love to see that as well. The RST spurn anyone who doesn't agree with them anyhow, so what's new? Look at how the Moxley case was resolved with a trial and guilty verdict after Fuhrman wrote his Greenwich book. Greenwich was another affluent town, even more so than Boulder. I have always wanted him to take a stab at the case.

First, let me say that it is great to see you posting again Legal Eagle.

Yes, Furhman would be a wonderful man to have work on this case. While I don't believe this case will ever see a courtroom, it would be nice to hear someone with the courage say what they believe OUT LOUD without fear of retaliation!

Let the chips fall where they may ;)

Legal_Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>
I would love to see that as well. The RST spurn anyone who doesn't agree with them anyhow, so what's new? Look at how the Moxley case was resolved with a trial and guilty verdict after Fuhrman wrote his Greenwich book. Greenwich was another affluent town, even more so than Boulder. I have always wanted him to take a stab at the case.

I agree. Mark Fuhrman in essence, solved the Martha Moxley case. He wasn't a good witness for the prosecution at the OJ trial. He undermined they case when he lied about his usage of "that" word, but the fact that he did use "that" word doesn't make him a bad detective and he WAS a homicide detective. I would LOVE to see Mark write an entire book on the JBR case, taking in all the evidence.

And you're right, Greenwich is MUCH more affluent than Boulder. Makes Boulder look like some little backwater hamlet.

CSIEngland wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree. Mark Fuhrman in essence, solved the Martha Moxley case. He wasn't a good witness for the prosecution at the OJ trial. He undermined they case when he lied about his usage of "that" word, but the fact that he did use "that" word doesn't make him a bad detective and he WAS a homicide detective. I would LOVE to see Mark write an entire book on the JBR case, taking in all the evidence.
And you're right, Greenwich is MUCH more affluent than Boulder. Makes Boulder look like some little backwater hamlet.

He didn't solve it. Everyone knew who did it right from the beginning. Problem is the perp was able to hide behind power and money. It took a therapy session admission to get to any evidence, and someone within that therapy session to report the truth.

I think he solved it. He named Michael Skakel as the murderer in his book. Prior to that, both Thomas AND Michael had been suspects as well as Kenneth Littleton, the tutor. Even William Kennedy Smith was, at one point, a suspect. Of course there were Greenwich homicide detectives who named Michael as the killer from the get-go, just as Boulder LE named Patsy.

I don't know anything about a "therapy session," though. Michael was tried and convicted still proclaiming his innocence.

Capricorn wrote:

Furhman is correct. However, there are so many instances where Patsy lies and contradicts herself in every interview, DOI, TV appearances, etc. that any one of US could have written a book too.
Of course she lied. When asked why the ransom note looks like hers, she couldn't very well have said it was because "I WROTE IT STUPID!" now could she?
LE overall believe the Ramseys are good for this crime. As much as that means, sadly it means nothing insofar as justice served
Me? I think Burke has the answers
I would love to see Fuhrman take this case on. Too bad he was part of a screw up, forever leaving the door open for the RST to trash him for his theory

Yep, I would like to see him take it on, too.

learnin wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, I would like to see him take it on, too.

Someone should write him. Maybe he will. If Fuhrman wrote a book about the case, I think it'd probably sell well, especially given the fact that he was right about Michael Skakel and Martha Moxley.

I'd buy the book. I was going to buy the other book, but when I found out JBR was only one chapter, I just borrowed a friend's.

Legal_Eagle wrote:

<quoted text>
I would love to see that as well. The RST spurn anyone who doesn't agree with them anyhow, so what's new? Look at how the Moxley case was resolved with a trial and guilty verdict after Fuhrman wrote his Greenwich book. Greenwich was another affluent town, even more so than Boulder. I have always wanted him to take a stab at the case.

People buy Fuhrman's books no matter what they think of him. I wonder why he hasn't written an entire book about this case. There's certainly enough to write about and Furhman has the name recognition and after the Moxley case, he has the credibility as well.