From: Jasper
Date: 1/16/01
Time: 4:50:30 PM
Charlotte,
I don't see how any honest person could have listened to the news in the first few days without believing that O.J. was guilty. I'm not saying that it was impossible because I know some honest people who felt from the beginning that he was innocent. I'm saying that I don't understand how they arrived at that conclusion based on the information they got second hand from the media. But I, like you, had to do a lot of rethinking when "common sense kicked in." Way too many things didn't match and way too many things matched way too well. You'd think that common sense would tell anyone at some point that something was wrong.
I've learned through hard experience that it doesn't work that way. Most people get an impression of the truth form someone they trust in the media and all thinking stops right there. The media - especially television - really are that powerful.
I took another look at the A&E program with Bill Curtis that was supposed to be "objective." The first time around I missed the first ten minutes or so and left with the impression that they did a fairly good job of presenting both sides. But when I went back to the beginning, my heart sank with what I saw and heard….
They stated categorically that the dog started barking at 10:15 - a demonstrable inaccuracy.
They said that half the Bronco's front tire was "on the curb" and showed a picture that made it look that way if you didn't know that the line it crossed was a white line painted on the street. Someone must have seen in the editing process that the curb, shown in another picture, was at least 4" high and there was no way that the tire could have been siting on top of it. Yet, they let their first comment stand about the way the Bronco was parked. That was a demonstrable lie.
They said that O.J. just "showed up" at the recital and was in a dark mood. To illustrate that dark mood they showed the videotape of O.J. lifting Jason after the recital. You and I know that the look on his face was because of physical pain from his arthritis and that the part of the tape they cut out showed him laughing and joking with his former in-laws. We know that he didn't just "show up," but that Nicole had provided ticket for him and that he flew into town specifically to attend the recital which was scheduled weeks earlier. More demonstrable lies.
They said that O.J. took the "red eye" flight to Chicago, which is what Vannatter wrote on his search warrant, and which is one reason Judge Ito said that he showed "a reckless disregard for the truth."
They retold Marcia Clark's fantasy about Allan Park spotting O.J. coming from the south path (they did this with an accurate statement that Park saw O.J. going into the house along with the visual lie of a camera sweeping from the path to the door).
They said that O.J. gave the limo driver conflicting stories about why he was late coming to the door - that he overslept and that he was taking a shower. You can read for yourself in Kato's testimony that KATO is the one who ASKED O.J. if he'd overslept. O.J. said he was in the shower. No conflict whatever.
Charlotte, this sort of thing went on and on for the first ten minutes - then they started to show both sides. The tilt had already been made. But most people accepted it because it came from an "objective," authoritative source. This is what I have to fight before I even get started with Iago. If it didn't make me so mad it would make me want to cry. --Jasper