[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jolana
Date: 5/15/02
Time: 3:02:05 PM
John:-
Great! Finally a question that I can answer!
Where was I? Waiting for your reply to your "Replay to Jolana" post. (reposted below for your convenience).
Jolana
---------------------------
John:-
My responses to your :"Replay.."
1. Perhaps my scenario doesn't add to the cause of saving your theory, but it would help if there was indeed a 10:17 pm phone call which lasted until 10:28pm and Ron was killed by Kato before that.
2. On my comments regarding the barking dogs, you reply:
"You seem to miss MY point. Not only isn't the reasons for a dog's barking very good evidence, but, given the acoustics of the neighborhood and the fact that the witnesses, as far as they knew at the time, were living through an entirely ordinary night with no reason to take special note of the time of anything....It is quite reasonable to doubt that there were even two time periods of barking."
My comment: I think Heidstra, Lange (the neighbor), Rachel Berman's mother, Jill Shively, McKinnon, and at least the neighbors who were troubled by the irregular barking of the dog(s), et al. would not agree that the night 6/12 was "an ordinary night".
3. About my question regarding the possibility that the Ron was murdered some 15-20 minutes before Nicole, you note:
"Well, anything that doesn't violate the laws of physics is "possible". However, what you suggest comes close to violating the laws of physics in that you have four people at a crime scene containing conclusive evidence of only three."
My comment: There was evidence establishing that there were at least four people at the crime scene. In addition to the two victims, there was evidence that at least one white person and one black(or hispanic) person were at the scene. Recall the skin under Nicole's nails, the blond hair in the glove and the black hairs found at the scene. Per Lange(the neighbor), there were even suspicious people on the street in front of the condo. These included at least one dark man, a blonde lady and either 1-2 asian or hispanic males. The evidence that more than three people were at the scene is not insignificant.
4. Regarding the possibility I raise that Kato may have killed Ron then left the scene, you note:
""My" Kaelin would not. In my theory (btw, I have added to my page)while Kaelin had a motive for killing Nicole, Goldman didn't mean anything to him. The fact that there are no footprints of Goldman's boots on the walk, or much, if any, of Nicole's blood on his boots, proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Goldman was murdered first. If "my" Kaelin had run across Goldman before attacking Nicole, such as if Goldman had gotten to Bundy before him, then Kaelin would have simply back out of his plan."
My comment: I agree that Ron was probably killed first, but I do not agree that the target was Nicole.
It is entirely possible that Ron was set-up to be a victim in order to frame O.J. for a murder. I don't think Nicole was a target at all. The object was to frame O.J. for a murder at Nicole's.
5. Regarding the possibility of a second murderer, I noted that the second person, perhaps the one charged with planting the evidence, could've killed Nicole.
To this, you replied:
"This means that the second killer comes on the scene where there is already a corpse lying around, and also assumes that Nicole, in her condo, would have been oblivious to the dog barking, and/or the sounds of struggle, and done nothing. Also, I am unclear about whether you are saying the two killers are part of the same conspiracy or acting independently."
My comment: I'm saying that it is possible that while Nicole was on the phone, Ron was being killed. At some point, the increasing level of noise led her to investigate. On opening the door, she could've been dragged out onto the porch where she was killed.
Depending on when this happened, the two killers could've been part of the same conspiracy or less likely working independently.
If your theory that Kato was involved is true, why couldn't someone like A.C. also been involved. There was some evidence that A.C. (instead of O.J.) could've been at the scene.
Remember the missing keys later found in O.J.'s bag? O.J. said that he thought A.C. had given them to him.
6. You then ask: "Then why kill her at all? If there was a fifteen minute gap between the two killings, this can only mean that Nicole was unaware of the first killing, ie. was not a witness. What then was the point of sticking around to kill her?"
My response: I think that on hearing the noises, she looked outside and saw what happened or even recognized a person or persons on the scene, (perhaps)planting evidence after the murder. In this case, the person(s) she saw would have no choice but to murder her as well.
I admit that this scenario is somewhat far-fetched and perhaps even unlikely, but it's not that much more unreasonable than some of the theories, twists and confused thinking that I've read about this case.
Jolana