Release the Scapegoats

     Sween thwarts Fuhrman

Mark Fuhrman's career as a disgraced Detective has hit rock bottom. He was looking for a triple hitter. He wrote 'Murder in Brentwood' and 'Murder in Greenwich', but David Sween thwarted the opportunity to write, 'Murder in Modesto'.

So why is Scott in jail? Scott is in jail for the very same reason that Michael Skakel is in jail while murderers like O.J. Simpson and Ken Littleton, are not. Perversions of justice are far more common than we think, and if it was not for competent investigators like David Sween, Scott would be on his way to being a convicted murderer, but that's not going to happen. That's not going to happen because Scott Peterson had absolutely nothing to do with Laci's disappearance, and David Sween has proved it.

Fuhrman's 'Murder in Greenwich' was an absolute joke and, given the fact that Laci was not murdered more than 27 years ago, the sequel, 'Murder in Modesto' is too preposterous to even consider. Needless to say, the prosecution has delayed the preliminarry hearing because shopping around for what some people have called serial witnesses --people who have been prosecution witnesses in many cases before. Gregory Coleman, who was high on cocaine when he testified against Skakel, appears to be that sort of witness --a desperate man who was easily exploited

This is not justice. This is madness and it's time to put real killers behind bars and to release their scapegoats.

We owe David Sween a debt of gratitude for making Mark Fuhrman's opportunity to produce another work of fiction titled 'Murder in Modesto' an impossible task. Laci Peterson clearly deserves so much more than the National Enquirer's version of events and David Sween has delivered.

Those of you who have not read anything about David Sween will probably not understand his popularity. But the following message that he has recently posted should demonstrate the intelligence that has made David Sween a trusted investigator. According to David Sween: [September 8, 2003]

"Ken Littleton murdered Martha Moxley and if a thousand people confess, it will not make any difference.

People think that an admission of guilt is the most damaging evidence that can possibly be presented. That is not true.

When the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped in 1932, there were more than 200 false confessions.

What is the purpose of a false confession? A false confession is designed to make all the other aspects of a murder superfluous, and the question that always needs to be considered is; what is the purpose of confession evidence? For example, Ken Littleton claims that Michael Skakel confessed to him. What is the purpose of that "confession"? Isn't it obvious? The consequence of a false confession is rather self-explanatory when the the totality of the trickery that Ken Littleton deploys for the sake of getting away with murder, is carefully considered. Indeed, the harder Ken Littleton works, to falsely accuse Michael Skakel, the easier it becomes to understand the claim that Ken Littleton murdered Martha Moxley. The truth is not superfluous. False accusations are.

It is not easy to separate false confessions from authentic confessions, but in the case of Martha Moxley murder, it is not a challenge because the evidence that implicates Ken Littleton is too strong to explain away with a false or unreliable confession.

People do not understand confessions and they need to be warned because it is very easy to pervert justice through false confessions.

Unfortunately, people assume that most confessions are spontaneous and that almost all are truthful. In reality, most confessions are negotiated and 20% are recanted.

Voluntary, false confessions are offered willingly without elicitation and are instigated for publicity purposes. Coerced-compliant false confessions are made even though the suspect knows that he is innocent and they are the specialty of rogue cops who exploit the fact that police interrogation is a stressful experience.

Good investigatores do not rely on confessions. In fact, confessions are meaningless. Ken Littleton is not innocent because he has refused to confess [at least, without a well organized recantation]. Ken Littleton is guilty because anybody who carefully explores all the circumstances surrounding the murder and the cover up which relates to the Martha Moxley homicide, cannot avoid the conclusion.

Ken Littleton now claims that Michael Skakel had told him he had murdered Martha Moxley. Anybody buy that confession? Anybody understand the purpose of this publicity?

Ken Littleton's routine conduct and behavior is better than a confession because he has consistently withdrawn cooperation in a panic and aggressively defied all his interrogators, and his current obsession to claim that Michael Skakel confessed, speaks for itself --more panic.

In my experience, if you are a good investigator, you should expect false confessions in highly publicized cases. This is no surprise.

Ken Littleton's apologists obsessively cover up the opportunity to solve the Martha Moxley murder through false confessions, and it is reasonable to assume that the latest confession is more of the same.

The promotion of a false confession is not proof of Michael Skakel's innocense. It is proof that Mark Fuhrman cannot prove that Michael Skakel is guilty, because Ken Littleton murdered Martha Moxley.

The trickery that surrounds false confessions may very well be Mark Fuhrman's cup of tea [Gregory Coleman was "high on cocaine" during his proxy confession] but it is not mine.

All confessions, and there are many, which relate to the Murder of Martha Moxley are false, unless Ken Littleton decides to tell the truth."

In other words, 'Murder in Greenwich' is a book of fiction, and if that was not the case, Mark Fuhrman would not be afraid to write, 'Murder in Modesto'.



Scott Peterson Trial: Timeline

3/21/03  AMBER FREY
4/04/03  MEDIA SPIN
4/10/03  SMOKING GUN?
02/06/04  THE REAL SCOOP