[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Pat Valentino
Date: 7/6/04
Time: 10:58:58 PM
Remote Name: 68.108.175.33
Junot--
Your observation that Rachel Ferrara didn't live in Orange County and therefore wouldn't have resulted in a message unit phone call record is correct. I have re-read her testimony in both the Preliminary Hearing and Criminal Trial. However, she at no time says she lives in "Mar Vista". In the Criminal Trial, she says she lives in "Palms" (which may be more or less the same place). She stated in the PH that she lived about 20 minutes from Rockingham. In the CT, she said "about 10 miles". This would seem to put her home somewhere in the Culver City area (Still 310 area code).
None of this negates my issue about the timelines. These times have to be close to right since Kaelin goes outside and encounters Park and Simpson. In each case, Rachel testified that the 1st call from Kaelin came in about 10:20 pm. After talking awhile, she asked him what time it was. He answered 10:30. She said they talked about 10 more minutes when Kaelin asked her if there had been an "earthquake". She never refers to "3 thumps", but in each case describes the noise as the "bang" (singular). That would put the noise at about 10:40--just what I said to Fetzer. Now I realize that these times are not absolute, but approximate. She also says in both cases that Kaelin hangs up at 10:50 (10:50 or 10:45 CrimTrl). In both cases she says that Kaelin tells her "if I'm not back in 10 minutes, call the cops!" Again, she says in both cases that Kaelin calls back (2nd call) at 11:05, they talk about 10 minutes, interrupted by call waiting, then talked a "couple more minutes", then Kaelin hung up to go outside. He called back (3rd call) about 10 minutes later (11:25), and they talked for about an hour and a half.
By the way, at no time does Rachel say that the "noise" happened at 10:30. And it is Marcia Clark in the Criminal Trial who changes the time of the "3 thumps" to 10:52 (evidently to line up with Park seeing "a black man walk into the house from the driveway"). And you may remember that Bailey was asked about the jury readback, and he said "Marcia changed the time of thump-thump".
And now we come to your rather impolite remark about my deserving "an Olympic gold medal in conclusion jumping...". What's your problem Junot, do you have to be personally insulting to make a point? I have, I believe, in good faith invited anyone to take issue with me on any given point. I try to be as meticulous as possible. I try to distinguish between the official record and my own opinions. But you did find that I was wrong about where Rachel Ferrara lived at the time. Fine, but considereing the length of my letter, and the silly remarks having been made by Jim Fetzer and Len Osanic on the radio, I don't think you've destroyed my rebuttal as a whole. The issue I've raised about whether or not the person who called the police had seen people in uniform is directly related to her question: "Are the POLICE sitting on 2 bodies in West LA?". Why did she think they were POLICE?? SOMETHING must have made her think that. I suppose they may have been in plain clothes, and maybe a car with police lights on top was parked there (not all police cars with lights on top are "black and whites"). Now in re-reading what I wrote, I should have said "Was there someone in uniform? (As a question) Yes, I am just supposing about this matter, but I am trying to do so in conjunction with the known record. I still think this is a valid question. I am raising the question as to whether these are fake police or real police (in which case the real police would have to be "dirty" because they don't report the crime). The crime is reported by a man walking his dog at least an hour and a half later. How else can one try to analyze this? I don't know the answer, I'm trying to figure it out. But I'll give you the point that I should have said it better.
But since you've chosen to use the language you have, let's talk about 2 "Olympic Gold Medals in conclusion jumping" that you deserve:
1. "In truth, the thumps never happened at all". Oh?! How do YOU know that?? "In truth"?? What truth?? What's your evidence for that?? You may be right, of course, but you've stated it as an absolute fact when really, it is just your belief.
2. "Why would such a person, seeing what apparently are policemen moving around dead bodies, even bother to call 911, let alone a back number? And why impersonate a Channel 4 reporter?"
Possible answer: If they were behaving suspiciously, or if they looked sinister, or some other reason that just felt wrong to the woman, she might call 911, but not want to "get involved" to the degree of indentifying herself, so she gave a false ID. I'm not sure how it worked, but the proper investigation certainly wasn't done so that we could find out.
And then you add:
"HINT: IT IS DOCUMENTED THAT KAELIN COULD IMITATE WOMAN'S VOICES."
Oh, I see. Kaelin is calling up the police in West LA and imitating a woman's voice between 10:30 and 10:45 pm at the same time he is on the phone with Rachel until 10:50 pm. Man, that's what I call CONCLUSION JUMPING in the first degree. Thanks for the "hint" though.
And now finally, why don't we set some ground rules about sarcasm and personal attacks. Let's avoid the temptation and rather try always to raise our posts to a higher level of discussion. I'm game if you are. Otherwise, I can take care of myself, I assure you.
With the best of intentions,
Pat Valentino