[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Pat Valentino
Date: 7/13/04
Time: 11:51:17 PM
Remote Name: 68.108.175.33
7/13/04
Mr. Junot--
You say in your latest post that your source for "Mar Vista" for Ferrara was Marc Elliot's book. I believe that Ferrara's own statement under oath of "West LA Palms" is more accurate--I'm sure the girl knows more about where she lives than Elliot does, although both places seem to be in the general area of Culver City, so one is pretty much the same as the other.
As an aside, I don't understand why so many people put stock in Elliot's book. It just seems like another Sheila Weller-type oportunistic book to me. Yes, there is some usable information in both, but nothing monumental in my opinion.
Now let's get to some more of your statements.
The first thing you do is to again attack me for what I had originally said about the 1st Kaelin-Ferrara phone call. I had stated first and right away in my response to you that you were correct on that one point. How many times are you going to harp on this? Are you going to keep hitting me over the head? What is the matter with you? Rachel says that the 1st call came in about 10:20. She is consistant about this in both the Preliminary Hearing and the Criminal Trial. How did she know it was 10:20? We don't know because no one asked her that question in either hearing. No one asked "How did you know it was 10:20?" So how do we know that she wasn't on a portable phone, got the call while she was in a room where there was a clock, or a TV, or whatever, and walked into another room where there was no timepiece, while she was talking to Kaelin, and after about 10 minutes asked Kaelin what time it was, to which he replied "10:30". I don't know why she thought it was 10:20 and NEITHER DO YOU!!
Then you say:
"As the saying goes: "Close only counts in horseshoes". In this particular case, "close" is virtually meaningless."
Oh it is eh? Then how come you are using the same approximates and then alleging that they're accurate? For example:
"[BTW, in the whole 'universe' of the murder night, two and only two events happen simultaneousy. Park first rings the Rockingham bell at 10:40 and Kaelin reports his 'earthquake' to Ferara at 10:40. But, you say, how could Kaelin have heard Park right the bell? Because righing the bell set off all the phones in Rockingham, which Kaelin could hear]"
How do YOU know that they happen "simutaneously"?? Do you have a computerized record of that?? How can you possibly know the exact moment in time of an utterance from Kaelin's mouth?? Nothing in this case can be tied down to the second.
And then you make an absolutely incredible statemant attributed to me:
JJ: "But, you say, how could Kaelin have heard Park right (ring) the bell? Because righing (ringing) the bell set off all the phones in Rockingham, which Kaelin could hear]"
What are you talking about??!! I never said any such thing! I challenge you to do a search of my letter to Fetzer and show me where I ever used the word "BELL"!! I never did! Not in my letter or my response to your post! I take it you are confusing me with someone else you're arguing with. But while we're on it, what's your evidence that Park rang "the bell" at exactly 10:40??
And yet, you come up with the same time I do for Kaelin talking about the "noise": 10:40!? Could it be that you have to rely on the same "approximate" timeline as the rest of us?? Oh, but approximate is "worthless" isn't it? Then what absolute timeline are you using?!! I'd like to see it.
Now, Can we get on to something else?
Next you say:
"Frankly, I've never hears (heard) of Jim Fetzer and Len Osamic (Osanic). Should I have?"
The answer is:
Not necessarily. Len Osanic hosts an internet radio show called "Black-Op Radio", which deals mainly with the JFK Assassination, other political assassinations, 911, the 2000 election, and other important political issues. He interviews someone every week, and many of these people have been authors. Jim Fetzer is a regular contributor to the show, as well as an author of three books on the JFK Assassination. Fetzer is a friend of my friend David Lifton, author of "Best Evidence". On one of the shows over a year ago, Jim made some silly remarks about the Simpson case, and that resulted in my letter to him.
Then you add:
"I sure as hell destroyed that part of your letter asserting that the timing of Kaelin's alibi phone call proved something or other, by pointing out that that phone call wasn't recorded at all."
And after this impressive destruction of "that part" of my letter, you come up with the same time I do for the "noise" comment -- 10:40. The difference is: I state it as a deduction, but you state it as an absolute fact--something you cannot prove. We still basically agree on the time for the "noise" comment.
Then you get into your interpretation of what you may or may not do if you saw police standing over bodies. But you're interpretation is not the only one. I'm not going to argue this--it's all in the world of "if"--let's just agree to disagree.
Then you say:
"I doubt if Jim Fetzer...or Jow Blow from Kokomo...would find your hypothesis particularly perusuasive, either."
Since Fetzer is a person who believes that Simpson is the murderer, imagine how persuasive he would find your hypothesis that Kaelin is the killer!
