[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Junot
Date: 7/13/03
Time: 10:58:41 PM
Remote Name: 198.104.0.100
Jasper wrote:
"Doctor Lee’s testimony on this point did it for me. Until then I was bouncing back and fourth between believing that O.J. did it and believing that he was framed. I was in the Joe Bosco mode of believing that the police framed a guilty man after the fact when Dr. Lee’s testimony about the three blood drops in the foyer changed everything.
"O.J. told a ridiculous story about cutting his finger in Chicago in the same area where he cut himself on Rockingham by squeezing a glass until it broke in his hand. He said that he got the cut while tying to sweep the broken glass away. There was no doubt in my mind that he cut himself deliberately in Chicago to cover the fact that he had cut himself in Brentwood. I wanted to know if he did this to hide his guilt or just to hide the appearance of his guilt by giving himself a cut-in-Chicago alibi...."
This sentence doesn't make sense on several levels, one of which is grammar and sentence construction.
Jasper, i thought you thought OJ was not guilty. How then could he have done something on the night of the murders to cover up his guilt? What's this "cover himself"?
"I didn’t dismiss the possibility that he had cut himself innocently on Rockingham because there was no corresponding cut in the Bundy glove."
Later on, when I finally get to criticizing 'Iago", one of my points will be that Fuhrman et all did not bother to put a cut in the glove, though, accourding to you, they knew OJ had been cut.
"The big cut is what got O.J. into trouble..."
No, it was the dishonesty of the cops that got him in trrouble.
You MUST first recall that all this song-and-dance about that cut was because of that total myth that the bundy drops were "to the left" of the footprints. If you can estabxlish thaat the dorp were not -- and they were not -- then the cut on OJ's hand is irrelevant. See my page for a detailed discussion on this point.
"It took a cut that size to have left the blood trail on Bundy..."
Absolutely incorrect. Besides, how did Oj get any knowledge of any condition at Bundy, anyway? Also, the drops were extremely small and diluted in DNA content and had no tailings.
"The prosecution was well aware of this and tried to argue that he didn’t cut himself in Chicago at all. Did the Chicago cut show guilty knowledge or panic? It was so important that Marcia Clark tried to suggest that the blood in Chicago was actually red ink."
Document that.
"Lee’s testimony about the small cut that made the blood drops in the foyer with no EDTA and the right amount of DNA proved that O.J.’s Rockingham cut was, as he said, no big deal. That’s why all the speculation about the police planting that blood drives me up a wall. Those blood drops work FOR O.J...."
What really works for OJ is where the blood drops should have been but weren't -- on the south path.
"They prove that he couldn’t have left the blood trail on Bundy or the blood trail on Rockingham that Fung didn’t mark or collect..."
But he DID leave the blood trail on the Rockingham driveway; this point is uncontested.
"It proves that somebody knew about his cut finger before he left for Chicago..."
No, it doesn't. Just how do you figure that?
"It suggests that they left the glove on Bundy BECAUSE there was no corresponding cut on the glove finger and they invented a blood trail from Bundy to Rockingham where they had intended to plant both gloves. It proves that there had to be a conspiracy to commit the murders for the purpose of framing O.J. Simpson. –Jasper"
No conspiracy. it only took one man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last changed: July 12, 2003