[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
T1: [email protected]
Category 3: Category 1
Date: 06 Mar 1999
Time: 05:12:51
Remote Name: dyn1-tnt15-95.detroit.mi.ameritech.net
Bob,
I couldn't be home during either O.J. trial so I taped the proceedings on E! TV every day and watched the tapes when I got home. E!'s producers had all of the investigative resources of the network behind them. They had a less biased assortment of expert commentators then the other networks and a good track record for reporting facts and dispelling rumors. The host Kathleen Sullivan and her expert commentators confirmed the stories about what Sydney heard. They discussed, at length, the pros and cons of O.J.'s decision not to put his youngest daughter on the stand in his defense. As I recall, Kathleen Sullivan cited her source as the police officers that were at the station when Sydney made her remarks.
When Johnny Cochran, in his closing argument, referred to Sydney's unsworn "Hey! Hey! Hey!" statement, the prosecution made no objection or rebuttal to his remark about her ability to recognize her own father's voice. If you can think of a reason for the prosecution not to challenge a remark like that if it lacked a firm basis in fact let me know. I couldn't do it. The fact that neither side produced a record of Faye's conversation with Nicole did not mean no such record existed. Like the so-called "slow speed chase" and O.J.'s so-called "suicide letter," the pertinent documents may not have come into evidence because there was no clear advantage to either side in introducing them and great potential harm.
At that point in my investigation I already doubted that O.J. was involved in the killing but I hadn't heard Brad Roberts' voice and Ron Shipp was high on my list of suspects. Sydney had to know Shipp's voice. Therefore, it was important to get independent verification of what the girl said she heard about the voices (if, indeed, she'd said anything). I found so much that was available to anyone who wanted it that I didn't bother to document my sources. In such cases I have learned that most people who question my findings won't trust my sources unless they uncover them for themselves. You, on the other hand, have indicated that you have a large investment in finding the truth in a much larger conspiracy than the one I've concentrated on and your investigation is ongoing. That, I hope, is one reason you came to my web site. For you, I don't mind doing a little more because I want to see where your search will ultimately lead.
On page 130 of KILLING TIME by Donald Freed and Raymond Briggs, you will find this item: "Most remarkable: Eight-year-old Sydney Simpson told police that she also heard a man call out, 'Hey, hey, hey!'" For their book they searched the official records and hired their own team of investigators. On page 154 they quote part of an interview with their chief investigator Ian Bowater and Faye Resnick's old boyfriend Christian Reichardt.
Bowater: Tell me about Sydney's statement about "Mommy crying and fighting with her best friend." Faye says they were having an upbeat conversation with Nicole about opening a restaurant.
Reichardt: Have you ever been to one of these rehab places and seen the people there? Believe me, after four days, and this was Faye's fourth day, they are not "upbeat." I saw Faye on that Sunday. After four days of withdrawal this woman was not upbeat.
Bowater: Could the argument have been with someone else? Why would Sydney call Faye "Mommy's best friend" and not "Faye"? It's a funny thing for an eight-year-old kid to say.
Reichardt: That's Sydney. She's a bright little kid and very up front. She probably said, "Faye" and when the cops asked, "Faye who?" She'd say right back, "You know, Mommy's best friend." That happens with the cops. They ask two questions, get two answers and splice them together. A lot of that went on in this case."
The fact that Faye Resnick is a liar is no reason to discount everything she says. Where evidence exists that could prove incriminating she would be forced to tell a lie that would fit the facts. That's what her "upbeat" conversation with Nicole sounds like to me. Absent the fear of the call being on record, there would have been no reason for her to say anything about it if she hadn't made it.
The Fischmans impressed me as being credible because of the life-saving photo of O.J. with Sydney that Ron took at his wife's request. It is the only thing that stood in the way of the shoes he wore to the recital being identified as Bruno Magli Lorenzos by Denise Brown. They fit the verbal description of the murderer's shoes. Denise Brown told Lange and Vannatter that she'd seen O.J. wearing the murderer's shoes (A PROBLEM OF EVIDENCE by Joseph Bosco). Her sister, Dominique, also said that she saw O.J. wearing them (EVIDENCE DISMISSED by Tom Lange, Phillip Vannatter and Dan E. Moldea). She said that she recognized the logo as the same as the one on shoes that Nicole bought in New York for herself. O.J. did not know the brand names of his shoes and would never have been able to account for "his" missing Brunos because he never owned a pair.
As for someone stealing the Bronco, it would have been the ideal thing to do, and I'm sure it was the first plan. There is, however, strong evidence that O.J. was the last one to drive itÂ….from Ashford to Rockingham. You can find a full rundown on that in Chapter 30 and 31. They are loaded with detailed drawings that take up a tremendous amount of memory-especially chapter 31: O.J.'s Alibi, so they could take the better part of an hour to download. They took nine moths to work out.
Hope some of this helps.
Jasper