And now for another of your personal attacks:
"No, Pat. It's obivous to anyone with the ocmmon sense of a concrete block that the person who made that call was either the murderer or, at the least, an accomplice to the murderer, checking to see how close the cops were on his heels. Period."
So you think you are the only one with common sense do you? Well, I'm waiting to see some indication that you have any. As for your remark about the caller being at least an accomplice to the murderer, others have stated similar ideas. Christopher Springer believes that the caller was Mrs. Mark Fuhrman. I'm not saying I agree, but merely pointing out that there are other possibilities and other opinions. Oh I almost forgot: You said "Period"! Junot The Great has spoken from the mountaintop! There will be no further commentary. That's what you think!
And I really love the arrogance of this one:
"As for my admitted sarcastic tendencies. Once you have been involved with the OJ Simpson case as long as I have, you will come to understand it. My advice to you, as a newcomer is:..."
What do you mean "Newcomer". You don't know anything about me. For your information, I'm neither a "newcomer" to this case, nor to this message board. I've been into the case since the first news reports that "OJ Simpson's ex-wife has been murdered". I then began video-taping everything on thru the entire Criminal Trial and after. This included every evidentiary hearing, the entire trial along with each days panel discussion shows. I can tell you exactly what every pundit said about any given piece of evidence or testimony. I took the liberty of checking out just how long you have been writing to this discussion board. It's seems that we are both in our 5th year. You go back and look at the year 2000, and you will see my name very near yours. Of course, it would have been better if you had done that before you made your condescending remarks to me. "As long as you!"---that's impressive!
And as to your "advice to this newcomer", you say:
"Don't stay involved in this group, or any similar group, if you want to maintain your faith in human intelligene, human nature, law enforcement, the American judicial system, or even in God."
You trash the integrity and good intentions of everyone in this group from Jasper on. Well, if this group is so far beneath your exalted level of intelligence, just what are You doing here??!!
And then you add:
"To further undrstand where I am coming from, you need to read a few days of postings on alt.fan.oj-simpson. To get there go Google.com -->groups ---> alt.fan.oj-simpson. You will find my sarcasm not only forgivable, but positively civil in comparison to what you'll read there."
I don't give one damn about whether there are some people posting more sarcastic messages than you---yours are quite bad enough!
You say:
"Now back to the rest of your leter:
you wrote:
"1. 'In truth, the thumps never happend at all' OH? How do YOU know that?.."
I know it because of the arguments and reasoning I have on my web site, In essence, there has been, and there can not be, any explanation of those thumps that does not violate natural law or human nature, or both at the same time.
You disagree with me? Fine!
TELL ME YOUR EXPLANATION. if not, shut up about it."
Don't tell me about your web-site. We're having the discussion here. Answer the question here. I repeat:
HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE WERE NO THUMPS?? WHAT'S YOUR EVIDENCE??
And also,
DON'T YOU EVER TELL ME OR ANYONE ELSE ON THIS BOARD TO SHUT-UP! JUST WHO IN THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE??
And finally, you quote me:
PV: "Oh, I see, Kaelin is calling up the police in West L.A. 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...."
JJ: "Not quite. Kelin in on the phone to west LA at 10:30, finds out the cops haven't found the bodies yet, AND THEN starts his call to Ferrara. There is simply no reliable way to determine the time of that first call. Okay?"
AGAIN NO PROOF FROM YOU! How do you know that Kaelin starts his call to Ferrara after 10:30? She testified both times that is was around 10:20, that they talked about 10 minutes, she then asked Kaelin what time it was, and he said "10:30". Are you saying that he calls her after 10:30, they talk 10 minutes, and then he tells her that it is 10:30 when it is really at least 10:40 or later? Then what about the call ending at 10:50? That would turn 10:50 into 11:00 wouldn't it? But then how does he confront Simpson and Park at near 10:52? No matter what Kaelin is telling Rachel, once he goes outside, he has to deal with the real time of the evening. He would be too late to see the other men, or maybe he would be outside just in time to see Simpson get into the car. But he was supposed to be out there longer than that. Explain it. (I won't be as rude as you and tell you "or shut-up".) No! It's not okay!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
On your post of 7/11/04:
JJ: "Mark Lane was one of the original JFK conspiracy nuts."
Well, what have we here, a SINGLE BULLIT THEORY believer?
Writing off Lane as an assassination "nut" is not accurate at all. Lane was an attorney in New York City who used to represent indigent clients, but also had a Corporate client, the income from which made it possible for him to represent the poorer people. He was one of two campaign managers for JFK's presidential run in 1960 in NYC. There are photographs which show Lane and JFK campaigning. After JFK was elected to the Presidency, he went to NYC to campaign for Lane's run for the State Legislature in which Lane did serve.
