[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Junot
Date: 6/6/03
Time: 5:46:37 PM
Remote User:
Jasper wrote:
"John,
"Your first response is so…so…imperceptive that I don’t know where to go from here.
"Me: …I do not believe in “proving” theories....
"'You: Then why in the hell are you writing books for other people to read containing your own theories?'
"Lets see if repetition helps… I do not believe in “proving” theories.... Maybe if I put “proving” in caps… I do not believe in “PROVING” theories....
"I use theories to TEST assumptions, not to prove conclusions. In practice that’s what “proving” theories means – proving (justifying) conclusions. Trying to prove theories is a mistake that almost everybody makes. I don’t. I ask a question (Who murdered Ron and Nicole?). I gather as much information as possible that could bear on the answer. I make tentative assumptions (O.J. did it, Kato did it, Shipp did it, drug thugs, the CIA, etc.)..."
When I first started my research, I had no opinion or conclusion about who did it or how. In fact, I first tried to figure out how OJ could have done it. After some time, I concluded that, if he did it, he could not have acted alone. But, adding an accomplice brought up more problems than it solved.
Next I concluded that, whoever really did the murders and tried to frame OJ had to have intimate knowledge of the Rockingham household. For instance, how would the framer know no one would be home that night? How could he know that, say, Kaelin or someone else wouldn't be walking around the grounds and trap him on the south path while planting the glove.
I'll leave out a few steps. I finally suspected Kaelin. But, then, I had to deal with his "alibi". that turned out easier than I had imagined -- all one had to do was examine in detail what Ferrara REALLY testified to.
"...I create a theory consistent with the evidence that supports each assumption. To rule out bias, I then I attack each theory zealously by proposing questions that I don’t already have the answer to.
"For instance, when my Kato-did-it theory required that someone drove the Bronco to Bundy and back to Rockingham I looked hard for objective evidence that THE BRONCO DID NOT MOVE. If such evidence didn’t exist I couldn’t have found it. If it did exist, the nature of prejudice dictated that this was the only way I’d be likely to see it.
"The Bronco result was starling...."
I'd like to see it. And, no, I am not going to wade through your 300+ page book looking for that particular piece of information.
For one thing, I have not heard till now that you believe the Bronco was NOT the vehicle used in the crime.
But I find trouble with your methodology here.
The thing is, once a parked car has cooled off to the ambient temperature, it is no longer possible to tell how long it has been parked.
So that if you are detective and asked "Was this particular car used in a crime that happened within easy driving distance?" And the engine is cool, then there no way, with just that information, to decide one way or another. You can't include it OR exclude it.
This leaves other evidence that the Bronco was used -- primarily the blood in the front compartment.
Granted, this might have been planted. But, if it was, this adds another complication to one's theory of the crime.
Also it migh NOT have been planted; the blood may have gotten there as a consequence of the crime.
"...I got the same startling results when I looked into O.J.’s claim that the photos of him wearing the Lorenzos were faked...."
FYI: read my comments about Bodziak's testimony at the civil trial on my web page. Though I believe that those photos DO show Oj wearing the BMs, Bodziak's procedure was so unscientific that it would not have been allowed in a criminal trial, and OJ's attorneys SHOULD have ripped him a new asshole. An attorney more expert in forensices, like Scheck in the criminal trial, would have.
"...These and other finding that I didn’t expect forced me to scrap a terrific “Kato-did-it” theory (Your theory minus the stuff you have from Mark Elliot)..."
Boy, would I ever like to see it in print and find out exactly why you rejected it!
Also, your exclusion of the "Marc Eliot stuff" (proper spelling) is far from trivial. For instance, that book is the ONLY public source of the information that Kaelin denied driving the Bronco to the police, and did so before being 'officially' informed of the murders. This reveals guilty knowledge that the Bronco was used in the murders. Also, it is the source for knowing that Kaelin could hear the phones in the main house ringing. Much of the rest I got from the Eliot book occurs in the transcripts.
Have you read that book?
"...and a Shipp-did-it theory that was almost as good..."
I had a lengthy correspondence with J. Neil Shulman about Shipp, and shortly before fixing on Kaelin, considered Shipp. I finally rejected him because I doubted he had adequate knowledge of the rockingham household to pull it off. As for Schulman, I backed him into a corner where, in order to have his "Shipp" be able to keep tabs on OJ on the murder night, he was watching from the rof of the guest house. I then pointed out that the guest house roof was a single-pitch lean-to type of roof, and if Shipp had been on it, he would have been in full view of anyone who lookied out the patio doors. Schulman then suggested that Shipp wore a black Ninja outfit, making him invisible.
