[ Home | Contents | Search ]
Time: 12:34:41 AM
The short answer to your scenarios about O.J., the bag behind the Bentley and Kato's possible collusion with O.J. to give false testimony about when and where he saw O.J. is this:
It can't be true. No way, no how. I tied innumerable scenarios (including yours) and I couldn't get any of them to work. I can walk through it with you point by point. But if you pull up the Fuhrman's Story animation (where O.J. goes into his house through the maid's quarters) or either of the Marcia's Story animations you can walk your scenarios through yourself and the reasons they can't be true should pop out at you.
Hint 1: Kato said that he did not see O.J. from the time they came from McDonalds to the time he saw him with the limo driver.
Hint 2: Kato said that he had to lift the garage gate and physically lift it an place it nest to the tree (did O.J. walk though it without opening it, climb over it or do open it and close it before Kato got there?)
Hint 3: There was no indication of soil on any of O.J.'s socks (if he took off his socks, how did the socks get on the rug in his bedroom?).
Hint 4: Where is the evidence that O.J. was ever behind the bungalow to begin with?
Hint 5: Marcia made hints about O.J. putting something in the bag behind the Bentley. Why do you suppose she didn't specify the sweatsuit, the shoes or the knife? Think about this one before you answer. Keep in mind that I gave to it hundreds of hours of thought before during and after I diagramed the Rockingham estate. You can do a lot of things in theory but when you start moving things around in practice you discover some of the things you imagined could not have happened.
Hint 6: What happens to all of the theories about O.J. making the thump if you apply Occam's Razor (Iago Glossary/ page 667).
The reason I haven't replied to your "2 Things-Jasper" is because I haven't had time. Just got my webmaster back and we have a hell of a lot of work to do.
The answer is, I don't disagree with Wagner's Heidstra Timeline. It's the same as the one I came up with six years ago when I was setting up the framework for Iago. To test my hypothesis against the facts I needed to know Fuhrman's shoe size, the proper scale an proportion of the Rockingham Estate and a timeline I knew was correct. Wagner drew together the same relevant pieces of information that I did (the way an engineer would do it) to arrive at the same conclusion. I know he didn't copy my work and you know that I didn't copy his because you knew that it was in the HTML version of the book that was online four years ago. You saw it three years ago. I just wondered what took him so long to see what I saw so long ago.
The thing I disagree with is his methodology. It's too complex. I understand it because I've been in the field of automotive design for over thirty years. I know why it's appealing to engineers with particular kinds of backgrounds ("young" engineers belong to one such group) and I know why it's the wrong way to solve some problems that are particular to this case. It's the wrong way to go because too many wrong answers can get backed into you basic equations for years before you can even begin to see them.
Think about a school kid who writes the correct answer on the blackboard to a story problem but includes fifteen unnecessary elements to a solution that only requires three. He can explain why he included all fifteen elements. His explanation makes sense (to a handful of geniuses in the school system) and he can prove that he has the correct answer - but he never realizes that the three items he uses for his proof are all he needed to solve the problem. What grade would you give him on his solution to the problem? --Jasper