Home | Contents | Search Iago Conspirators Timeline Junot
From: Jasper
Date: 4/10/02
Time: 1:46:37 PM
Kari,
I found the correct '84 date by finally giving your posts on the subject the attention they deserved.
This is one of those problems you can solve logically if you acknowledge that you don't necessary have the right answer already and apply yourself to finding it. The mistake that everyone except you made was to take the first easy answer and run with it. I went with the '85 date, while I was double checking my facts and pulling together my research on Iago, for three "obvious" reasons:
1) O.J. -- O.J. was terrible with dates. He said that the incident happened in '84. But he also got the date wrong that he joined the cast of 1st & Ten (a history-making role that changed the depiction of mixed-sex relationships on film and television forever - or until the Bundy murders). I've seen him in interviews where he got other key dates wrong. He got his own birthday wrong. I therefore discounted what O.J. said about the date of the baseball bat incident and looked for the answer somewhere else. 2) The city attorney -- Fuhrman's letter to the city attorney indicated that the baseball bat incident occurred in the "fall or winter" of '85, which would have put it closer to '86 than '85. '86 puts it a hell of a lot closer to the first day of '89 than anytime in 1984, which seems closer to five years. I didn't see how the city attorney could have found "a pattern of abuse" in an incident where O.J. got loud and beat up his car at least four years earlier. Establishing a pattern of abuse is what the letter was for. The city attorney could have cleared up the date simply by checking the '84 and '85 dispatch logs of Westec or the LAPD. 3) O.J.'s attorney -- The exact date could have easily been checked in '89 by Westec logs, repair bill receipts and interviews with at least eight other timeline witnesses (Fuhrman's partner, the Westec officers, Michelle the housekeeper, Nicole and the people who made the repairs). This is all basic stuff. The charge in '89 was serious enough and the accused was prominent enough and wealthy enough that the "85" date should have been checked and corrected by his attorney to weaken the argument that the incident showed a "pattern" of abuse. It would have also but Fuhrman's credibility in doubt about his other significant "recollections" in that letter.
The thing that broke me away from my fix on '85 as the correct date was something you wrote about Sydney's birthday. Charlie took a second look at that, too. She and I both did more research and I seem to recall that it was all three of us who finally worked out the fact that the "'85" incident had to have happened in '84. If I ever get the archives fully restored we can probably find the actual progression of events somewhere. The think you're thinking about that I found was in the civil trial, where one of the courts (I believe it was an Appellate Court) checked the facts and made the correction.
If Walraven's site ever gets back up we can go right to the records. --Jasper