Criteria & Policy

The "Indite Mark Fuhrman" pages are a documentation of events the night of Sunday June 12th, 1994, and the subsequent day, Monday, June 13th. They are intended to establish the truth surrounding the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. If they appear to display a bias in favor of innocence, with regard to Orenthal James Simpson, it is because the emerging structure seems to affirm that innocence. Should evidence emerge affirming Simpson's guilt, we will be happy to include that in the analysis -- performing any, and all changes necessary. These pages are a search for Truth and Justice.

We invite intelligent comments regarding factual errors, typographical mistakes, or logical faults. Where valid, or deemed a reasonable alternative interpretation of the testimony, we will be happy to correct and update our presentation. Our criteria requires that any alternatives address all affected testimony and times -- selective motifications which ignor the resulting ramifications, shall be ignored.

The nature of the vulgarities expressed by some NET residents, and their apparent lack of literacy, requires that we be somewhat gruff with those who point out "errors", having failed to explore associated links. The most common of these, thus far, has been our use of the homonym "INDITE". The underlying explaination being linked to the title. We strongly advise people to follow the links, this will prevent asking questions which have already been answered, or pointing out nonexistant "errors".

1. Mutually excluded arguments are deemed illogical.
   
2. Conflicting times must be resolved in an orderly manner, consistant with TimeLine.
   
3. Explainations of behavior shall be "normal" in circumstances. "Implied" sinister behavor will be rejected, unless supported by testimony documentation.
   
4. General assertions must conform to "do unto others" criteria. That is, if the idividual asserting will accept, without question, the interpretation when applied to their guilt, or innocence -- under judgmental circumstances -- we will accept its applcation in this case. If an individual wishes to assert that a Constitutional Right be waved, they must first -- formally and irrovocably -- wave their Constitution Rights with regard to any similar circumstance in their own life. Otherwise, their argument will be deemed illogical.
   
5. Finally, a criteria that only the individual making an assertion can judge: Be intelectually honest.

Proof of Guilt:

1. Establish MEANS: The accused must have had access to those elements necessary to commit the crime.
   
2. Establish OPPORTUNITY: the accused must have had the ability -- a time when -- they were unobserved, and could have committed the act, if so disposed.
   
3. In all situations, the third criteria -- MOTIVE -- will be stipulated to, once Means and Opportunity have been established.
   
4. Unless otherwise demonstrated, all witnesses will be deemed to have been both honest and accurate in their testimony. In the event of conflict, differences shall be resolved by insertion into the overall context of the testimony.

Rights of Accused:

The accused shall enjoy full Constitution Rights against self incrimination. With regard to statements -- whether under oath, or otherwise given: No statement by the accused will be deemed evidence, unless supported -- or refuted -- by at least one credible independent witness. In a conflict between a witness and the accused, the statement of the independent witness shall prevail -- unless specifically impeached.

Where statements by the accused lend clarity, or continuity, to those of independent witnesses -- they shall be used expressly, and solely, for that purpose.

© 1995-6 wlschreck@aol.com   © 1995-6 Source Interactive Network, LLC.
 All rights reserved.
Visit our Host
1900 block of Times Square   BHI's CapitolHill

Visitors and Counting