From: Junot
Date: 6/11/03
Time: 6:52:17 PM
Remote User:
Jasper wrote (on June 8):
John,
[snip]
"...Have you noticed that information that requires a lot of work to find is the information you tend to miss? That’s okay in itself because hard information to locate is, by definition, easy to miss. But then you state flatly that it is wrong and go straight to something that is very easy to find to prove your point or you demand a source instead of looking for it yourself. That would be okay, too, if the information in question didn’t take hours, days or weeks of hard work to find and unscramble in the first place...."
since you have ALREADY DONE the work, it is MUCH easier for you to simply give your sources and references and reasoning that to require your reader to hunt it down. If you don't do so, what are others to think? It should go without saying that when a person makes a claim, it is up to that person to provide the evidence for the claim and NOT the people he is making the claim to.
"...Kato’s height is a case in point. This was one of my critical questions when Kato was my prime suspect. I worked it out during the criminal trial. There is no single, easy-to-locate source. Instead of trying to duplicate what I had to do to get it, I will give you an easy source and show you the quickest way I can think of for YOU to do it.
"To me, over 6’ means 6’ 1’’, 6’ 2” or 6’ 3” – a difference of three inches or more from 5’ 10". That’s the difference between a size 9 or 10 shoe (with rare exceptions) and a size 12,..."
As others have noted, there is no fixed relationship between height and shoe size. You can't use a phrase like "with rare exception" when dealing with an accusation of murder and expect to retain credibility. What if Fuhrman happens to be the 'rare exception'? Just because he a racist MF doesn't been he's guilty, you know.
"...as well as the difference in stride that determined the killer’s height at OVER 6’...."
This is a statement that I simply can not let you get away with.
1. It's obvious from the Bodziak diagram that the 'person in the BMs' altered his stride and in at least two points ducked off to the side and turned around. These movements negate any conclusions about the overall stride of the man. (I have theorized that, on his first trip out, the dog was jumping on Kaelin. This would interfere with his striding.
2. At several spots the shoeprints are too faded and indistinct to even tell if they are right shoe prints or left. Obviously one can not use such mangled prints to measure stride length.
3. Such a measurement, to be reliable and indisputable, would require that the investigators made such a measurement between at least two prints and recorded it, or that an overhead picture with at least two paired left/right prints be made. Neither such a measurement nor such a photo was ever created at the time of the crime scene investigation.
(BTW, this objection ALSO applies to any claims about the prints being pigeon-toed or not.)
4. Even is such evidence as described in point 3 existed, it still would not be enough. STride length is determine by the hight of the walker AND his speed. That is, sshort man walking fast will have the same stride length as a tall man walking slow.
Therefore, Jasper, when you assert that the killer was over 6 feet tall, you are claiming information which you do not have, and which does not even exist.
[snip]
"...The recent A&E special How O.J. Won shows Fuhrman and Kato exiting the same door and walking down the same path at Rockingham. Fuhrman is 6’3...."
Source? Not that it's that important.
"...Note how high his head comes relative to the diamond-shaped lead-work on the glass in the background. Do the same thing with Kato. The rest is a simple matter of dividing Fuhrman's body – what you see and what you know is there – into 75 equal parts. Now you have a “ruler” so you can work with inches. Subtract the difference between the top of Fuhrman’s head and the top of Kato’s and you have Kato’s height; 5’ 10” (counting his hair and rounded to the highest inch)..."
Okay, so that's how you figured out Kaelin was 5'10". I can accept that
"...If you need the relevant portion of the A&E tape, e-mail me your address and I will send it to you. –Jasper "
I wouldn't mind having the whole thing. I did once, but lost it or accidentally recorded over it. Anyway, the next time I ask you a direct question like that, will you please just give me a direct answer like this one or how you figured Fuhrman's shoe size?
More importantly, I am interested in a partion of that show where one of the criminal trial jurors is interviewed. That's whatzizname, the Hispanic Pepsi truck driver. As I remember it, he said the reason they voted to acquit was a dispute over how long it would have taken OJ to go from the air conditioner on the south path to the front door. This, in turn, brought up the question of when and where exactly Park first saw OJ. You may remember that this was the ONLY part of the whole trial the jury had reread to them. (Jurors had different information n their notes). Once that was clarified, they realized that Clark's version of "OJ" couldn't have gone from the south path to the front door in the time allowed, threw out the proscecution's theory of the crime, and voted to acquit.
Of course, my memory might be wrong; that's why I'd like you to re-watch it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------