From: Jasper
Date: Thursday, June 28, 2007
Time: 01:19:40 PM
Jean, …I hadn’t looked at it in that way. If the dog was locked out of the gate it DOES rule out O.J. So does the blood that wasn’t on the dog’s snout. …………. The thing that convinced me the dog was never inside the property during or after the murders was Rovaan’s observation about the odd blood stain on the front gate post. This was the stain near the bottom of the post close to where the cap was resting on the ground in Fuhrman’s close-up pointing finger photo. She said that it looked to her like a paw print. She said that it looked like the dog was trying to reach into the yard through the space between the post and the gate. Every way I tried to look at that picture with that idea in mind came up the same. Rovaan was right. There was no other explanation for that stain consent with the blood that WASN’T on the dog (I didn’t think about the snout from licking at the wounds), the bloody paw prints that were not inside the gate and the evidence neatly clustered with the cap. …………. The dog had to have been outside of the gate before the murders until the time he was found. Both the front gate and the back gate had to have been closed. Someone involved in the murders had to have come to the scene and opened the gate AFTER the dog was led away. Couldn’t have been O.J. By THAT time he had an alibi that anyone can see and understand and nobody can dispute. He was either at home with Kato and Park as his witnesses or in the limo with Park on his way to the airport. –Jasper