Pragma: no-cache
From: Maggie
Date: 15 Jul 2000
Time: 16:51:07
So what can happen to the prosecutor who in the grand jury heard Kato tell her in his response to a question that he had seen the limo with no one in it? She knew he had gone out twice bt the criminal (it was in his statement to the police) so she knew the noise had to have occured as early as Park's first phonecall to the house at 10:40 (i.e., the only time the limo was parked in front of the Ashford gate and was empty.) That was exculpatory evidence when you factor in that she knew about Heidstra who said he heard "Hey Hey Hey" at 10:40 something. That would means that she knew Ron was still alive when the noise that was kinked to the dropped glove was taking place.
Thus she would also have known that the glove had been planted and yet she continued on with the case and pretended that OJ had dropped the glove. And how many times did the defense say in how many ways - "evidence was planted in this case". How sad!
AND no wonder Kato appeared surprised at a little after 10:50 when he suddenly now saw Park sitting in the driver's seat. He must have wondered where Park had appeared from. Park said something to the effect that Kato seemed puzzled when he looked over at the limo and that it took Kato a few moments before he went and opened the gate for him. It seems now that his surprise was not because it was a new driver but because the driver had seemed to have appeared out of nowhere.
Does this now mean that OJ can sue for malicious prosecution?