[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Solitairea1 to Mario
Date: 11 Sep 2005
Time: 03:52:14 AM
Mario, here is the Pat Valentino mail to Catherine Crier's producer. (and above post by me re: Van Atter i meant to address to you, but forgot to put your name.) Here's the url, followed by the copied post regarding Pat Valentino and email to Crier's Producer. ....................................... http://smartfellowspress.com/lago2004/_lago_0604/00000027.htm .................................................. Iago (June) Discussion [ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ] MISSTATEMENTS OF FACT re: Court TV From: Pat Valentino Date: 6/16/04 Time: 4:44:26 PM Remote Name: 68.108.175.33 Comments Hello Everyone, The following is the text from and E-mail I sent to the producer of "Catherine Crier Live", the program on Court TV. Friday June 11, 2004 To: Emily Barsh -- Producer Of "Catherine Crier Live" Dear Emily: Today, I wrote the E-mail that you asked me to write in connection with this weeks Simpson coverage. Unfortunately, when I sent the E-mail to you, something happened and the E-mail delivery failed. This has never happened in all the years I have been doing research. And I was working so fast to get the E-mail to you, that I did not back it up as a text file as I almost always do. Wouldn't you know that the failure would occur at such a time. Therefore, even though you said to me that your Simpson coverage would be "over" after today, I have decided to send the E-mail to you anyway for your information (and hopefully Judge Crier's), and for your files also. Let me begin by saying that I am a serious researcher on cases that interest me. I have worked extensively with Joe Bosco, the crime reporter who wrote the first book on DNA, "Blood Will Tell", as well as the Simpson Trial book "A Problem Of Evidence"; and with Donald Freed, the two time recipient of the "Louis B. Mayer Award", author of the book "Killing Time", the definitive examination of the timelines in the Simpson case, as well as the original story and screenplay for the Robert Altman movie "Secret Honor". I was also a consultant to Malcolm Brinkworth, the producer of the BBC documentary "O.J. The Untold Story", in connection with my research into the activities and testimony of Mark Fuhrman. I was also engaged by the "Assassination Records Review Board", empowered by the United States Congress for the release of over 4 million pages of heretofore classified documents in connection with the Assassination of President Kennedy, to create a 33 CD library of the audio interviews of David Lifton, author of "Best Evidence", for placement in the National Archives--the only Warren Commission critic so honored. It was David and myself who were the first two people in the world to show the Dallas doctors, who attended the President immediately after he was shot, the photographs and X-rays of the Presidents body in order to get their testimony on various medical issues in the case--something neither the Warren Commission nor the House Committee on Assassinations had ever done. Let me say at the outset that I am not writing to you in defense of Mr. Simpson, but rather, in defense of the official record. And now, on to some of the misstatements of fact. 1. Direction of the Slow-Speed Chase Now Emily, on your follow-up show yesterday to Judge Crier's interview of Simpson the night before, Lisa Bloom stated that Simpson was headed "south toward Mexico" during the Bronco chase. That statement is completely untrue. Here is what actually happened: Simpson and Al Cowlings drove to Orange County where the cemetery in which Nicole Brown was laid to rest is located. When they arrived, they saw that there were police all around the area. Simpson told Cowlings that he wanted to go home to see his mother "one more time" before he was arrested. Cowlings then proceeded to drive north on the 405 freeway toward Sunset Blvd. in order to take Simpson to his Rockingham Estate. It was during this time that Cowlings telephoned the police and told them where he was, and where he was going. The so called slow-speed chase really begins during this return to Rockingham, and that is what we all observed on TV. At no time was Simpson trying to escape to Mexico. 2. E.D.T.A James Curtis stated during a discussion of E.D.T.A. being present in the 2 blood stains on the sock, that "E.D.T.A. is present in detergent", thereby giving the impression that the presence of the substance in the blood stains really doesn't prove anything. This again is completely untrue. Here is what actually happened: There were no traces of E.D.T.A. in the control samples of the socks. As you know, samples are taken outside the area of the blood stains in order to compare the sock material with and without the blood stains. These samples are called controls. If detergent had been the source of the E.D.T.A., then E.D.T.A. would have been present throughout the sock. Since no E.D.T.A. was found in the controls, but only in the area of the blood stain, the forensic experts concluded that the substance must have come from the blood itself. The same situation is true for the blood on the back gate--no traces of E.D.T.A. in the control samples, only in the blood itself. And don't forget that: The blood on the sock was not discovered until 2 1/2 months after it was collected, and after the LA crime-lab people had written "no blood observed" in their official reports. And: The blood on the back gate was not discovered until 2 1/2 weeks after the murders, and is not present in the original crime scene photographs of the gate taken on June 13, 1994. 