[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Junot
Date: 7/12/03
Time: 7:27:41 PM
Remote Name: 198.104.0.100
Jasper wrote:
"Charlie,
"I believe you. I had the same problem with numerous bits of information that I could have sworn I heard or read in the testimony but couldn’t find in the transcripts. I eventually found them somewhere else.
"The most recent example in my case was the bungalow that Gigi stayed in when she spent the night at Rockingham...."
Check out the approriate page in lange & Vannatter's book. It specifically says that the checked the maid's room INSIDE THE HOUSE. There evidently were TWO 'maid's rooms' -- one the bungalow at the end of the guest house, and the other inside, off the kitchen and east of the garage. But Gigi was using the inside room at the time, which is why the detectives went there (after Arnelle told them where gigi stayed). They had previously been informed of a maid's existence and expected presence by the Westec patrolman.
"I was trying to show that the order in which the detectives walked in single file when one of them looked into Kato’s room was significant..."
And exactly why and how did you do that?
"It indicated they knew more than they said they did about “the maid’s room” as well as which of them looked through the window first..."
All they knew about a 'maid's room' is what the Westec patrolman told them -- that wthere was supposed to be a maid on duty there, not what part of the house she was staying in.
"It showed that Phillips did not stop at the first bungalow as you would expect him to do just because it was the first bungalow but he AND Lange had already gone past it and Fuhrman had to call Phillips back to talk to Kato. The missing information was in Toobin’s The Run of his Life..."
It is just as logical a search pattern to start at the rear and work forward as it is to start at the front and work backward. I see absolutely nothing suspicious about the cops' behaviour.
"Luper’s trail of no blood left a question that could have been answered definitively in any number of venues that you automatically put together with his testimony. You could have been thinking “taco sauce” all the way as soon as you heard Luper mention the red spots that distracted him enough to put down the glove and forget about it. You could have heard what you had been thinking all along on a talk show with Uelmen or Cochran telling a curious host or a caller to the show that the spots were taco sauce. A guest on the program hosting the trial could have given the answer during a commercial break before Luper’s testimony.
"Uelmen’s suggestion way back in the preliminary hearing got a lot of people buzzing about taco sauce testing positive for blood and Willie Ford’s video showing the black glove in the dining room got a lot of people buzzing about detectives moving or planting evidence. There are only so many things the spots could have been. if they looked enough like blood to fool an experienced homicide detective like Burt Luper. I, too, recall them being identified as a food source. There are more ways than I can count for you to have correctly put the taco sauce together with the spots.
"One more thing… As soon as you mentioned the spots on the floor that weren’t the evenly spaced pegs in the boards, I recalled the same thing. I recalled hearing about the spots and hearing that they were specifically identified as taco sauce but my memory was not strong enough to form a clear picture; yours was. –Jasper"
Without documentation, it is unwise to rely on anyone's memory of events, inculding one's own. For that reason, I reject your assertion.
But, frankly, I'm not sure what you are getting at. What's your point? that the cops planted evidence that they ended up not even collecting or testifying about?