[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Pat Valentino
Date: 9/10/01
Time: 9:39:20 AM
Keith,
Maybe you should "do this" more often. I have a few words to say to Ms. Kate myself.
To Kate:
Your vastly superior amount of brain cells doesn't help you quote the Record acurately.
You state:
"Yeah, I'm sure Fuhrman had OJ's old gloves in his pocket (They were proven to be OJ's by old photos)",
There is no Proof that Simpson ever owned the gloves in evidence--merely that he had worn similar gloves in the past. And the fact is that there are 3 sizes of extra large for that model. The Prosecution's own witness (Mr. Rubin) conceded that shrinkage caused by that amount of blood would be "negligable". So the question is would Simpson have worn gloves that were too small--for his TV appearances? Also, the serial numbers on the receipt for the gloves Nicole purchased was for a different model.
You continue:
"same for the shoes",
There is no evidence that Simpson ever owned any Bruno Magli shoes. Oh I know, the photographs from the Civil trial. The Defense never had an opportunity to examine that evidence, which had been sent to a lab in London used by the National Enquirer to produce composite pictures for their stories about elicit affairs, for which there were no actual photographs. But those Bruno Magli shoe photographs and negatives have been missing since the end of the Civil trial. Until independant investigators have a chance to examine those materials, they remain in question. What took Scull and Flammer so long anyway, and when they did surface, they tried to sell the photos rather than give them to the proper Authorities. As for the photo published in the football newspaper months before the crime, the shoes have never been proven to be Bruno Maglis. People have merely made that contention. A contention is not proof. There is no evidence that Simpson or Nicole ever bought any (Man's sized) Bruno Magli Shoes.
You continue:
"and I'm sure he had vials of OJ's blood in his pocket too".
No, but Vannatter did didn't he? He stated that instead of booking Simpson's blood downtown, he took it out to the crime scene because he didn't have a "number" for it. Surely your enormous number of brain cells didn't allow you to buy into that one, especially in light of what we have learned since the criminal trial: that Det. Phil Vannatter checked out the blood of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Therefore, he had in his posession the blood of O J Simpson as well as both victims in this case. As for Nicole's and Ron's blood, Vannatter can't maintain that he needed a number--their blood was already booked and Vannatter had to go to the trouble of checking it out personally. (This information comes from the deposition of Gary Siglar, the LAPD lab man who handled Vannatter's request for the blood.) WHAT WAS HE DOING WITH IT???
And finally, you state:
"And I'm sure he put on blackface and drove OJ's Bronco to and from the scene, since people saw him (who they later thought was OJ) driving erratically away from the direction of the scene towards the direction of his house."
"Blackface". Ah! A little racism for balance eh? But you are incorrect in any event. It wasn't "people" who saw him, but a "person" who "LATER thought it was O J." And therein lies the tale! That person was Jill Shively. But Jill Shively originally identified Marcus Allen as the person she saw! It was only "LATER" that she changed her story and named O J Simpson. Now I've always thought that was interesting. Unless one is a football fan, who would know Marcus Allen? The same cannot have been said of O J Simpson. Simpson was on TV, he did commecials, he was in the movies. One could recognize him from those activities without knowing anything about football.. But Marcus Allen was not known for any of those things. So I believe that Shively (who must be a football fan) identified Allen correctly. There are intimates of Nicole who have stated that she was again having an affair with Allen. And Allen flew out of LA airport 45 min. before Simpson. What was going on there? The only other witness to a vehicle was Mr. Heidstra, who saw a "light colored" utility vehicle moving away down the street in a Southernly direction (opposite direction of Rockingham). He originally described the UV as "cream or light green colored". After Fuhrman moved to Idaho, some reporters went to his home to interview him and observed his wife driving up to the house in a light green utility vehicle. All of this should be looked into since Fuhrman has told no less than four stories about where he was at the time of the crime!
And then you give us all your opinion as to what could be the only reasons why we could believe that Simpson is not the killer--all of which are personally insulting. And you accuse us of being "Fuhrman haters"!?? Well I certainly hate what he represents. You mean you don't? But you tell us to "get a brain". Just what work have YOU done on this case except to shout the Prosecution's case at us (or the 5 versions of their case--take your pick)?
In that case, I just want to tell you this:
Nicole had blood and tissue under her fingernails that was type "B" --- a "4-Banded B". Not the blood-type of Simpson, Nicole, or Ron. The Prosecution could not deal with the obvious fact the Nicole had struggled with someone other than O J Simpson so they suggested that her blood-type "A-B" had "degraded to a "4-Banded B" "
As for Fuhrman, it has been stated that he was merely playing a role on the Laura Hart McKinney tapes.
I now challenge you to:
1. Find one case in medical history where a type "A-B" has degraded to a "4-Banded B"!!
and
2. Point to one sentence on the McKinney tapes where Fuhrman ever says he is describing what a racist cop would sound like. Remarks such as "I've worked with racist cops, here's the type of comments they make..." !!
No person in the world has been able to do it yet, but with your higher number of brain cells and your superior intellect, I'm certain you can do it. Until you do, kindly refrain from the personal attacks and 4-letter words. Study the Record and deal with the real evidence.
You have two challenges to meet.
We are waiting for your answers!
Pat Valentino
Sept. 10, 2001