3. Spousal Abuse Lisa Bloom stated to Yale Galanter "...you don't think that the fact that he [Simpson] beat her like a punching bag....". Mr. Galanter replied "...there's no evidence that he beat her like a punching bag...". Actually, Mr. Galanter is correct. Simpson admits to "having her in a headlock and forcing her out of my bedroom." This would certainly cause the types of bruises that we see in the photographs taken after the unfortunate incident. If Simpson had actually "slugged" Nicole in the jaw or face with a closed fist with any force at all, Nicole would have had a wired jaw for a couple of months at least. Athletes have a natural "follow-through" which is extremely powerful, and although Simpson was not a boxer as my father was (my father fought for the Heavyweight Championship of the World), punches from an athlete the size of Simpson would almost certainly result in broken face-bones. There is no way to be absolutely sure of this point, but one thing we do know for sure. If there had been 17 years of physical violence, people would have seen some indication of it. Not that there would have been witnesses to Simpson beating Nicole, most wifebeaters do not beat their spouses in front of anyone. But someone, sometime, would have noticed Nicole in pain, perhaps favoring one arm or leg over the other, limping, complaints of back pain etc.--but such is not the case. But perhaps the most questionable statements concerning the subject of spousal abuse come from Denice Brown. Between the time the subject first came up soon after the murders and the time of the trial itself, Ms. Brown appeared on dozens of media shows across the country. On every show she stated that she and the rest of her family "never knew anything about any spousal abuse". Then Ms. Brown testifies at the criminal trial and proceeds to claim that she was a witness to spousal abuse and gives three examples. Two of those seemed to be somewhat harmless and subject to interpretation (such as Simpson placing his hands on Nicole's pregnant tummy and saying "that's mine"), but one of which was a very serious allegation of physical violence: that Simpson had "thrown Nicole down the stairs". I think you would agree with me that such an action would certainly qualify as "spousal abuse". Why the contradiction about knowlege of spousal abuse? Who could forget such a thing? But the best was yet to come. Either the first or second week after her trial testimony, Ms. Brown again appears on the "Rivera Live" show. (Maybe you remember this as you told me that you worked for Rivera at that time.) Geraldo Rivera and Ms. Brown are discussing her recent court appearance and the subject of spousal abuse comes up. And Mr. Rivera says "...but you didn't know about any spousal abuse did you?" And Ms. Brown replies "No! We didn't know about any spousal abuse!" Now would be the time for any enterprising investigative reporter (as Mr. Rivera fancies himself) to ask Ms. Brown "Well Ms. Brown, did you know about any spousal abuse or didn't you??! No such question is asked or answered that night or anytime since. And so we are left with Ms. Brown not knowing about spousal abuse both before and after her testimony in the criminal trial, but during the trial, she knows about it! The credibility of Ms. Brown is highly dubious, to say the very least. And so when Lisa Bloom says as she did on this show, that "wife abuse is what this case was about, that's what is should have been about, from beginning, middle, and end, and it simply wasn't.", the record just doesn't support her statement. The only episode of physical violence for which there is any proof what-so-ever is New Years Eve '89--4 1/2 years before the murders! And when the police answer the 911 calls and ask her if Simpson had hit her, she can be heard saying "No! He hasn't hit me since '89." That can hardly be used as a motive for murder, even the notion of which strains credulity. Also, some reference was made to Nicoles "diary". This document does not qualify as a diary because it would have to have been written contemporaneously with the events contained therein. The "diary" was written some years later at the request of her attorney as part of an effort to procure more support money from Mr. Simpson. Nicole however changed her mind and did not go through with this plan because she felt it was less than honest. (To her everlasting credit I might add.) 4. Vanatter's New Big Lie On Fred Graham's program, which aired immediately proceeding Judge Crier's interview with Mr. Simpson, Det. Vanatter in defense of his action of taking Simpson's reference blood vial back out to the crime scene, stated the following: "That was in policy. I didn't do anything wrong! I've done that before."