[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 6/5/03
Time: 2:01:10 AM
Remote User:
John,
I cannot give a satisfactory answer to your challenge because I don’t accept the premise. I do not believe in “proving” theories. I’m not being a smart-ass here, but I predict that no matter what I say, if it doesn’t tell you, “Kato did it,” you will find it irrelevant, silly, coincidental, inconclusive or wrong. You also have me at a colossal disadvantage in terms of the speed with you processes complex information, respond to it and forget it.
One day I spent 12 hours hunting down reference and cross-references for details about evidence and testimony that you accused me of making up to prove my theory and to fraudulently discredit yours. About ten minutes after I posted it, I went back to the board and saw a reply from you. It was a point-by-point rebuttal of everything I said, everything you thought I said and every motive you attributed to me for saying it, whether I said it or not. I couldn’t type as fast as you replied. I’ve been working on this message for about five hours so far….
The evidence you cited that would cause you to abandon your theory of Kato’s guilt only shows why I abandoned him as a suspect. There was too much supposition and too few facts to support it. Your “pseudoblood theory,” for instance, is a fact (no threat of having it disproved). The crucial question is whether the fact that O.J.’s blood drops could have been planted on Bundy meant that they WERE planted that way (shades of The Great Randy – no EDTA test to nail it down). It brings up a host of questions about Kato and O.J.’s cut finger (he didn’t see it). Moreover, it certainly wasn’t necessary IF the killer had access to the lab. His only task then would be to plant the incriminating IDEA.
I can’t comment on the Bronco more than I have because you have all the evidence you need to abandon the idea that anyone drove it to and from Bundy on the night of the murders. You can make a better case for the Nissan. It’s like a war movie where the enemy opens fire on a squad of GIs and the sergeant hollers to his men, “Hit the dirt!” When you have that kind of evidence nobody should have to tell you what do about it.
If you want the truth you have to use theories ONLY long enough to disprove them. You ask a question (If O.J. didn’t….?) or make an assumption (If Kato did…). Then you plot the corollaries for EVIDENCE THAT YOU DON’T HAVE YET but evidenced that must exist if your theory is correct (Heidstra’s real ally rout, the Bundy curve, Fuhrman’s partner, Fuhrman’s alibi, his SUV, where he lived, etc.): IF x is true y is possible, z is impossible and e must exist somewhere between c and f. You may not recognize this but it’s YOUR analytical framework for concluding that Fuhrman’s story of O.J. dropping the glove and sneaking into the front of his house was so dumb. I use it all the time.
Imagine a scenario in which your theory calls for a redheaded dwarf with a yellow necktie to walk in a bar and hand a left-handed Lithuanian bartender name Joe a 500-dollar bill. If all of those things happen when you have had no prior KNOWLEDGE of them, only contextual voids that require these particular elements to fill, you no longer have a theory that you can discard. You have a fact. I did it with Iago. I did it with the Smoking Gun and the Smoking Gun 2. I do it on the boards every week. –Jasper