From: charlie
Date: 5/31/02
Time: 8:27:18 PM
Jolana, I have also wondered about Rachel and whether it was important. But what is striking is that for such a "tame" topic as it appears---a LOT of problems arise from it. We didn't even hear about Rachel til her Mom showed up on a witness list and then the so-called fax about the ice cream that we never heard the substance of or the resolution of.
Why was this insistence in a way that she was there and then picked up yet nobody places her there? People were asked repeatedly about who was there and how many and it almost became a 'secret". Everybody who testified gave the children as Sydney and Justin and Dom's kid and Denise's kid--never Rachel.
Perhaps the answer lies in why Rachel went home. I know what we are told but it never made sense. She is not named at the restuarant. Judy only names her in the Civil Trial as going to get ice cream. The ice cream clerk says she is not there. So when did they hook up? Were Rachel's parents at the restuarant as well? Did they let her go home with Sydney only to change their minds a very few minutes later. Recall--even if Nicole got home by 9, Rachel's dad claims to be picking up Rachel by 9:15. And we only know that thru a statement made by Petro Man on tv--not any testimony to that fact.
Then we have one witness--Mrs. Garvey--stating the recital was much later than the others claimed it was. She told people that Clark tried to get her to change her testimony--was it about the time? And we have one person--the mgr--who says the glasses were found a little after 9 just after the Brown's left --which in fact, fits better with Judy's original story and the story she told in the Civil Trial.
All of which leads me to believe that something about that dinner--when it was--and who was there--is important. Not to mention when they left.
And I think it was Kari who mentioned that the original story was that Tonya stayed home to baby-sit one of the sister's kid but later we are told that kid is there. Why? ANd why didn't Tonya go?
I have always strongly suspected something was wrong about the change of plans to go to the Mezz. There was a reason. Whether it was to buy drugs or what I don't know.
There are conflicting stories about Nicole introducing Ron to the family that night and others deny that she did. And Denise telling that the kids didn't know Ron when all the neighbors and Ron's friends knew that they did.
There is some background story going on here. Something the Goldman's, btw, were perfectly willing to go along with. Fred and Co. kept their mouth shut over a number of things--including why that Ankh was returned to him with the message that it was torn off Ron's neck and thrown down by the killer yet did not show up in the evidence. Should have been a big red flag to Freddy but he ignored it.
As I said, every minute past 8:30 makes the trip home by 937 less likely...with the roads the way they were then. And the Mezz people even say it was between 8:30 and 8:45 before they left the restuarant. News articles of them standing around outside talking on the sidewalk make an 8:30 leaving time less likely.
I have always said in this case it is what they are NOT telling you or hiding or questions not asked and answered that are the most important. And this recital, dinner, Rachel, trip home story fits the bill. Why not have a 5 min. statement or testimony from Rachel's father--in either trial. ??
He was one of the very last people to SEE and TALK with her (he says 15 min.) and he could have said a lot about her demeanor or her plans for the night or why he changed his mind about Rachel staying.
Or if there was some reason he changed his mind about her staying with Sydney. Something that was brought to his attention. Or could it be that Nicole suggested she not stay for some reason?
charlie