[???] What? He had done that before? That's not what he said when he testified under oath in the criminal trial. Robert Shapiro asked Det. Vanatter how many times in his 22 year career he had taken blood evidence back out to a crime scene. Vanatter replied: "Actually, this was the first time." And so we are left with the dilemma of determining whether Det. Vanatter was lying during the criminal trial, or is he lying now? Or worse still, is he lying both times? But for sure, Mr. Graham should have challenged that statement immediately. Or maybe Vanatter wasn't being interviewed by Mr. Graham, but someone else who isn't that familiar with the case, and then they just threw in some soundbites. In any event, how come some editor or producer didn't spot this amazing statement given the fact that Vanatter's action was so highly controversial? This is a major mistake. Who are Court TV's research people? They had better get their act together. ____________________________________________________________________________ Emily, because of the problem with my E-mail on Friday 6/11/04, I was able to view your program of that date and can now comment on one of the most blatantly dishonest interviews I have ever seen in my life. Friday's show was hosted by Diane Dimond. She introduced Mike Walker, and Barry Levine as "two of my favorite guys." Ms. Dimond asks about the knife Simpson purchased from Ross Cutlery. Levine responds: "That was actually six weeks before the murders, ...Enquirer reporter Allen Smith tracked down the knife shop--the Ross Cutlery in downtown L.A. Dimond interjects: "I remember that!" Levine: "O.J. at the time was making a TV movie called Frogmen. He went into this knife store and, not only did he pay the $81 for the knife, 14 inch stiletto, he [OJ] also said "please sharpen it. I want it very sharp." [Levine] "...and that was something..." Dimond: "And he had training in that movie to simulate slashing throats." Levine: "Right! And as you know, the murder weapon was never recovered!" This is an absolutely shamefull exchange! Deliberately misleading the viewing audience into believing that: 1. The Ross Cutlery knife is the murder weapon, and 2. That the Ross Cutlery knife has been missing since the murders. It is true that the "murder weapon" was never recovered, but the Ross Cutlery Knife is not the murder weapon!! I ask you to remember back to the first day of testimony in the Preliminary Hearing. The second and third witnesses called by Bill Hodgeman were Allan Wattenberg, (owner of Ross Cutlery), and his clerk Jose Camacho. Wattenberg testified that Simpson had bought a "bone-handled knife having a blade from 15 to 18 inches in length when opened, and being about 8 to 8 1/2 inches in length when closed, for $74.98." Camacho testified that Simpson wanted the knife sharpened. He said that he had sold his story to the National Enquirer for $12,000. Wattenberg admitted he was getting part of the money. The following is quoted from the paperback edition of Larry Schiller's book "American Tragedy". From page 155: "This is silly," Simpson said. "They're making a big deal out of nothing. That knife is sitting at home." That morning Kardashian was showing Uelmen and Pavelic through the Rockingham house. Simpson phoned them from the jail. "That knife I bought downtown, is it still there?" "I don't know," Bob replied. "Where is it?" O.J. told him to unlock his bedroom and look on the hidden shelf behind the vanity mirror on the right of his dressing table. Kardashian found the knife. The oiled blade had never been used. The price tag was still there. Nobody touched the knife. They didn't want to end up as trial witnesses. Kardashian couldn't believe the police had missed it. That Friday, Judge Lance Ito was sitting briefly as the Superior Court's presiding judge over criminal matters. After Simpson's call to Kardashian, Shapiro asked for an ex parte meeting. (Skipping) Shapiro explained that the knife their client had purchased from Ross Cutlery was in his home. Ito agreed to appoint a special court officer to retrieve the knife. He named retired judge Delbert Wong. That afternoon, .....Judge Wong drove with Kardashian to Simpson's home. Kardashian... ...took Judge Wong upstairs and unlocked the bedroom door. "The item we've discussed is hear", he said. They stood before the vanity mirror. "Would you like me to open it", Kardashian asked. Wong said yes. He handed Wong a tissue so the judge could handle the knife without touching it. "I want you to notice the price tag", Kardashian said. Kardashian asked Wong to open the the knife to observe its mechanism and blade size. "I'd like you to observe that the knife is brand-new", Kardashian said. Wong looked at the blade and shut it. "I'd like you to identify where this knife was found and what shelf it was on", Kardashian continued. They locked the bedroom door and left. (Skipping further) They'd (the defense) asked for the special court officer so that Ito could hold the unused knife as rebuttal evidence... (Skipping once again) On Friday afternoon, July 1, Judge Kennedy-Powell held up a manila envelope. The defense was stunned. Ito had gone on vacation. Another judge who knew nothing about the arrangement had sent the sealed envelope down to Municipal Court with instructions to enter it into evidence. Shapiro