[ Home | Contents | Search ]
Time: 5:59:41 PM
Rovaan, Yes, I did mean Karpf and Tistaert. It's easy to tell by the context. The same is true with the testimony of some of the witnesses that don't seem to add up until you put what they say in context.
I can only tell you that what you are saying about the dog being in the house, sniffing around the bodies and not making a sound until much later cannot be true. For one thing Nicole was on the phone talking to her mother between 10:17 and 10:28. The first wounds to Goldman and the stains on his pants meant that he must have been upright during the killing for at least five minutes. So even if the attack had been initiated two minutes after she got off the phone you get a barking dog during or before the attacks occurred.
The only way a quiet dog/plaintive wail scenario makes sense is the way you have it with the dog sleeping in the house on a theoretical timeline and the testimony of one witness. The quite dog scenario works if Pablo Fenjves was the only earwitness to get everything right, including the 10:15 timing and the "plaintive wail" that everyone else characterized as "hysterical" or "frantic." But it doesn't work with a dog who's mistress has been slaughtered and stays quiet but goes to pieces when it can't get in the back yard.
I think that your observation about Kato following Ron's scent south on Bundy is astute and I intend to follow up on that.
I also want to correct something you said. I did not intend to indicate that some witnesses get some things wrong. I meant to indicate that ALL witnesses get some things wrong. Whether it's an obvious misstatement like the one that started this post or an apparent lie that is actually a faulty memory, a faulty observation or a poor choice of words, it's virtually impossible for witnesses to get everything right. Where measurements of time and distance are involved the likelihood of error increases dramatically.
However, you can work effectively with imperfect information if you know the margin of error or if you can track the pattern that the error grew out of. There are ALWAYS patterns in the mistakes people make that can tell you a lot about their state of mind. They are not arbitrary, chaotic or deceitful (I'm talking mistakes, not lies). If you've read enough of my posts, you can see where I've left out words or put in the wrong ones. You can usually figure out what I intended to write even if it's pretty screwed up because you can see how I made the mistake and make an adjustment for it. The some principle applies to everybody.
If you find yourself dismissing someone simply because you think you've found a flaw in something they said, you're making one of the biggest mistakes you can make. You're shutting yourself off from the information you may need to find the truth.
Karpf, Schwab, Tistaert, Storfer and even Fenjves turn out to be excellent sources of information - if you can find the key that logically and accurately adjust for the margin of error. --Jasper