[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 6/13/03
Time: 5:32:19 PM
Remote User:
John,
Lets put things into perspective…. I have studied thousands of pages of text, hundreds of diagrams and photos, hundreds of hours of tapes and done hundreds of calculations to dig out information that wasn’t readily available. Do you honestly think its reasonable for me to go back to the time, day and location of everything YOU think is important NOW when you demand it? Look at what you did when I retraced my source of the stride analysis. You went directly to the source I gave you. I didn’t have the pictures to go with it so it wasn’t enough -- didn’t count. -- demonstrated that I didn’t do all of MY homework. The pictures are no longer in circulation although they were available then to anyone who cared to study them. The only reason it comes up now is because you missed it then and it doesn’t fit your theory. When I saw it I didn’t have a theory.
Documenting what I did in the O.J. case in 94 and 95 was not my job. It wasn’t even my top interest. A class action race and age discrimination lawsuit against Ford took up much of my spare time. Again and again I saw Ford a representative in the media handing a grinning black leader a check for a worthy “black” cause. Nobody outside of Ford knew what was happening because Ford was sponsoring all of the network news shows (more grinning black faces) and a court order barred the plaintiffs from going public.
Between 1994 and 1996 I was working hard on publishing and promoting my first book and writing the last two books in my Random Factor science fiction trilogy. My interest in the O.J. case had mostly to do with the fact that it exemplified the major theme of image assassination running through all of my books and the fact that O.J. was beginning to look more and more like a major character in my trilogy.
When I started Messiah, I ran into a logic problem that required me to know beyond any doubt whether O.J. was the killer. Until then, news reports that didn’t match the tapes I made of the trial were enough. They were a great way to make people believe he did it, whether he did it or not. It was the same stunt that Ford was pulling with the lawsuit.
I joined the Court TV discussion group, found the transcripts and started to do serious research and calculations of my own. The thought of writing a book about the case didn’t occur to me until the spring of 1997. The idea then was simply to document the national discussion that was going on at the time with dated e-mail correspondence. But when I was about to wrap it up at the end of chapter 27 and pair it down by a hundred pages or so, I discovered that the blood drops straddling the Rockingham gate were coming out instead of going in and everything changed. I did more calculations and found that the Bronco hadn’t moved. I learned Fuhrman’s heigh and figured out his shoe size.
Now I knew that O.J. was innocent, so was Kato (becuase the Bronco hadn't moved) and my Fuhrman-did-it theory was no longer a theory so I had to document my process of getting there. I did it by leaving all of the e-mails in the book. Those who were willing to accept the fact that I didn’t propose a theory then cherry pick my way backward to the evidence that supported it could go straight to my conclusions. For those who are unwilling to accept anything that doesn’t agree with their conclusions, what can you do? --Jasper