[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 19 Sep 2005
Time: 10:02:25 AM
In light of Prien’s post, which he had to be working on when I was working on my post to Jean, I thought I should post it again with a little cleanup and new line of further explanation. …….I believe that the missing piece here is Bill Wasz’s Kardashian story. I don’t think that the defense anticipated anyone questioning the legitimacy of the phone bill presented in court on the basis of apparent anomalies in the date, the lines and the characters. If they were at all concerned about whether the times recorded on the bill were accurate reflections of the primary document, they would have simply objected to it and the prosecution could not have presented it without a verification witness. ……..The defense attorneys’ acceptance of BOTH bills in addition to Petrochelli’s shift of the timeline to match the criminal defense lawyers’ timeline, tell me that the times were both accurate and provable. According to ALL of the media pundits and the public opinion polls taken after O.J.’s acquittal, the PROSICUTION’S timeline was not an issue. The defense attorneys never nailed down a killing time. They merely presented witnesses to show that the murders happed sometime after 10:30. Moreover, they attacked a witness (Schwab) who’s testimony indicated that Ron and Nicole were murdered before 11:00 (he said he found the dog with blood on it at 10:55). ……..Petrocelli could have safely stuck with the timeline Marcia gave in her summation if it were a viable option. Proof accessible to the defense and the plaintiffs that the phone bills were accurate is the only thing that would have prevented Marcia’s summation timeline from being a viable option for him. …….The criminal defense strategy had nothing to do with finding and showing proof of O.J.’s innocence. It was geared exclusively toward creating reasonable doubt. O.J.’s lawyers did so by showing broken chains of custody in the collection and processing of evidence, unmasking a lying cop, throwing suspicion on police conduct, arguing evidence of a frame-up by person or persons unknown and confusing the timeline. They would have hurt their case by arguing that the phone bills were bogus if the prosecution could prove that they weren’t (possibly what Marcia tried to sucker them into doing) and they would have voided their best arguments for a frame-up. ……You can’t frame a man who has an airtight alibi. However, a man with an airtight alibi can hire someone to do his killing. Neither the defense nor the prosecution would argue that the police framed a guilty man. Therefore no direct evidence of a frame-up would even come into play unless O.J.’s defenders could show that people carrying out the frame-up didn’t know he had an alibi. The fact that it has come into play changes nothing as far as what O.J. knew and when he knew it is concerned. ……The most damaging blood evidence against O.J. was not identified until August but Bill Wasz told his Kardashian story to three LAPD detectives in July with his notebook to back him up. The more persuasively you can argue that O.J. had an alibi by virtue of Nicole being alive when he left for the airport, the less persuasive become the arguments for a frame up because all that evidence exists on an earlier timeline. If O.J. hired someone to kill Nicole, the clues the active killer left behind or the evidence that the police planted it would have been out of his hands. –Jasper