[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Junot
Date: 6/12/03
Time: 10:39:45 PM
Remote User:
Jasper wrote:
John,
"You are back to your old ways. You clip out a reference section of my post then you give a reply that shows you only paid attention to part of it..."
I paid attention to all of it. I only replied to those parts I had questions about.
"...In your first snip this is what you missed: That’s okay in itself because hard information to locate is, by definition, easy to miss… That would be okay, too, if the information in question didn’t take hours, days or weeks of hard work to find and unscramble in the first place..."
You are putting the cart before the horse again, JG. If you already know where the information is, and use it to support your own position, then it is both easier -- should be no difficulty at all, in fact -- to present it to others, and the moral obligation is ON YOU to do so.
"...How do I find and unscramble information that I dug out and unscrambled eight years ago without doing it all over again?..."
By keeping notes of where you found it and how you discovered it. I expect you to have enough mastery of your own material to remember at least roughly were you found it. Or that you wrote it down someplace and remembered where you wrote it.
"...And how do I satisfy your demand for a direct answer when you are the only one who knows what will satisfy your demand?..."
By giving a direct answer! E.G. When I asked your source of information for the stride length of the footprints on Bundy, you HOULS have said, "Check out Fung's April 3rd, 1995 criminal trial testimony, especially the veery end" Instead of first writing several paragraphs bitching about how I was imposing on you by asking the question!
"..I can only guess, cover as many bases as I can think of and hope for the best..."
Try answering the fucking question the next time.
"..The information in question would not require me to find anything for you if you did your..."
MY homework? MY 'homework"? Where in the hell do you get the idea that I am obligated to you to do YOR work for you?
"...homework up front. I asserted that Fuhrman was the killer. I found evidence that supported my claim and put it in a book, which you did not read,..."
Not for lack of trying. Reading your book is like walking through knee deep mud. All this crap about email correspondence! GET TO THE FUCKING POINT, OKAY?!
"...and in postings that you soon forgot..."
As a computer disk has only such much room, so my own memory. I quickly forget that which is not memorable.
"...You were the one who asserted that Kato was the same height as the killer and wore the same sized shoe...."
Actually, JG, I guess I did 'assert' he was the 'same height' as the killer since I have always said up front that he IS the killer, and so is the same height as himself. Frankly, I do not know and do not even need to know what size shoe Kaelin wears in real life. The only thing I 'aserted' is that he wore the BMs to commit the murders. Period.
"...You gave no evidence to support your claim..."
Technically, you are right. The 'evidence' you seeem to require is my OTHER evidence that Kaelin is the true killer, so that wearing the BMs was a necessary component of the overall murder plan. No, I can provide no direct evidence to prove the sub-fact that he wore the BMs.
"...and you demanded that I supply you with evidenced to refute it...."
Let me rephrase my bitch with your theory: Yu are saying that the kiler had to be over six feet and have feet very close, if not exactly size twelve to have been the killer. I am saying the height and foot size of the true killer are irrelevant (except for very extreme cases, such as a midget or a child). any reasonably normal sized man could have worn those BMs long enough to do the crime, and have dreated the footprints as they were discovered.
"...This is your issue, not mine..."
No, it's YOURS because my criticism totally negates a key point of your case against Fuhrman.
"...Your point-by-point refutation of the stride analysis says it all. You got some of it right but you didn’t go to the right source for that particular exercise and you didn’t put it together. Fung did the stride analysis, not Bodziak. He did it because he was asked to determine whether the killer was walking or running (“splash” effect, longer stride). We all know that shoe size is not always proportionate to height. To answer my question about Fuhrman I had to find out if his height and his shoe size. You didn’t do that with Kato..."
I didn't bother, for reasons explained in this post.
"...When you accepted that Kato might have been under 6’ tall, it was enough for you that he could have taken longer strides than a taller man by walking faster...."
Well, isn't it enough?
"...So now you’ve got a guy (Kato) with disproportionately big feet..."
Not at all. However, for all I know, Kaelin DOES have disproportinally beig feet. But it really wouldn't make any difference if he wore size 4. He could have kept the BMs on by, say, wearing several painrs of socks, or by wearing the BMS as goloshes over his regular shoes, or by duct-taping them to his ankles. He wasn't going on a 50-mile hike you know.
"...walking faster than a guy whose feet are in proportion to his body (Fuhrman)..."
All fung clamed to determine was that the killer 'was not running'. Furnthermore, it is obvious from the Bodziak diagram that the man in the BMs had to change stride a few times. We also know the dog was there, and likely interacted with the killer.
"...Where is your evidence that Kato’s feet were disproportionately big? No need for it. Just take the most confusing and difficult to read photos in the case to show that it was impossible to tell what kind of stride the killer had and ignore the photos with the chalk lines drawn around the prints for the very purpose of isolating the stride. The chalk outlines shown during Fung’s April 3..."
Thnak god you finally mentioned the source! I have reproduced it in another post for the sake of convenience."
"... testimony clearly indicated the stride and the direction the toes were pointing..."
This is CERTAINLY not apparent form fung's testimony itself.
Now, the only other type of evidence you could have is vidoetapes of Fungs testimony. I.E. you would have to work from third-generation images. Fung never mentions his own numbers concerning length of stride. These photos were not available to Wagner in L.A.; they were certainly not available to Garrison in Detroit.
The sources of error are well-nigh incredible, even if you did bother making measurements from videotaped images...and you don't even mention doing that.
"...O.J. was pigeon-toed but when his feet met the ground they pointed straight ahead. So did the killer’s...."
This is not only unsupported here; it is unsupportable. You would need, at the very least, access to the original material in order to make that statment with any credibility, and you do not have such access.
"...Fuhrman was not pigeon-toed but his ankle did not twist the way O.J.’s did when his feet met the ground...."
Source? Oh, nver mind. Since there is no way to tell if the Bundy footprints were pigeontped or not -- Fung certainly didn't say so -- the whole point is moot.
"..They stayed the way they pointed as he stepped – straight ahead.
"I could not tell you how I arrived at Kato’s height in 1995..."
Then how is anyone supposed to judge your methodology? We're supposed to believe you because you're such a nice guy?
"...The 2001 A&E special was to make it EASY FOR YOU to make your own determination. What I had to do was so complex that experience tells me you would have written it off in a blinding flash, ignoring the fact that I did this sort of thing professionally for decades. You would take each element apart and never put them together… Tell me I’m wrong. –Jasper"
You're wrong.
John
(P.S. I told you I'd be a sarcastic son of a bitch again some day. Now we're even)