[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: charlie
Date: 6/22/03
Time: 8:37:45 AM
Remote User:
Petro Man implied it in the civil trial and really went to town with it in his book--hence, the total dismissal of him by reporters/interviewers after several interviews. For one thing, he named people without any evidence at that they did anything that he was suggesting that they did.
I recall Joe Bosco, though, in his book said from early on that for OJ to have done this (regardless of the tight timeline) he would have had to have an accomplice and that nobody but bobody ever suggested such a thing in the criminal trial. In fact, they were strongly suggesting that he did not.
And that is when he basically said for the LAPD and the DA's to go after an accomplice or SHUT UP about OJ being a killer.
And in the civil trial the jurors weren't interested in "finding" an accomplice--they just had to concentrate on OJ but Petro Man implied, yes, he could have done it with this unknown accomplice.
Recall, this jury was not sequestered til the end. And every night, Petro Man and his group sent "pundits" as did the Goldman's to Geraldo's show and others to push this theme.
Petro Man had boxed himself into this very tight timeline and then had to make it possible with the use of an accomplice.
I recall very well how the general concensus was from all the reporters--some who had driven the distance between Rockingham and Bundy and who had play acted it thru never could get the movements to fit into anything less than 20 minutes. They said plainly that any time of death after 10:30, it was impossible to OJ to have been the killer.
THAT is why they went for the 10:15 time of death and used no time witnesses after 10:30.
And as far as the civil trial goes--those jurors were the most narrow minded and stupid people I have seen in a long time--judging from the interviews I saw afterwards. There would have been NOTHING to change their minds. They couldn't go home in their community with a not guilty verdict.
And remember, they didn't see everything either. That judge controlled in an unbelievable way what the defense could put on and present.
It is rare that the media finds a book Lacking when it is one of their "darlings" but they did with Petro Man's book--it was so full of B S.
You haven't been around since the beginning but I have maintained from the beginning that the books and what they said told us a lot about this case. And when some of the books (esp. like the Goldman book) featured such whoppers, there had to be something wrong. And when they featured such "weirdness" as 2 pages about why Patty Goldman buys bananas with no explanation of why that is in the book (she had to take the stand about why a grocery list with bananas was found with Ron's clothes). This was a short book comparatively and he wastes 2 pages on bananas and Patty's grocery buying habits?????
It always amazed me that the media kept quiet til way after both trials that her first husband was a convicted drug lawyer dying of AIDS. ANd esp. that he was from Chicago since Chicago played such a role in this trial.
There was something spooky about the whole thing about what the media told and what they kept quiet. charlie