From: John Junot
Date: 7/18/02
Time: 7:40:54 PM
Jasper wrote:
I haven't gotten much feedback on High Points so I'm pulling back on that and putting most of my time in the book about the Ford lawsuit. That doesn't mean the last word has been spoken on the O.J. case - not by a long shot. The principles involved in that case are still the keys to all kinds of legal and sociological problems in this country. Right now I'm mostly fascinated with the facts of the case that I know I've got right, that I (or someone else) proved fifteen different ways and still can't get general agreement on. _________________________________________________
Jasper -- in spite of wrote you just wrote I have NEVER seen the "nutshell" of your theory of the crime. As much as I just hate to say it, I just can't undertand "IIB". and so I just don't know what it is you think you have "proven 15 different ways" _________________________________________________
I got a call the other day from John Junot that explains much of what is going ion in those circumstances. I had never heard him speak before and he guessed that I wouldn't know who he was before he told me. __________________________________________________
since you have never heard my voice before, wouldn't that be a good "guess"? Also, I don't consider the above paragraph to be entirely accurate. Precisely, I left a voice message at the Smartfellows Press answering machine or servive in Detroit, and got that number frm public listings. I also left my own email address and home phone number.
None of out here in net-land could possible know that YOU were even aware of your problem, or sick, or what. ___________________________________________________________
I could not have known without proof, but John Junot was, in fact, my first guess. I would have known beyond any doubt who it was even if he had never given me his name because of all the things he said and the way he said them that could apply to only one person in the known universe. ____________________________________________________________ I'm just curious about what those things are. ___________________________________________________________
Remember, this is just an EXAMPLE of how difficult it is to communicate an accurate representation of the truth if someone is intent on disputing it. The same principles apply with the Simpson case…
For all of you who have been with me for a while, you will would have guessed who I was talking about as soon as I told you what he said about not being able to get into the site with that password nonsense. He went straight to the conclusion that the reason he couldn't get in was because I screwed up something. ________________________________________________________________ Aren't you being just a little bit paranoid, JG? We are all familiar with the various screw ups that have happened here, especially at the turn-of-the-month. I left you two different ways to get ahold of me just so you would have the opportunity to straighten things out. _________________________________________________________
We could post opposing views about that forever if either of us wanted to. But the thing that got interest was the fact that I could NEVER prove John made the call in the first place or that he went with the assumption that the problem with the site was caused by something I did. ____________________________________________________________ Actually, J, if I had made the "assumption" you say I did, I would be defending it now. But your explanation is quite believable and I have absolutely no reason you are lying about it. Hell, JG you have the perfect right to simply take your site down without explaining anything to anybody. I just didn't think you would. _________________________________________________________
Sometimes when the site went down in the past, it had noting to do with an error on my part. When I did screw up I said so. But sometimes it would turn out that I wasn't the one who made the mistake at all. John is on my short list of people who would first assume that I screwed up and not move from that position until he had proof that he was right. ___________________________________________________________ I had and have no reason to care about the nature of the screw up. I just wanted to make sure you know there was a screw up going on and give you a chance to explain it to me (since the site was inaccessible). __________________________________________________________
That got me to thinking about how I could PROVE John made the call and said what I claimed he did in the absence of HIS phone record, a copy of the recorded message and his agreement that the phone record and the recorded message were legitimate? __________________________________________________________ Actually, you couldn't. It's not even recorded on my phone bill. I use a prepaid service with Priceline. I could have also, hypothetically, used a prepaid card, and if I had then thrown the card away, even the cops couldn't have proved I made the call. __________________________________________________________
In this case, I know John wouldn't lie about the call and most of you know that I wouldn't, either. But if you leave the veracity one or both of us open to doubt you can spend an eternity arguing about it without getting any closer to the truth. That sort of thing happens a lot on this board.
When I was putting together the High Points, it's possible that I made a mistake somewhere and one of you will spot it. Great. I can fix it and we can all move on. But issues like the time of Nicole's death and whether or not O.J. was seen coming from Bundy after the murders are answered for certain in the animations. You can't fudge the clock and the motions of the characters in space. Where the testimony of the witness match movement of the clock and the characters it has to be true. Where it doesn't match, it has to be wrong.
For those of you with WebTV who can't access that animations, I urge you to bring up the site at you local library. It will be worth your time and effort to see what can and can't be done with time and space. --Jasper
Last changed: July 18, 2002