[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 10/27/01
Time: 10:26:28 PM
Charlie,
I don't think that it's senility you're looking at with Spence. He has a long history of losing bouts with the bottle.
I didn't read his book, either. I'd seen him many times on television enough to know that he wasn't as knowledgeable as some of the people in our Court TV e-mail group and I read what Fuhrman had to say about him in Murder in Brentwood, so I just didn't see the point. If it's true that his book reads like O.J. is innocent and in the end he concludes that O.J. is guilty it may have to do with "police framed a guilty man" idea. That's the way Joe Bosco's book reads and that's why he thinks O.J. is guilty.
Once again, it's the law of averages. I don't know about Spence, but one of the things that irked Bosco was the evidence against O.J. that did not appear have been planted and the evidence that could not have been planted (like O.J.'s cut finger). He seemed to think that if the prosecution had played it straight they might have gotten a conviction. --Jasper