[ Home | Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: [email protected]
Date: 5/29/01
Time: 12:06:32 AM
Response to the two questions:
How could envelope be free of prints?
It couldn't. (Well, actually, there is a slim possibility that the finger tips of the poeple who handled it were totally bone dry so they would have left no imprints that could be brought out with the methods used to do so. But chances of both people not ;leaving prints are beyond slim.) In fact, Clark tried to move heaven and earth to establish that the envelope found was also the one that Crawford had ever handled, a key part of her case, since if the envelope found was not one that Crawford ever handled, the whole story of the glasses is turned into isntant nonsense. Now the surest way of establishing that Crawford ever handled the envelope was to show it had her fingerprints on it. Clark, of course, never does so. She instead shows Crawford a picture of the side of the envelope that is entirely blank, and then asks her to identify it as the one she handled? Now we are talking about a plain, old number 10 business envelope. Wonder which critical identifying mark on the envelope Crawford could pick out as the the that established it was the one she had handled the night of the murders?
What do I mean by a hoax?
That the entire story of the glasses is made up to account for Goldman's presence at the murder scene. There is not a kernel of truth to it.
Ditto for the rest of the prosecution/plaintiff case.
Prien