From: Junot
Date: 1/8/01
Time: 9:47:11 PM
Replying to Jasper ****************************************************************************************************
"John,
"Read the transcripts -- and take another look at what I wrote in Iago.
"I can write. You can post some of what I write. But before you say how screwed up it is, it would be a good idea to read it. You don't have a single thing right that I said about the glove or the timeline ****************************************************************************************************
J: I don't care all that much about what YOU say about the glove (which one?) or the timeline. I was dealing ONLY with the account of O.J. Simpson himself as he gave it on his OWN video ****************************************************************************************************
"and you haven't checked your sources beyond what you've found that appears on the surface to support what you said. So much of what you said is just plain wrong, and there is so much of it that I can't even start. Moreover, you have adopted an approach to information gathering and analysis that relies on one source when many sources are available and you quick to cite it ****************************************************************************************************
But, Jasper, the "One source" that I cite is OJ himself in his own words in a medium that he had complete control over. Who cares how many other "sources" of information about what OJ supposedly did or testified that he did there are? If those are fundamentally at variance with the OJ videotape, then it is the OTHER sources that are corrupted or distorted by outside influences, such as the needling lawyer Petrocelli. Either that, or OJ's own words straight from his own mouth under his complete control are untrue. ****************************************************************************************************
"when telling your opponents that they don't have the facts. It is a whole like easier to cite one source that agrees with your conclusion than to cite fifty that all have to line up in order for any of them to be valid. ****************************************************************************************************
They all have to "line up" with what OJ said in his own words under his exclusive control in order for any of them to be "valid".
To put it another way, OJ's words on his videotape is the "standard of measurement" against which all other sources of information about what he did on the evening of the murders must be compared. If you use a yard stick to look for a three-foot board, and a board is seen to be only 29 inches long, it is the board and not the yard stick that you presume to be "wrong". In like manner, any other source of information about what OJ did on the evening of the murders must be measured against what he himself said on his videotape, and, if there is a discrepancy, you must assume that the discrepancy is with the other source of information. ****************************************************************************************************
"You have a timeline that discounts the testimony of every timeline witness with a good reason to know the time and with a way of cross-referencing their observations with phone records and independent witnesses. ****************************************************************************************************
while it has been two years or more since I wrote my timeline, I can tell you that I did not spend much time with examining all the witnesses testimony and cross referencing.
the sources of my timeline were (1)the 10:03 phone call to Barbieri, (2)the estimated drive time for the round trip to Bundy, (3)Goldman's estimated arrival time at Bundy, derived from research by Dick Wagner and the LAPD, (4)Ferrara's and Kaelin's testimony about the start of their phone call, and (5)Park's ringing at the Ashford gate at 10:40, established by the time of his cell phone call to his boss shortly afterwards.
My theory assumes that Shively was an out-and-out liar about the San Vicente incident, and that Heidstra was mistaken aboutthe time he observed the white suv leave the area. ****************************************************************************************************
"You have a suspect making phone calls and pretending to be a woman with no evidence that he did so and no way for him to know the calls would not be traced back to him. ****************************************************************************************************
The "evidence that he did so" is merely that that phone call happened (See Merrin's civil trial testimony) and, as far as I know, and with the SOLE exeption of Dick Wagner, no one else has even TRIED to explain that call.
To say that the Merrin call was NOT from the murderer simply begs common sense.
Kaelin knew the calls would not be traced back to him because (a)he knew from schmoozing with police officers (he knew Shipp personally) that calls on 'back lines' were not recorded or traced as were 911 call, and (b)the call from the Rockingham estate to the police station was a local call.
The source of information that Kaelin could imitate women's voices is Kaelin himself, through the taped interviews with Marc Eliot, who used them for his book. ****************************************************************************************************
"You have a killer with a nosebleed on the murder scene, ****************************************************************************************************
THAT IS AN OUT-AND-OUT UNTRUTH. I do remember making a sarcastic remark in discussing the fact that two of the five blood drops at Bundy were BETWEEN the nearest footsteps to the effect of: "I suppose you're going to say the murderer has a nosebleed." ****************************************************************************************************
"who leaves a blood trail from there to Rockingham and a lucky coincidence that those drops are degraded and cross-contaminated with O.J.'s blood. ****************************************************************************************************
Though the Bundy drops with OJ's dna were degraded and diluted in dna, there was no evidence or mention of "cross-contamination" anywhere in the record for those five drops. ****************************************************************************************************
"But you have no evidence that your suspect was bleeding. ****************************************************************************************************
there's no particular reason to believe Kaelin was bleeding, though he may have suffered some injury from Goldman, so that he may have been, and there was an unidentified blood spot with a #4 allele found in the Bronco, and Nicole, Ron, and OJ did not have such an allele in their dna. ****************************************************************************************************
"You have your suspect steeling the Bronco and trusting to luck that no one will notice that it was missing with no evidence that it was moved. You have him stealing the Bronco, driving to Bundy, committing the murders and driving back while O.J. was in his front yard chipping golf balls. ****************************************************************************************************
We are back to our original source of disagreement, Jasper. OJ WAS DONE CHIPING BALLS IN HIS FRONT YARD **BEFORE** HE WENT TO THE BRONCO AND MADE HIS SECOND (10:03) CALL TO BARBIERI WHILE STANDING AT THE BACK BUMPER OF THE BRONCO. My source of this information is "straight for the horse's mouth"--OJ on his videotape.
