From: Jasper
Date: 5/1/02
Time: 5:33:08 AM
Charlie,
What is this problem you have with Schwab? You've been on this guy for years and nothing seems to make you rethink your original position long enough to even assume for a moment, for the sake of argument, that he MIGHT be telling the truth. I don't get it.
Everything he said has been independently verified by Heidstra's testimony and the physical evidence itself. He was telling the truth about everything and he got it right. You should see that clearly when I get my latest iteration of Merging Timelines up. It will be much easier to follow. It will also make more sense out of why there appears to be a conflict in his testimony and Heidstra's about hearing the barking dog
Karpf's testimony does not lend credibility to Schwab. It lends credibility to Stein and Fenjves. It challenges Schwab's story by making it appear that he lied about the time he saw the dog. It leaves the impression that he saw Schwab with the dog ten minutes earlier than Schwab testified (through logical implication) that he reached the place where Bundy and Gorham run together at 11:00. That's where he had to be at that time to get home at 11:05. Karpf said that he saw the man walking toward Montana, the block north of Gorham. and he said that he saw the dog in the street. Schwab said that the dog never left the east side of the sidewalk from the time he first crossed over there at Dorothy.
If Schwab was the man that Karpf said he saw walking his dog at 10:48 or earlier (Rovaan says 10:38), then Schwab had to have found the dog at least three or for minutes earlier than that. If you believe that Karpf saw Schwab with the Akita at 10:48, then you have to believe a lot of other things that destroy the defense timeline and move it closer to the prosecution's. You have to believe that Schwab found the dog near Bundy at 10:44 at the latest and any time earlier than then that you like. If Karpf saw him at 10:38 it means that Schwab found the dog no later than 10:34. All of Heidstra's testimony goes out the window and Pablo's wailing dog start time for the murders starts looking good.
That's what I thought you were talking about in your Practical Consequences post. The practical consequence of Karpf's testimony was to make Schwab look like a liar. Marcia couldn't hide him, but putting his credibility in doubt on the sly was the next best thing.
By the way, Pablo Fenjves is the one who said he was colorblind and someone else said that it was very dark, which might have been taken for black. Black is not a color that a colorblind person might confuse with green. Also, Schwab did testify that the female half of the couple he saw earlier DID comment on the additional dog. More on that couple and what they DIDN'T see or hear later. -- Jasper