[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 9/13/03
Time: 12:22:22 AM
Remote Name: 68.73.59.129
Chan,
This will take you straight to the High Points article Nancy Drew mentioned http://www.smartfellowspress.com/judithas_last_call.htm
In a nutshell: The defense not screaming about the 10:17 call was a VERY smart move. It forced the prosecution to put on a fatally flawed case in terms of the killing time because the defense knew it was wrong and could put up its best defense against it. In the event they lost, they had a better chance of winning on appeal (Oops! We missed this and it’s entirely our fault. The prosecution fiendishly slipped it past us – but this document proves our client didn’t do it….). It would have proved nothing if the prosecution had used it to change its timeline, its witness list and its tactics accordingly. It was worthless in the civil case because the plaintiffs did just that.
As far as not missing a trick is concerned, the defense missed a LOT. They wedded themselves to the idea that unknown killers were responsible for the murders and the police conspired to frame O.J. after the fact. They argued that Fuhrman found the right hand glove on Bundy, carried it to Rockingham and planted it. The defense tied Fuhrman and Vannatter together as the chief co-conspirators in the frame-up plot and never looked at Fuhrman’s real partner Brad Roberts. They never asked, where was Robert and why did Fuhrman lie about Phillips being his partner?
The defense never seriously considered anyone in particular as a murder suspect. They didn’t check Fuhrman’s alibi, much less why he thought he needed to invent one. Steven Singular had a devil of a time trying to get the defense to test the Bundy blood drops for EDTA. The defense used misleading diagrams and failed to see the crucial importance of accurate ones. When you see the real spaces involved you know that none of Marcia’s scenarios for O.J. committing the murders, dropping the glove and sneaking into his front door (the one farthest away from the south path) can be true.
It its summation, the defense didn’t even argue O.J.’s innocence. They passionately and eloquently argued “reasonable doubt.” I left the criminal case with reasonable doubt about O.J.’s guilt – and nagging doubt about his innocence. –Jasper