[ Home | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 9/7/00
Time: 11:23:59 AM
Charlie,
The reason for moving evidence around and making it hard to decipher is to cause the kind of confusion your observations have introduced. Two of the biggest things that have kept Fuhrman out of prison and O.J. in the doghouse for so long are O.J.'s attempts to distance himself from the blood drops on Rockingham (his) and the shoeprints on Bundy (Fuhrman's). The shoeprints were impossible to see well on television. However, the killer had to leave behind footprints or shoeprints of some kind. If the object of the killing was to frame O.J., the only way the killer could do it was to wear shoes that would implicate him. You can't frame a man with evidence that proves his innocence. When you detect that kind of evidence you should also detect the faint odor of a red herring. The killer wants you to follow that odor. That's what it's there for.
There was no point in creating such a bloody scene, given the problems one could reasonably anticipate in trying to explain why so little blood would be traced all the way to O.J. himself, unless the plan was step in the blood to leave behind incriminating shoeprints. The killer stepped in a big pool of blood twice, leaving imprints from the left shoe on top of other left shoe imprints and imprints from the right shoe on top of other right imprints. Dennis Fung drew chalk lines around the shoeprints after measuring the clearest ones, the distance between them and the direction of the nearest blood drops. It was these measurements that caused Fung to conclude that the killer wore size 12 shoes, he was probably over 6' tall and that he was walking slowly, not running as the prosecution tried to claim.
Whoever fit all of those characteristics had to be considered a suspect. O.J. fit most of them (if he had killed in a rage and fled in a panic he would not have been walking slowly). Carl Douglas fit one of them (he wore size-12 shoes). I had no idea how tall Fuhrman was or what size shoe he wore until I tried to eliminate him as a suspect. His bleeding killer theory tied him to a man who had to walk slowly enough to plant the blood drop for the camera. Fuhrman was very conscious of how everything he did looked for the camera. As I said in Iago, Nicole's body was carefully posed for the camera; the items surrounding Fuhrman's pointing finger were carefully posed. Fuhrman himself was carefully posed. Wearing the shoes was the best way to put them down "like a stamp" - if you wear size 12 shoes and walk with your toes pointed straight ahead.
Only ONE clear photo of one shoeprint was required for a frame-up. I think I saw the same one about a hundred times. It IS size 12. The shoeprints with the parallel lines that the killer tried to hide are another story.
The defense did not object to Fung's contention that the killer was walking slowly, which means they had to have discerned left and right shoeprints in a sufficient number to count them as the steps of a walking man. Bailey did not object to that characterization. Lee did not object to that characterization. Therefore I didn't object to that characterization. My goal at the time was not to find evidence that would clear O.J. but to find the most reasonable explanations I could for the evidence that was found and for the person who found it. For the bloody shoeprints to be incriminating to O.J. there had to be indisputable proof that he had worn them or eyewitness testimony and a set of narrowly drawn circumstances to suggest that he did.
Charlie, O.J. never owned the shoes. The question then should be, if O.J. didn't… --Jasper