[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Junot --Jasper, It worked!
Date: 7/11/04
Time: 11:51:22 PM
Remote Name: 64.12.116.141
Jasper wrote:
"Pat,
"Don’t let John’s manner offend you. That’s just his way. He is convinced that Kato committed the murders and you can be certain that anything he finds to support that conclusion he will take as the absolute truth."
Everything is on my web site. I haven't added anything since I finished it.
"Please don’t get into that silliness about separating fact from opinion. We don’t have to preface all of our opinions with “In my opinion” to tell our readers that it is an opinion. We can see that for ourselves in the context. Whenever we state something as a fact, everyone here can see that, too. If we make a mistake we WANT someone to catch it. And believe me, if we make a factual error that doesn’t implicate Kato or exonerate Fuhrman, our friend John will catch it."..
I like to think I would catch and criticized a factual error whether it supported my position or not. There is also a slight implication, perhaps unmeant, that I am biased in favor of Fuhrman. Just because I believe -- am sure -- he did not plant any evidence leading up to the arrest of OJ (the blood on the back gate of 7/3/94 and the blood on the socks was planted by someone connected tothe LAPD) doesn't mean I like hte guy. Among other things, I consider him a blockhead of a "detective" for not instantly making the connection between Kaelin's thumps story and finding the glove. That is, insetad of going to back to kaelin and asking "why did you want me to find the glove? How did you know it was there?". In fact, I said as much to him -- in not exactly those words -- in an email to his radio station. he replied about two weeks later with "You are an idiot." I elied"why do you say that?" He has not responded.
"I have learned to rely on it. You can, too."
But self checking would be better! did you really wnt to go public in a big way with your letter to Fetzer with that big a goof in it?
"If you haven’t gone to John’s website and STUDIED his case against Kato I urge you to do so...."
Unfortunately, Jasper, you seem to have not followed your own advice, for you mistate my case later on in this message. More later.
"John is a smart guy with better than average analytical skills. I have put up his site as a permanent link because he makes the best case against Kato that I have ever run across...."
Personal note: I am th ONLY one who has ever suspected or accused Kaelin.
"...IN MY OPINION, he also makes the best case against his own case with the quality of “proof” he offers to support his clams.
"For instance, while you and I recognize the possibility that Kato invented the thumps (no way could they have been made by someone jumping over the fence or crashing into the wall or the air conditioner) John sees this as the ONLY possible explanation...."
If you recognize the possibility that Kaelin inmvented the thumps, then you recognize the possibility that Kaelin is the true murderer. Gee whiz, that means I've got yu half way there!
As I reasserted to Pat in a rect reply to him. My explanation for the thumps IS the only explanation. If you hve another one, then offer it up for scrutiny and critism. OH, heay, Shipp with the golf club. I'll get to that at the very end of this post.
"The obviousness of the planted Rockingham glove proves that Fuhrman didn’t plant it – because he was too smart to plant it that way...."
That's not precisely what I say. What I say is, Fuhrman is an expert of what true evidence looks like at a true crime scene, and if he wanted to plant -- or 'counterfeit' - evidence, he would know how to make it look real.
Yy was, in essence, that Fuhrman resorted to a kind of reverse psychology and left the planted rockingham glove in an anomolous condition so that, I guess, John Junot would, years later, conclude that he ddidn't plant it and so exonerate him.
Or, to put it antoher way: if the glove had NOT looked planted, you would have considered this as evidence that Fuhrman planted it. But since it DID look palnted, this is evidence that Fuhrman planted it.
Huh?
"John cites Kato’s ability to imitate a woman’s voice as proof that he did it in HIS 10:30 call to police..."
Actually "evidence" is a better word than "proof" in that sentence. My real point is, that call MUST be explained in order to solve the crime, and I, so far, am the only one to give a reaonable and believable explanation for it.
"The blood drops on Bundy had to be Kato’s blood – from a nosebleed...."
THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY FALSE STATMENT OF WHAT I SAY. The blood at Bundy with OJ's DNA in it originated in the body of OJ Simpson. Period. I have never once challenged theaccuracy of that DNA indentification.
But what no-Js ignore about this blood is that (1) it was dropped from a stationary source, (2) from two feet or less above the walk, (3) contained less than 1% of the DNA that should have been found in those drops, and (4) DID NOT LINE UP WITH THE FOOTPRINTS.
Now, the accurate thory of the crime must explain ALL those characteristics of the Bundy blood drops, not merely and on.y OJ's DNA.
I have consistently said that Kaelin created those drops by getting something OJ had bled into from the Rockingham garbage, diluting the clot and dripping the resulting mixture ("pseudoblood") onto the Bundy walkway, and I suggest he did this on the afternoon befoe the murder when he knew, from having talkedto OJ that morning, that no one wuld be home at that time.
WHERE THE HELL DID YOU GET THIS "KAO'S NOSEBLOOD" BULLSHIT, jASPER?
