[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: charlie
Date: 6/17/01
Time: 10:07:00 AM
Reportedly, this was something that the cops told the Browns almost immediately as a "fake out" to help catch the killer. I don't know that they ever corrected the statement to the Browns in any way except that the trial testimony showed it not to be true.
Now, that is assuming we can believe the Browns on this and that is a big "if".
One other poorly reported story was an AP wire story (that I have read several times) written by Linda Duetch who did the OJ reporting about teeth marks found on Nicole's back. Part of the story was the "confirmation" by a NAMED person from the coroner's office. Later, there was a story about the defense sending photos of this bite mark to expert dentists to see if the "bite" could be identified to a specific person. This has a ring of truth because I have read and seen other cases where this was done and used as evidence in court.
Then the story just died.
It was never a widely reported story in the first place. In fact, the first I learned of it was through archieved OJS stories a couple of years after the murders.
I can't stress enough how "sourced" this story was with quotes and names put to those quotes about this bite mark (on her back shoulder or neck).
Was this a planted story? If so, didn't Duetch get mad at being used?
If it was ever learned that the alleged bite mark wasn't really a bite mark (by an expert dentist) I never heard of it.
charlie