At that point I quite communicating with Schulman.
I just thought you'd enjoy that anecdote.
"...Now I had to reconsider the ridiculous idea that Fuhrman could have done it. Disproving that idea should have been easy. There were so many things I didn’t know and if the answer to ANY of them was “no,” it couldn’t have been him. If the answer to all of them was “yes,” it had to be him. Was he the right height?.."
The right height for what? creating the shoeprints at Bundy? ANY person that height could have done it.
Including Kaelin.
"...Could he have worn the killer’s shoes?..."
ANYONE could have worn the shoes. The killer only had to wear them for ten minutes and walk a few hudred feet in them. They didn't have to fit.
"..Did he have a false alibi?..."
I have read of the 'holes' in Fuhrman's alibi.
The thing is, Jasper, you can ask the same question and get the same answer FOR KAELIN.
"...Did he have a partner with a smaller shoe and a deeper voice?..."
Your only reason for mentioning these points are (1) Henry Lee's belief there was a second person there, and (2) Heidstra's testimony.
Even if you take Lee's conclusion on face value -- and I, frankly, do not, nowhere in his testimony or writing does he say anything about the SHOE SIZE of the second person. Mainly because he couldn't. The pattern trace he relies on was so faint that it wasn't even possible to say without a reasonable doubt it as a shoe, let alone what size it was.
As for Heidstra's testimony: Like Allan Park, there is no reason to believe he did not testify sincerely and truthfully to the best of his ability. But, also like Park, too much has been made of his testimony, inlding things he never said.
In brief, what Heidstra testified to was that he heard: (1) a dog barking that he identified as Nicole's Akita, (2)voices THAT HE COULD NOT AND DID NOT IDENTIFY EVEN AS TO THE SOURCE, and (3) a slamming gate THAT HE COULD NOT IDENTIFY.
We also know without a doubt, thanks to Dick Wagner, that Heidstra did not even accurately know where he was standing in relation to the sounds he heard.
You're mistake, then, Jasper, is even factoring in these things as major elements in your theory. Not only CAN'T they be explained with any reliability, they NEED NOT be explained.
"...Did he live south of 875 S. Bundy?..."
Why in the world would this make any difference?
"...Did he enjoy blood?..."
The murderer only needed to be able to put up with the sight of it; the vast majority of us can do that. Why would this be a special identifying trait of the murderer?
"..Did he have a friend inside of Rockingham and Bundy?..."
We can establish that Fuhrman was acquainted with Shipp. What is your documentation that he had any other 'inside source'?
"...Did he want to be in the spotlight?..."
Kaelin.
"...Could he have manipulated being the first investigator on the scene?..."
Why is this important? Also, by it's very form, it implies 'a priori' that police were involved in the murder conspiracy. This is "facts not in evidence" at this point.
"...Did he have an interest in the movies – in studying and copying from the movies that showed the same pattern as the evidence left behind by the killer?..."
This, unfartunately is my greatest gripe with you Jasper.
Frankly, my friend, this whole 'following-patterns-in-the-movies' bit is looney-tunes to me.
"...The list is very long, highly improbable and the answer to all of them is “yes.”..."
Okay. But is it 'yes' on any number of points for anyone else?
"...To do the EDTA test on the Bundy blood drops you have to have the blood drops. Where are they?..."
The drops on the back gate and the socks may not exist anymore, or they may be stored away in some obsucre government warehouse like the last scene in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
But actually it's not important. The test I referred to in my last communication was designed to see under what conditions high levels of EDTA could be found in blood drops. This test showed that EDTA levels found in the gate and sock blood could only happen if EDTA was planted in the blood; i.e. those high levels could not hve come about from accidental contamination from, say, household detergents. For this, only the reported results of the tests on the gate and sock blood were necessary, not samples of the blood itself.
"...The reason it takes me so long to write so little is because I think carefully about what I want to say. I check my facts as well as I can in the time I have to do it. I consider the possible ramifications of the words I choose and I do a hell of a lot of revising and deleting. I would appreciate if you slowed down just a little when you read it so I won’t have to spend so much time responding to your shoot-from-the-hip responses to what I DIDN’T say.
"I have already asked HUNDREDS of question that would have caused me to abandon Fuhrman as the killer if the answer to any of them had been “no.” I did this for over five years. I think that’s enough. --Jasper"
You still haven't answered my most crucial question" WHAT NEW FINDING OR EVIDENCE WOULD CAUSE YOU TO ABANDON YOUR THEORY?