From: Jasper
Date: 6/12/03
Time: 3:58:07 PM
Remote User:
John,
You are back to your old ways. You clip out a reference section of my post then you give a reply that shows you only paid attention to part of it. In your first snip this is what you missed: That’s okay in itself because hard information to locate is, by definition, easy to miss… 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.
How do I find and unscramble information that I dug out and unscrambled eight years ago without doing it all over again? And how do I satisfy your demand for a direct answer when you are the only one who knows what will satisfy your demand? I can only guess, cover as many bases as I can think of and hope for the best.
The information in question would not require me to find anything for you if you did your homework up front. I asserted that Fuhrman was the killer. I found evidence that supported my claim and put it in a book, which you did not read, and in postings that you soon forgot. You were the one who asserted that Kato was the same height as the killer and wore the same sized shoe. You gave no evidence to support your claim and you demanded that I supply you with evidenced to refute it. This is your issue, not mine.
Your point-by-point refutation of the stride analysis says it all. You got some of it right but you didn’t go to the right source for that particular exercise and you didn’t put it together. Fung did the stride analysis, not Bodziak. He did it because he was asked to determine whether the killer was walking or running (“splash” effect, longer stride). We all know that shoe size is not always proportionate to height. To answer my question about Fuhrman I had to find out if his height and his shoe size. You didn’t do that with Kato. When you accepted that Kato might have been under 6’ tall, it was enough for you that he could have taken longer strides than a taller man by walking faster.
So now you’ve got a guy (Kato) with disproportionately big feet walking faster than a guy whose feet are in proportion to his body (Fuhrman). Where is your evidence that Kato’s feet were disproportionately big? No need for it. Just take the most confusing and difficult to read photos in the case to show that it was impossible to tell what kind of stride the killer had and ignore the photos with the chalk lines drawn around the prints for the very purpose of isolating the stride. The chalk outlines shown during Fung’s April 3 testimony clearly indicated the stride and the direction the toes were pointing. O.J. was pigeon-toed but when his feet met the ground they pointed straight ahead. So did the killer’s. Fuhrman was not pigeon-toed but his ankle did not twist the way O.J.’s did when his feet met the ground. They stayed the way they pointed as he stepped – straight ahead.
I could not tell you how I arrived at Kato’s height in 1995. The 2001 A&E special was to make it EASY FOR YOU to make your own determination. What I had to do was so complex that experience tells me you would have written it off in a blinding flash, ignoring the fact that I did this sort of thing professionally for decades. You would take each element apart and never put them together… Tell me I’m wrong. –Jasper