and Uelmen rushed to the bench and explained. They convinced Kennedy-Powell to keep the manila envelope closed and return it to the Superior Court. But the strategic value had been destroyed. Marcia Clark and Bill Hodgman had to realize that the envelope contained the knife. The defense had lost the opportunity to blindside the prosecutors. [End of Book Excerpt] Now Emily, the proof that all of this is correct is that Bill Hodgeman and Marsha Clark never again make any reference to Ross Cutlery, or the knife Simpson purchased there. Even though their second and third witnesses in the Preliminary Hearing were from Ross Cutlery, Clark never even mentions them or the knife in her closing argument to Judge Kennedy-Powell. Now this was a huge issue at the time, "what's in the envelope?", and so on. But several pundits pointed out that the Ross Cutlery knife couldn't be the murder weapon anyway because of the forensic details of the wounds. But we know for sure that the murder weapon could not be the one Mr. Simpson purchased---it was never used, and never missing!! And Mike Walker, Barry Levine, and yes, Diane Dimond have to know that. They have all been far too close to this case not to know these facts. Ms. Dimond should have challenged these two blatant opportunists, but perhaps she is much too blinded by own prejudice against Mr. Simpson and (what I think) is her misplaced loyalty to "two of her favorite guys". This is not helpful in determining the truth, and not flattering to Court TV. ___________________________________________________________________________ Monday June 14, 2004 The bottom line here is that the record must be quoted accurately. The main problem seems to be that most anchor people and pundits on TV work from a premise that Simpson is guilty, and construct their questions from that point of view. Maybe Simpson is guilty. But maybe he isn't. However, we certainly can't get any closer to the answer with this approach. There are many more problems with statements that were made this last week, but if I cover all of them now, I'll never get this E-mail sent. If you are interested, I have information about Det. Fuhrman's testimony that will knock your socks off! If you think that his use of the "N" word was the extent of his perjury, then I have very serious news for you. There is startling new evidence in many other areas of the case as well. If you are interested in continuing to collect this information for your files for possible use in the future, please let me know. (End of E-mail) _________________________________________________ Since Judge Crier's interview of Simpson, during which he stated that he didn't speak on the phone with anyone during the "Bronco Chase", Crier has harped away on her own show and others that she has the transcript of the conversation -- so Simpson did indeed speak with Det. Tom Lang. Yes, we all know that. The next day, Simpson's attorney Yale Galanter said that he went over the transcript with him and Simpson was astonished, and could not remember having spoken to Lang or anything else about it. But why the attitude that this is some kind of "Journalistic Coup"? What does it prove? It couldn't have proven much since the Prosecution chose not to enter the chase or the conversation into evidence. And finally, the entire week produced no discussions that I know of concerning the switch of the bindles, the blood and tissue under Nicole's fingernails, Paratis changing his version of the events, etc., etc., etc., and most of all, the information about Fuhrman that we all know all too well. All forensic matters favorable to Simpson are treated as if they are merely contrivances made up by the Defense. But we are subjected to the opinions of Kato Kalin, Denise Brown, the Goldmans, and now even Howard Weitzman, as to who committed the murders--- O.J. Simpson. Well! If they say so, it must be true. I guess we can all forget the whole thing now--these people have spoken. Your not satisfied you say? Perhaps your right. Let's continue our work. You know, there's a wonderful scene in the Orson Welles directed movie "The Stranger". Edward G. Robinson is on the trail of a Nazi war crimial. he has met some people in a small New England town and is having dinner at the home of a possible suspect (Orson Welles). There is an energetic political discussion and Welles launches off into an attack on the German people (as a smoke screen of course) and at one point is asked what about Marx. "Wasn't he a German?" And Welles replies (in trying to show that Marx was better than a German,again as a smoke screen)that Marx wasn't a German, but a Jew. Later, back in his hotel room, Robinson calls his boss and tells him that Welles is clean and that they will have to continue their search elsewhere. But in the middle of the night, Robinson is startled from a dream about the dinner conversation and wakes up in a cold sweat. He again calls his boss and says "Who but a Nazi would say that Marx wasn't a German because he was a Jew? No, I think I'll stay around a little longer!" And so it is with us! Best Regards, Pat Last changed: August 25, 2005 .................................................. .................................................. Solitairea1