From: Jasper
Date: April 18, 2006
Time: 02:19:54 PM
John, ... Where is the evidence that the knit cap was ever in O.J.’s home when Kato moved there in January 1994? If you can establish that, you are also establishing how O.J. could have worn it to Bundy. Ditto with the bloody gloves and the shoes that left the bloody imprints. In any scenario that puts the shoes, the gloves and the cap together you get O.J. dressed to kill in an ensemble that fits no other purpose. If Kato didn’t put that ensemble together to frame O.J. you are closing off investigation of any suspects other than Kato and O.J. Every scrap of evidence that Kato didn’t do it becomes evidence that O.J. did. ………..…Some people will dispute that the hair in the cap was O.J.’s because the microscopic techniques used to identify it could not eliminate his children as the source. I don’t think it matters because it doesn’t eliminate O.J., either. The question we have to answer is how did it end up where it was in the Fuhrman pointing finger photo? ………. The only things we can say about its appearance in that photo depend on the assumptions we make about who had it last. If we assume that O.J. went to Nicole’s condo with the cap on his head, we have to base it on the idea that the shoeprints were his, the glove was his and the blood identified as his in the lab dripped from his finger as he made his escape. If we assume that one of the kids was wearing the cap while playing in the yard and left it there, it tells us nothing about the killer. If we assume that O.J. was framed it tells us only that someone put it where it was photographed as part of the frame-up. It doesn’t tell us who did it or where it came from. That’s why I’m revisiting the question. It could tell us something that none of us thought of before. –Jasper