[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
T1:
Category 3: Category 1
Date: 10 Aug 1999
Time: 19:23:09
Remote Name: dyn1-tnt7-58.detroit.mi.ameritech.net
Kate,
Haven't you noticed how hard it is to truly understand what's in most of the transcripts simply by reading them? Cora's is a great example. But so is Kato's, Rosa's, Heidstra's and O.J.'s. Depending on how the questions were asked a "yes" answer on one page can look like a "no" answer on another. They all misspoke themselves from time to time, including the lawyers, and they got confused about who said what and the order in which it was said.
On the old Court TV boards we had some OJG's (NOJ's) who were wizards at finding something in the transcripts that confirmed just about any point they wanted to make. But when you turned the page or sometime just read the next paragraph you could see that it was all wrong. The oft-reported story about O.J. telling Allan Park that he overslept then changing his story to say he was in the shower, is a good example. He didn't say he overslept. KATO ASKED HIM if he overslept. That was in Kato's testimony. Rachael Ferrara and Allan Park are the ones who got it wrong. You can see how easy it was for them to have made the mistake-and you can see that it was mistake if you're willing to work hard enough to find the truth.
That's why these questions are so tough for us. We're doing the work.
Shiller's book is better than most of them, the part dealing with the criminal trial at any rate. But he makes subtle errors here and there that can thrown you way off track if you're not up on what he's talking about from other sources. --Jasper