From: Jasper
Date: March 26, 2006
Time: 10:18 AM
Susan, … Thanks. Now I know that both of us started in the same place with these questions and answers. That’s what I wanted to nail down before I went further. We did begin with the same assessment of realty in the O.J. case. To know mine you only have to read yours. ………. When I studied the triangular blood drop pattern straddling the threshold of the Rockingham gate from an engineering point of view I got a big surprise. This is the kind of work I’d been doing for decades, measuring critical distances, hinge points and swing directions, the width and path of objects passing between other objects, etc. ……….. The variables involved in accounting for the triangular blood drop pattern are nothing compared to the variables involved in putting a car together in clay or on a computer screen. It’s all about connecting the dots with straight lines. This is not guesswork and it is ridiculously easy to do with a reasonably accurate diagram. When you do it, you know that the person who left those three blood drops had to do it in two passes going OUT of the gate both times. You also know where that person was walking from and the direction he was going in when the blood came from his finger. ……… You can do engineering studies like these to test everyone’s account of what happened if you have enough physical evidence to work with. When you do, you know for sure that the story of the blood trail going into the gate cannot be true, there was nothing odd about the way the Bronco was parked and Allan Park could not have seen what he thought he did with his first sighting of Kato and O.J. …………. You don’t have to accept anyone’s word on things like this. You can test them objectively. You didn’t test them and you didn’t accept the validity of any test that conflicted with popular theories of O.J.’s guilt. The problem here is how you refer to O.J. Simpson even when answering basic questions about the evidence against him. You don’t write “O.J.” or “Simpson.” You write “simpson.” Is that how you write Osama Bin Laden? I doubt it. What does that tell you about your objectivity? ……….. There is no difference between the incriminating evidence that you saw and what I saw halfway into the criminal trial or how we interpreted it. The only differences I see are that you stopped there and you reacted with anger to everyone who didn’t. Why did ALL new information about the shoes, gloves, DNA, socks, murder weapon, Bronco, witnesses and former OJG’s only reinforce your original position? --Jasper