[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: charlie
Date: 6/19/01
Time: 8:49:03 AM
Jasper, You have hit the nail on the head with your conclusions and questions.
Although it may not have been the first thing out of a cop's mouth, all the discussion of the crime scene and possible witnesses (the blind daters come to mind the most as well as the body finders and the dog finders) why at NO time during the two trials this never came up.
Also with the books written (mainly V & L and Fuhrman) since esp. in Fuhrman's case, he was trying to be so "crime novel" themed in his approach (the Joe Friday talk--which btw, V and L I thing out die him now that I have gone back and reread it).
With the blind daters, in particular, when there was an effort to grab onto to anything that might have indicated a crime scene of murder (very bloody) prior to 10:30, it is hard to imagine that someone when listing the questions to ask them of their observations didn't come up with the smell of blood.
I can understand in the normal chain of events with the cops, it would not be mentioned but in a case where it is proposed that people could have walked past the scene without noticing it, that it didn't come up. Or that when Riske is not seeing any body as he walks up, he glances back to the witnesses and they motion him forward to the left. He acts and speaks as if there is NO indication that a body is there at that time when in fact, he is close enough to smell the blood.
And in the books I read (highly sourced from coroner, FBI and cops) it indicates there is a difference in the smell of human blood and animal blood --neither pleasant but that their is a difference.
And Scwhab never mentions the smell of blood on the dog either.
charlie