Since OJ had sequestered himself in his room, Arnelle was on a date, and Gigi had the night off, Kaelin knew there was no on around to notice whether or not the Bronco was gone. he was careful to park it back exactly as it was when he took it -- hardly something difficult to do. ****************************************************************************************************
"You have a suspect who goes out of his way to give the man he's trying to frame an ironclad alibi ****************************************************************************************************
Kaelin did absolutely nothing of the sort, and if he HAD wanted to, he could have. All he would have had to have done is lie -- with OJ's cooperation -- and say he had been with OJ from 9:30 till 11:00. Kaelin sure as hell didn't give OJ any kind of an "ironclad alibi" by insisting from the get-go that he hadn't seen OJ from 9:35 till 10:50 or so. ****************************************************************************************************
"- but you are refusing to look at that evidence because it doesn't fit your timeline.
"You are going to win every argument every time because there is nothing anyone can say that will counter a determined effort to discount it. Learning the truth is a different matter. If I make a general statement you can make a specific claim that seems to rebut it. If I address the specific claim you demand documentation. ****************************************************************************************************
Actually, I rarely ask for documentation for the simple reason that it allows my correspondent to demand it of me, and I'm rarely in the mood to do the tracking down.
Only when something seems off-the-wall at odds with what I thought I knew about the case, AND leads to crucial conclusions, do I bother.
In this specific case, it is your claim that OJ's dna was found INSIDE one of the gloves. The only mention of OJ's blood on either of the gloves that I recall ever hearing about was a tiny spot on the wrist notch of the Rockingham glove. You have to make a Clintonesque stretching of the word "inside" to put that speck of blood there.
I simply believe you to be wrong about OJ's blood being "inside" one of the gloves, and the implications of you being right on this point are enormous, hence my request for documentation. ****************************************************************************************************
"If I show you the documentation you challenge it. If you can't challenge it you dismiss its importance. If the bottom line isn't "Kato did it," you don't care what the facts are. You assume that I have done the same with Fuhrman in the face of a 700 page book that spends over half of those pages carefully documenting just the opposite. ****************************************************************************************************
Jasper, my own web page when printed out comes to 14 pages of double-spaced print. Your book is 700 pages long. Who cares? If my theory is bullshit, then it is 14 pages of bullshit. I'm certain I could expand it to 700 if I tried, but all that would make it is a bigger pile of bullshit. Capiche? ****************************************************************************************************
"John, it is a fact that blood in the cashmere lining of the Rockingham glove was identified as O.J.'s. It is also a fact that the accuracy of that identification was disputed. It was not a good sample. It had EDTA in it and the defense argued that it was a degraded sample of someone else's blood that was cross-contaminated with O.J.'s . I said that I thought they were wrong and the blood was planted.
The 10:04 time that O.J. took Chachi for a walk is established by the last call that O.J. made to Paula Barbiari just before he headed for the gate. It was the last thing he did before he took Chachi for a walk. That's in the civil trail transcripts. I spent several months on that testimony because it is very confusing and appears to be contradictory in places. ****************************************************************************************************
The reason for that was that OJ was suffering at the hands of a real self-righteous scumbag lawyer, Daniel Petrocelli, who asked OJ over 200 questions about that fucking broken glass in Chicago. Hell, I could teach you the theory of relativity without you having to ask 200 or more questions. The testimony was SUPPOSED TO BER 'CONFUSING' AND 'CONTRADICTORY' so that Petroleumjelli could bamboozle the jury.
That also makes those transcripts a rather lousy source of information. ****************************************************************************************************
"At one point O.J. says he called Barbiari after he went to his Bronco. At another time he said he did it after he went to his Bentley. He then backtracked his movements and decided that he must have made the call when he was standing behind the Bentley.
"O.J. did not testify to having the cell phone with him because he wasn't sure whether he had it with him or not. He talked about swinging a 3-wood. That, he was sure of, because he couldn't find the sand wedge he was looking for. He ended up using a pitching wedge he got from the trunk of the Bentley.
"The blood drops that Fung collected at Rockingham corresponded to what he said he did at that time and to what he said he did when he was about to leave. We're talking about two sets of exculpatory blood trials leading to the Bronco at different times and into his front door. What you're missing here in your haste to say how incompetent I am, is the fact that O.J. made two trips to the Bronco after he cut himself. The first trip - the one that fits Dennis Fung's blood drop markers at the gate-was the trip he made when he took Chachi for a walk at 10:04 and he was looking for the golf club he wanted to us. The second trip was after 11:00 when he first noticed he was bleeding.
Once again, I urge everyone to go to your page and see what you have done for themselves. I urge them to pay close attention to your facts and your reasoning and to reserve judgment until they have given what you say every chance to work. It's the only way to learn the truth. -- Jasper