[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 7/13/04
Time: 8:04:57 PM
Remote Name: 69.212.231.253
John,
I think this post I found while looking for you “nosebleed” explanation of the blood drops proves you were right about your interpretation of O.J.’s cut finger. Unfortunately the server I had back then at up our earliest discussions about the origin of the blood drops (several months of discussions in ’99 and 2000 erased) so I couldn’t go any further with that. I also hope you note in your post an example of what I mean I say you paint Fuhrman as being smart when it helps to make your case. The subtle edits you noted in Fuhrman’s diagram could not have been made by a dummy. --------------
Re: Fuhrman's Diagram
From: junot Date: 9/9/00 Time: 4:37:47 PM Comments You need to see the Bodziak diagram, available on Dick Wagner's site, from which MF's diagram is taken.
Actually, MF's book diagram shows the front door in the wrong position.
More importantly, MF only shows the RIGHT footprints in the VBodziam diagram.
Now, why would he do this? Because if he had reproduced the whole Bodziak diagram, he and his readers would see that the blood drops in the diagram were IN BETWEEN the footprints, and so much of the case against OJ was derived from the idea that those drops were TO THE LEFT of the foot prints -- WHICH THEY WERE NOT -- and that OJ was found to have cuts on his LEFT hand. (Actually, if OJ had been found with cuts on his RIGHT hand, the cops would have said the blood drops were to the RIGHT of the prints. If OJ had had no visible cuts anywhere, God knows what they would have said, but you can be sure they would have said something.) ---------------------
Here is a typical example of how I sometimes put in the wrong name (lie Lane when I meant Elliot) but the context tells you who I was talking about. Your response is what I ALWAYS get when I make a mistake like that. It’s not the best example because it’s funny and it clearly wasn’t meant to imply that I didn’t know what I was taking about. But I used it anyway because it goes back so far – and because it cracked me up.
Re: Salon.com Rampart Expose'
From: junot Date: 1/2/01 Time: 10:33:06 PM Comments
Jasper:
I think you also meant to day "Daryl Gates" instead of "Bill Gates". Daryl only wishes he was bill. --------------------
The answer to Shipp taking the Salinger rout to Kato’s bungalow instead of the south path rout is because O.J.’s blood was on the driveway and the maid wasn’t home. He couldn’t risk stepping in the blood drops because they were very difficult to see and berry stains near the first gate looked as though they could be blood drops. From my diagram of the surveillance car and the time O.J. left the blood drops Shipp would not have been able to tell where O.J. cut himself or where more of his blood drops on the driveway or near the garage might be. If he was monitoring O.J.’s calls, as I said his role called for, he would have known Gigi would not be home. That’s why he had to go with Kato. He WAS home.
The Salinger’s driveway gave Ship a straight shot to Kato’s room. He would not have had to open three gates, risk stepping in blood or leaving behind trace evidence from his passage through a narrow pathway. The APPARENT difficulty of banging on the wall from the other side of the fence would therefore focus attention on the pathway. Fuhrman taking that rout to the glove and bringing other detectives along the same route would leave the impression that O.J. took that rout and make it impossible for O.J. to prove that he didn’t. –Jasper