From: Junot
Date: 5/2/02
Time: 6:28:34 PM
Jaspere wrote:
John,
"I am afraid that you have grossly underestimated yourself and me. How else could you come up with this: "There is simply no way to parse things down to fractions of a minute. But the evidence is overwhelming that it took place between 10:15 and 10:30."
"Not true. It's not true that there is no way to parse things down to fractions of a minute..."
Oh, okay,just let me rephrase my statement more precisely: There is no RELIABLE AND/OR BELIEVABLE way to reproduce a timeline down to fractions of a minute without having some kind of mechanical record ot the event.
"...It's not true that any of us is attempting to do that (the last half of a minute plus the first half of the next minute is one minute)..."
Actually I was thinking of Dick Wagner when I wrote that. Let me put it this way: if you have a theory of this crime that has event 'x' taking place five minutes before event 'y', and these two events are things two separate people do, there is really no way of telling if 'x' happened before 'y' and any assertion that it did is hightly questionable. What you may call the "resolving power" of reconstructing the sequence simply is not that precise.
"It's not true that there is any evidence that the murders took place between 10:15 and 10:30..."
Plese go look up the word "evidence". The criminal trial prosecution certainly presented "evidence" for that time of the murders. Such is not the same as "proof", and just how much the evidence proves is largely subjective.
"The evidence is overwhelming that someone went thought a lot of trouble to make it look that way..."
I haven't read much of your book and so am not familiar with your arguments for that point. However, I wonder if you realize you are trapping yourself in a tautology. To wit: 'This looks so real it can't be, but must have been so precisely faked that you can't tell the difference.' If an aallegedly counterfeit bill is so good you can't tell the diffference between it and a real bill, then why sould you suspect it is a fake, anyway? That is, in this case, how do you know that the crime LOOKS AS IF it happened between ten and 10:30 BECAUSE someone faked it to give that impression, or because IT REALLY TOOK PLACE BETWEEN TEN AND TEN THIRTY?!
"...It looks like you bought it without looking at the peculiarities involve with the TWO calls about the bodies..."
I have never heard of such a second call, and this matter is so important that request that you frovide your source authority for that "second call".
"...and the specific time of 10:03 on O.J.'s cell phone record and Nicole's Swiss Army watch..."
The cell phone record is beyond dispute; the watch picture is not. Goldman could not have gotten to Bundy before 10:09. I reply that (a) the picture you refer to really does not show what you say it shows, thus requiring you to provide a copy of the picture, (b) even if the picture shows a 10:03 time, the watch could have been innacurate, and (c) if it was an analog watch, the picture may have been taken at 10:03 the morning after the murders, or even some other time
"...Your explanations might work for one call (to the wrong precinct at "about" 10:30) but not for two. It doesn't work for the fact that Sgt. Merrin did not record the call and the 911 record disappeared..."
I have yet to see any reason to believe that such a 911 call ever happened in the first place. If it did, then it would also contain the address of the call.
"...As for your explanation for the 10:03 time in the morgue photo of Nicole's watch and O.J.'s cell phone call at 10:03 when he was behind the Bentley about to go to the Bronco, please give it some more thought...."
A small thing: he said he was standing by the rear bumper of the Bronco when he made the 10:03 call.
"...An event is either possible or it isn't. Some events have to come before others. All events have to exist in a universe that obeys the laws of physics and probability. The real events surrounding the 800 block of Bundy between 10:35 and 10:59 require a close fit on the Iago timeline. You have to "parse it" to the nearest minute to avoid a fatal collision between Heidstra Karpf the killer, the lookout and Schwab. If all of it fits I'm right because I cannot know in advance that it will fit..."
No, but you can delude yourself and make it fit because you want it to fit. It's called 'experimental error'.
If any of it doesn't fit I'm wrong.
"...John, you can't keep on grabbing the easy answers on the surface or the next level down and concluding in advance that certain kinds of problems are impossible to solve. You would be amazed at what you can do when you try. --Jasper..."
You would be amazed at some of the tings people sincerely claimed they could do when they tried, but turned out they couldn't. Look up "N-rays" in an encyclopedia of the history of science. Or "cold fusion".