From: Jasper
Date: Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Time: 02:28:47 AM
Prien, … Schwab did not tell the cop that the dog had blood on it (Feb 8, 1995): …………Q [by Carl Douglas]: NOW, WHEN YOU WERE TALKING TO THE POLICE OFFICER, DID YOU HAPPEN TO SAY ANYTHING TO THE POLICE OFFICER ABOUT HAVING OBSERVED BLOOD ON THE DOG? …A [Schwab]: NO. Q: DID THE POLICE OFFICER SAY ANYTHING TO YOU TO SUGGEST THAT THE POLICE OFFICER HAD SEEN OR HAD NOTICED BLOOD ON THE DOG? …A: NO. NO. …Q: YOUR HAVING SEEN BLOOD ON THE DOG DID NOT TRIGGER IN YOUR MIND ANY SENSE OF CONCERN SUCH THAT YOU SOUGHT TO MENTION THAT FACT TO THE POLICE OFFICER? …A: I -- SEEING THE BLOOD ON THE PAW, I HAD THOUGHT THAT THE DOG POSSIBLY HAD CUT ITSELF. I DIDN'T MENTION IT TO THE POLICE OFFICER AS I RECALL. …Q: OKAY. …MS. CLARK: OBJECTION. VAGUE. WHICH POLICE OFFICER? …THE COURT: OVERRULED. …Q: BY MR. DOUGLAS: NOW, THE POLICE OFFICER THAT YOU SAW WAS COMING SOUTHBOUND ON BUNDY WHEN YOU SAW IT THE FIRST TIME, TRUE? …A: I DON'T RECALL WHERE THE POLICE OFFICER WAS COMING WHEN I FIRST SAW HIM. …Q: OKAY. WHEN YOU FIRST SAW THE POLICE OFFICER, THAT WAS AN AFRICAN AMERICAN OFFICER? …A: THAT'S CORRECT. Doesn’t this tell you that the defense knew something about Jones from its own research before Marcia claimed he stepped forward? And doesn’t the fact that he was black tell you how easy it would have been for Marcia to find him? Now try working ALL THE WAY through the logic of Jones’ presence or absence from the verifiable facts in Schwab’s story and all of the verifiable connections to it and see what you get. Does it fit the facts he knew and the facts he could not have known, or doesn’t it? –Jasper