From: Jasper
Date: January 07, 2006
Time: 08:43 PM
Susan, …You have shown me that you have a good heart. That’s why I like you. You have also shown me that you do not process some information about the O.J. case in a logical way. ………… I made this observation on last month’s board when several of us went through the exercise of trying to determine why some people gave more weight to the jury verdict in the civil trial than the criminal trial. The deciding factor for you on every point of discussion was information presented in both cases that supported your contention that O.J. was guilty. Less evidence and testimony was allowed in the civil case to challenge the evidence and testimony against him. You thought that was a good idea because it severely restricted consideration of information that you had determined from the criminal trial was bogus or irrelevant. You made zero exceptions to this rule. …………..That is not a logical way of “distinguishing fact from fabrication” as Eliza was trying to do in the post where she used that phrase to preface her spouse abuse comments. …………..Before she reached her tentative bottom line she acknowledged that Skip Taft drew up the clause in the letter where O.J. agrees by signing his name to the document that he would void the prenup if he ever hit Nicole “again.” Skip Taft was O.J.’s friend and business partner. They had a longstanding relationship and a bond of trust that Taft never violated. It was logical to conclude that although Taft probably chose the wording O.J. agreed that it was essentially what he wanted to say. Thus, the red flag that went up in Eliza’s mind with the logical implication the word “again” in the context it was used. …………..Susan, your response to Eliza’s post did not address anything she said. It implied that she said something she didn’t (“Absolutely”) and took off from there to state things as facts that were only alleged by the prosecution and the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the evidence and testimony in their entirety demonstrated just the opposite. Every allegation of O.J.’s “controlling, jealous, etc.” behavior that was “typical of a batterer” rests on the credibility of alleged witnesses to that conduct. …………..The comments Officer John Edwards attributed to O.J. made were typical of a batterer. No witnesses were presented to corroborate that testimony although his partner was available to do just that. It was O.J.’s word against Edwards’ and the evidence is all on O.J.’s side. Even if Edwards got the words right they do not suggest that O.J. beat Nicole unless you assume that he lied about never hitting her. That’s what makes Eliza’s observation about the word “again” in the prenup letter significant. It goes directly to the question of whether or not he lied about that incident. If he did lie it makes it more probable that there were other instances of abuse he lied about. …………When you posted your response to Eliza, Prien had posted why Taft’s “again” language in the letter protected O.J. from any legal claim Nicole might make because it was predicated on future conduct. Your response to Eliza suggested that you though this was irrelevant if you read it and you were less than thorough in gathering information if you didn’t. Whatever comes up “O.J. –did-it” is what you ALWAYS go with. –Jasper