[ Home | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: charlie
Date: 12/24/00
Time: 8:56:06 AM
Charlotte,
Like Jasper, I have no idea. The BBC was looking into inconsistencies with the evidence and the investigation and they did a good job--not perfect but good. However, that program has not been shown here yet.
And that program would go just to the general public unless it caught the eye of some "offical" type.
Now that Bodzanich (sp) or whatever his name is that Bosco used in his book is the Assist Deputy Attny under the new DA (Cooley) in LA, I am wondering if getting info to him in some way would be the way to go.
I found it interesting that a man who career was side-tracked by Garcetti due to his "glove" questions has now been brought forward by the new DA.
This new DA has already expressed tha he is not going to use the "3 strikes" law to blackmail confessions out of suspects and use it in a much more common sense. (like not giving life terms to somebody who stole a loaf of bread because they were hungry as their 3rd offense).
In the Rampart scandal it was learned this 3 strikes was used with a very heavy hand to Over Charge suspects so they would plead out on a minor (in comparison) charge.
It can't be a secret that Bodzanich(sp) was quoted in the Bosco book and had contact with Bosco after the trial--nor is his questions about the glove and OJ case--yet he gets a top job under Cooley. Cooley was one of the folks in the office too so all of that would be known to him.
Other people, like Longo and others also suffered on the alter of Gil Garcetti's ego and career goals.
It would almost be necessary to pick out the top inconsistencies and get someone's attention before going to the mulititude of inconsistencies. If you approached someone with too much "STUFF" they might not be willing to sit down with it or it might get washed out in the sheer amount of it.
Of course, the top inconsistency is the timeline and the glove and the new Deputy Assistance DA is already well aware of that one. His career sufferered for pointing that out.
To go hand and glove with that (no pun intended) is the lack of blood in OJ's house (in comparison to what should have been if he were the killer) and the lack of a weapon and bloody clothes--which never surfaced.
I recall vividly that reporters (who tried it with a stop watch) and even Clark and Co. came to the conclusion that for OJ to be guilty, the murders had to take place before 10:30. Hence, the barking dog timeline. Hence, Heistra was not used. Also, it was a glaring error to have murders taking place at the same time as Kato's noise.
ANd you have Golden being not used because of his two knife, later than Dr. L time of death (closer to 11 than 10) etc.
After we could get someone's attention on the Big timeline stuff, then would be the time to list the inconsistencies in testimony and info (like the diary that took a special law in CA to get it admitted).
And as I have said a million times before, there is a wealth of info in who the DA's did NOT PUT ON and the questions they DID NOT ask.
I am put in mind of the military judge in the first Jeffrey McDonald trial which was in the miliary and he was acquitted. The judge made statements after the trial that when so many errors are made at the crime scene, evidence is tampered with, etc., it said to him that the lead detective must have been involved or had knowledge of the crime.
Lawyer Leslie Abramson in a general statement about crime investigation said the same thing, that if the crime scene is not handled properly from the get-go under the direction of cops, look for one of those cops to be involved. charlie