[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 7/12/04
Time: 11:51:22 PM
Remote Name: 69.212.38.85
John,
Your post speaks for itself. My Marc Lane (instead of Elliot) error and my Racal typo were mistakes – but they were mistakes that I think everyone could see for what they were. If I had written “move” when I was clearly talking about a movie of fiend when I was clearly talking about a friend I don’t think anyone but you would have attributed stupidity or “Freudian” motives to those errors, either. Maybe there is something to your observations. If I had thought of making those errors on purpose I might have done it just to get you to do what you did (you do it every time). When you do things like that you help to make my case (any mistake that doesn’t say Kato did it, you will find).
I did not mean to imply that you were a fan of Mark Fuhrman. I apologize for leaving that impression. I was only trying to say that Mark Fuhrman is my killer and Kato Kaelin is yours. Wherever there is a conflict between Kato’s stories and Fuhrman’s, you invariably come down on the side of Fuhrman.
You called Fuhrman’s question to Kato about anything unusual happening “routine,” although this was not the murder scene and the only thing connecting the murders to the estate was evidence Fuhrman found outside of Kato’s view. You called Fuhrman’s failure to ask Rosa Lopez the same “routine” question (Rosa was in a position to see the Bronco pull up) a product of the poor detective’s fatigue. Fuhrman and Kato were the only witnesses to what happened when Kato told Fuhrman about the thumps. You pulled out what ever information you could get (from Marc Elliot and Mark Fuhrman) to argue that Kato set Fuhrman up to look for the glove where Kato planted it. You said that Kato’s statement that he did not open the second gate on the south pathway and Fuhrman’s statement that it was open proved that Kato lied.
Where Fuhrman has to be smart to make Kato look guilty, he’s smart. Where he has to be “a blockhead” to make Kato look guilty he’s a blockhead.
I got the nosebleed bullshit from you. You were putting up a big argument against the blood drops on Bundy being located on the left of the shoe prints. You argued that they were in the middle of the shoeprints. You said that it proved O.J. didn’t leave them because his cut was on his left hand. Your explanation for them being in the middle was Kato’s nosebleed. You said that the tested positive for O.J.’s DNA because they were degraded and cross-contaminated with O.J.’s blood… Is any of this coming back to you? Do you recall blasting me for not giving your explanation for O.J.’s blood on the steering wheel? Do you recall your explanation? I do.
How can you believe you are the only person to develop a Kato-did-it scenario? I did, too. I told you so many times over the past four of five years. I came to the same conclusions you did based on much of the evidence you used. My pet theory at the time was that the killer drove the Bronco. Kato was my only suspect with a key. I believed that the killer used O.J.’s shoes and Kato had access to them. I believed that one man could have done it all and a conspiracy was absurd. But, unlike you, when I get a theory I like, I try to destroy it – not add more evidence to support it.
I had an O.J. theory I liked (the police framed a guilty man) but that was easy to destroy. My Kato-did-it theory was even easier to destroy. The only one I couldn’t knock down was my ridiculous Fuhrman-did-it theory. It was too complicated. It involved too many people. It defied commons sense in too many areas. There were too many unknowns that had to fit into too many unlikely parameters. But the more I tried to pull out one thing that would blow the theory away, the stronger it got.
I won't comment on your last comments about the maid's wall. You obviously haven't thought it through (hint: I am not stupid) –Jasper
P.S. What worked? I hope something Lollie or I told you did the trick.