[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 12 Sep 2005
Time: 04:12:22 AM
Brian, …. I don’t understand this post you made on Jebusville: Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2005 11:54 am Post subject: …..Mario, ……..I was just thinking about Rocky's Bronco observations. Then I started thinking about Jaspers Bronco theories and OJs testimony. OJ said it was parked that way because he pulled it out of the driveway onto Rockingham, which Jasper tried to prove. Then I remember that the Bronco was usually parked on Ashford and not Rockingham like it was found the morning of the murders. Then I remember that Jasper said it was not possible to park the Bronco at that angle if you pull it in directly from driving down the street, only if it is pulled out of the driveway. …….Now I have a problem. If Rocky says it was usually parked that way, then it either was parked on Rockingham after being pulled out of the driveway every time Rocky saw it, or it was pulled straight in from driving down Ashford and it is possible to park at that angle in this way (which goes against Jaspers theory). If Jasper is right about not being able to park at that angle from the street and Rocky saw it on Ashford, where it was usually parked, then Rocky is lying. But if Rocky is right and saw the Bronco parked at that angle on Ashford then Jaspers wrong. …..Just an observation. But with Jasper's insistence on this point I thought it was proper to mention this conflict. …..Brian … I don’t try to prove theories. I try to disprove them. However, the object of my Bronco position study (angle, distance from curb, distance from theoretical intersection) was not to prove or disprove anything. It was to determine whether or not O.J.’s story of driving the Bronco from the driveway to the street before the murders was consistent with its parking position on the morning after the murders. Both of us found that it was. ….. I did not say that it was impossible to duplicate that parking position by driving north on Rockingham. I said the probability that it would end up in exactly the same place (same angle, same distance from curb, same distance from theoretical) was exceedingly low. The point of making another study to learn what would be required to get it in exactly the same place by driving north on Rockingham was too see if the odds were too low for O.J.’s story to work both ways. If O.J. were driving north on Rockingham after killing two people, how would he know NOT to park six inches farther back or farther forward or closer or farther from the curb with more or less of an angle? O.J. is not an engineer. He didn’t know the significance of the 2-degree angle and the distance of the tires from the cub (my tip-off that the study was worthwhile). In his video he tried to minimize both of these crucial, measurable characteristics. …. The acute angle formed by the driveway and the street necessitates a very tight turn. It can be accomplished only by running the right rear tire over the corner of the curb in a constant turn (not a big deal with the chiseled corner but something he probably wouldn’t want to do) or to maneuver to avoid it. This works either way. ……The only way for O.J. end up in that exact position by driving past the driveway on Rockingham is to know what the implications are with respect to a fabricated story of driving it from the driveway. Furthermore, he would have to set his vector several yards before he executed this maneuver and do it perfectly within a tiny turning zone in a fraction of a second or make repeated adjustments until he got it just right. ………Does it make sense for a first time murderer who isn’t an engineer to do ALL of these things on the fly when it took you and me months to figure it out? Dick Wagner never even looked at it. If Dick never looked at it, why would O.J? John doesn’t think that any of this means a damn thing. Neither does Mario. Why would O.J. see it differently than they do? You still haven’t seen the full implications of what YOU discovered. How could you expect O.J. to do it and apply it to tell a plausible story? So far, you and I are the only people on the planet who can prove that it IS plausible. . …..There is no inconsistency with everyone, including O.J., saying that he usually parked his Bronco on Ashford. That doesn’t mean that he parked it on Rockingham so infrequently that no on could discern a pattern in how he did it. Rocky wasn’t the only one who said he saw the Bronco parked crooked on Rockingham on prior occasions. Rosa Lopez said so, too. If O.J. normally parked it on Ashford that’s where you would expect him to go whether he was driving north or south on Rockingham to get there. You and I saw what happens when you make the turn to park on Rockingham from the driveway. That’s what you would expect if he drove it from Ashford though his compound to Rockingham – just as he said he did without the benefit of our expertise. ……My Iago hypothesis is not dependent upon details like this. The study shows only that the parking position of the Bronco is consistent with O.J.’s story of how it got there and inconstant with the detectives’, the prosecutions’ and the plaintiffs’. –Jasper