[ Home | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 9/22/00
Time: 6:44:11 AM
John,
Though it kills me to say this, I agree with you on all counts (except the 11" tiles).
The reason I haven't entered into the discussion about the shoeprints is because I know how deceptive photographs can be and I have never seen photographs of the shoeprints that were unambiguous enough to make the kinds of observations Charlie has made. As you and Charlie have both observed about the shoeprints and the blood drops relative to the shoeprints, you can make of them whatever you want. If the killer intended to frame O.J. with those shoeprints and those blood drops, he had to do it in a way that the police would accept without question. The fewer deviations from what a sharp detective, DA or defense attorney could expect to find in a bloody shoeprint that O.J. could have left, the better.
To me, the important things about the shoeprints are what they suggest about the killer, what I could measure, and what the prosecution and the defense agreed on. The chalk outline showing them pointing straight ahead is something neither side objected to and neither side made a point of - which was odd, considering the fact that O.J. is pigeon-toed. The fact is, O.J.'s feet sometimes point straight ahead when they make contact with the ground. This is as much of a minority trait as size 12 shoes, two traits that O.J. shares with a sharp detective on the who paid close attention to details and used the hell out of the power of suggestion - Mark Fuhrman. With Fuhrman, it's not just the shoe that fits, it's the walk. --Jasper