[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: charlie
Date: 9/14/03
Time: 10:22:30 AM
Remote Name: 209.240.198.63
After the last few days, I can't help but wonder what we would have thought--and the world--and the jury--would have thought if the case had been presented this way.
Vannatter (as he did in his book) say that he saw a set of 5 keys in the scene. (I don't think the evidence list says 5 keys as it SHOULD have). ANd then Fred Goldman on the stand tells us what they are for and we see that they are all old keys except a key to the parent's house. And the question asked in the depos. Is Ron's apartment key there and he answers no.
Then the questions asked Where are the car keys? (note these keys are allegedly returned to Scott the next day--which they could NOT have been if they were in the crime scene--Judy's glasses were never returned to her).
And that the borrowed car was within sight of Nicole's back driveway yet it took 3 searches to find it at about 4pm in the afternoon--when cars had been allowed to come and go on the streets since early morning. And that the steering wheel and interior appears to have been wiped clean of prints for some reason.
And the Defense asks the detectives Are you saying this victim was killed away from home, without his house/apt. key and a set of old keys on him that didn't open anything but his parent's home?
And ask WHERE the car keys were and where they were found.
I am beginning to believe that they were not found in the crime scene at all--hence they were returned to her---with the "rumor" that they still had blood on them--which they might have if was put on them.
We--and the jury--were led to believe the keys found in the scene WERE the car keys and apartment key, etc.
What if we put together that Riske says he didn't see the car that night. Not at all. In fact, implies it wasn't there.
NOw, keep in mind, they found the car by using the keys to go from car to car and check the door locks.
Defense asks, what happened to these keys and they answer they gave them to the owner of the car the next day. Defense asks, aren't ALL items found in a crime scene supposed to be booked into evidence and not returned until the trial is over?
But my point is that if the jury (and the world) was shown at the trial that a victim was at a crime scene away from his home and he is found with a set of old keys (not useable) and not his apartment key and not the car keys to the so-called borrowed car he drove over there--What would we have thought then?
What would we have thought if we knew he had no driver's license and that if he did drive--he did it just using a CA ID instead.
And remember the car was parked in a fashion that was AWAY from the way that he would have driven over there.
And that the night before there were few to no cars parked on the streets according to Riske and that he says he didn't see the car although he walked that sidewalk repeatedly times that night.
Question to ask too. Why did the victim have a set of old keys on him when he was going "out" and he being male had no "purse" and was carrying them?
Even if he had two sets of keys on him--why did he have a set of keys to nowhere?
Why does the evidence list not say how many keys are on the ring? It is SUPPOSED to according to everything I have ever read and heard about evidence collecting.
I think from the get-go, many more questions would have been asked of this scenario if we had known this in the criminal trial. As it was that trial was over and the civil depos were being done and posted before we knew. And even then, you had to be paying close attention to what was said to catch it.
A victim "might' have put his apartment key on the car keys for convenience but would not have carried the set of old keys--just for the hell of it.
You know what? I just thought of something. Those keys would have needed to be ID'd in the investigation because surely they were looking to see whether Ron had a KEY to Nicole's gate/condo or not.
charlie