" Kato must have committed the murders at 10:10.."
Actually, I suggest closer to 10:15. On this I follow Wagner's research, and then allow a little extra time for Goldman to get to Bundy.
"..and used his call to Rachel to set up a false timeline..."
Precisely.
"The 10:17-10:28 call from Juditha to Nicole didn’t happen because it’s not on Juditha’s phone record...."
Precisely.
"The defense stipulation – because it wasn’t on the phone record – was an oversight..."
Precisely.
"John concludes that Kato must have LIED about not driving O.J.’s Bronco because O.J. gave him permission to drive it and he testified at another time that he moved it (a few feet) to clear a driveway or some such thing...."
To be exact, Kaelin testified to having moved it during the Gretna Green incident of October, 1993 (the source of the infamous 911 tape). There are other reasons to believe Kaelin drove the Bronco extensively, recounted on my web site.
This is actually one point very easy to settle. One need only contact OJ, Sydney, Justin, Arnelle, Michelle or Gigi and ASK them how often Kaelin drovethe Bronco.
"I told John that I saw no inconsistence in that statement because of all the cars I moved around the studio at Ford and a few times I moved cars less than a block for friends or family. If someone had asked me if I had DRIVEN those cars I would have said no. John didn’t believe me."
Actually, I do believe you. And if the Gretna Green incident was the one and only reason for saying that Kaelin drove the Bronco, I would agree with you. But there are other reaons, primarily the statemnt from OJ himself when asked who might have driven the Bronco in his absence, and he says :"Maybe Kato."
"He calls my stated expertise in scale and proportion to support my conclusion that the Bronco didn’t move an irrational appeal to authority. He actually wrote that he knows more about it than I do."
No, I didn't. Or at least I didn't mean to give you that impression. Let me restate:
You say from your professional analysis of the photos of the Bronco taken the next day 'in situ', that it couldn't have been pulled into the parking space from being driven up the street. And, frankly, I can take your word on that point.
But you state something more emphatic: that, based on the way it was parked, it couldn't have been moved the night before at all! While I can believe the its parking position shows that it must have been parked by having been pulled out of the driveway in a tight right turn, I simply can not accept your asertion that someone else may hve taken it from that parking space and then put it back exactly in that space by dring it into the driveway and pulling it out and to the right again! What's moe, you NEVER WILL get me to agree to that. If you could get two other colleagues of you expertise to look at your work and agree with you, then I just might begin to believe it.
"John said that Kato must have lied about “never” checking the time because he told Rachel the time when she asked (to give himself an alibi). If you look at the context in which he said the “never” looked at the time, you will see that he was talking about the interval between telling Racial..."
Freudian slip, Jasper?
"...that he was going to check on the thumps and the time he got back. Surely he looked at his watch or a clock sometime in his life...
But, not that evening according to his testimony. Since there is a link to the transcripts on this web site, I'll just refer readers to Kaelin's civil trial testimony of November 12, 1996, and let them read it for themselves.
By the way, this is where turnabout if fair play...That is, If one o your grips with m is that I seem to alwas side with Fuhrman, then why is it you are always taking the side of Kaelin?
"One more thing… John has no problem using Marc Lane as a reference..."
WRONG!! Get your names straight, Jasper. I use the book writen by Marc ELLIOTT as one of my key sources. Mark Lane was one of the original JFK conspiracy nuts.
"... for what Kato said and did...."
Eliott's surce was 17 hours of tape recorded interviews with Kaelin himself.
"...He has no problem using discrepancies between Kato’s testimony about the second pathway gate and Fuhrman’s. Indeed, Fuhrman’s testimony proves Kato lied...."
I bleive what I said is that I did not find any significant discrepancy betwen the two vis a vis the two gates. At least that's what IO meant to say.
"..Thank you, Pat, for putting up the letter. It’s a great reference. –Jasper"
Too bad one half of it is a big factual error, and the othr half is rooted in the weird idea that someone would see people in police uniforms moving about dead bodies and percieve someing "suspicious: or "sinister" in it.
P.S. ow for Ron Shipp and his golf club and the thumps again.
As I recall the sequence: First, you say shipp's original plan was to thumps the wall of the maids room in the rear of the guest house, but that plan was shifted "on the fly" when a wiretap revealed that the maid would not be home that night, so shipp thumped kaelin's wall instead.
Then I pointed out that the maid at the time wasn't staying in the rear room, but in an internal room in the main house. After much go around and looking at the record, you agreed with me, but stuck with the idea that Shipes original plan was to thump the maids wall.
I then pointed out that, where the maids room was at the time, it was not accessible from the Salinger side of the fence at all! And added that, if that was shipp's ariginal plan, it would have meant gong down the south path instead of the Salinger side. And, if that was the case, why wuld Ship have changed and gone over the Salinger fence in order to thump kaelin's wall?
I believe that at that moment there was some glitch or toehr with your computer, and the thread got dropped.
Comments please.