On the day of the Assassination, Lane was scheduled be in court, and on the way in, saw people standing around with portable radios. He was told that the President had been shot. When he arrived in the courtroom, the Judge informed him that the trial would go on anyway. During the time he was in trial, he was unaware of any of the subsequent events such as the capture of Lee Harvey Oswald. At the end of the day, Lane was walking down the steps of the NYC courthouse when an old "Prosecution Judge" said to him "Do you think he could have done it alone?" Lane said "I beg your pardon sir, who?" The Judge said "Oswald! They said there was a wound in the front of the throat. How could he shoot him from the front from the back?" Lane said "Well, I don't know anything about it." The Judge responded "Well, I'd like to hear the answer to that one. I'm going to be watching that trial very closely!" Lane used to say in his lectures that we "still had no answer to the Judge's question."
After Jack Ruby shot Oswald in the Police station garage, Lane wrote a 25,000 word article which stated only that the circumstances of LHO's death were very suspicious, and that there should be a full and complete investigation. (The article did not state that LHO was innocent, but just that we didn't know at this point.) He was turned down for publication by every name magazine and newspaper in N.Y. Then the "National Guardian" called him and said "we hear you have an article. We'd like to take a look at it." Lane said "Ok, but you don't have permission to publish it, but I'll let you look at it." The NG called back and said that they wanted to publish it. And Lane said no. "I know the NG, it's a far left publication, and I want this to receive much wider distribution." (Even though Lane was a "left-liberal", the NG was much further to the "left".) After Lane was unsuccessful, he told the NG that they could publish.
At that point, someone gave the article to Mrs. Marguarite Oswald--LHO's mother. She called Lane and asked him to represent her son's interests before the Warren Commission. He at first said he didn't have the time, but she turned his own words from the article against him and he said "Ok, Ok! I'll do it." The WC refused to let him attend hearings and question witnesses however, but he requested and was granted a public hearing. The WC decided not to follow any of Lane's now large number of leads however, but he formed the Citizen's Commission of Inquiry. The research resulted in the blockbuster book "Rush To Judgement". There followed a film version showing the witnesses and detailing the tremendous discrepencies between what the WC said the witnesses saw and heard , and what they really said they saw and heard. The film also shows many witnesses the WC refused to talk to. The film was produced by Emile de Antonio who had produced the award winning Army-McCarthy documentary "Point Of Order". All of this produced the tremendous movement for the truth about the assassination. In those days, Lane took on all comers from attorney Louis Nizer to WC council Wesley J. Liebler in formal debate. The bottom line is that 85% of the American People believe that there was a conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy. My only criticism of Lane is that he later seemed to become somewhat of an opportunist. I once said to Mort Sahl, "I think Lane's problem was that he became a "star". Mort, who had been a friend of Lane's, agreed. Time has proven that those who started this movement in the 60's, were for the most part, men of daring and integrity.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
And now for the final attack on me:
"..Thank you, Pat, for putting up the letter. It’s a great reference. –Jasper"
JJ: "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."
What do you mean half? To hear you talk, a person who hadn't read my letter would think that I only wrote about 2 subjects. One, the Kaelin call to Rachel, and Two, the call to the West LA Police. This is a blatant distortion against me. Let's put the whole thing into context.
First, my letter printed out at 14 pages in 12 point type. There is space for 58 lines on each page. That makes a total of 812 lines of type.
The subject of the Kaelin call to Rachel consisted of:
One 8-line paragraph;
Two small sentences numbered 1 and 2;
and finally, One 4-line paragraph for a total of: 14 lines.
Second, The subject of the West LA call consisted of:
One 9-line paragraph, for a combined total of: 23 lines.
23 LINES OF TYPE. And that's it!
23 Lines is less than one-half page.
That's a percentage of 2.8% for both subjects combined. Divide this by 2 for each one of the 2 subjects, and you get 1.4%! I always thought that "half" was 50%! My, you do exaggerate don't you son?!
What about the other 13 and 1/2 pages?
How about all the other subjects I covered? (Readers see my letter to Jim Fetzer) You have only won the first point of the 2 you brought up, the second of which is a matter of opinion. And I'll have you know that I have discussed my West LA call ideas with many people, and nobody thought they were weird except you. As I said before, I'm just raising the questions. You have not successfully challenged, or even brought up, any of the dozens of other points I made.
Oh, we don't want to talk about those do we?
In closing, it is unfortunate that you chose not to except my suggestion about no more personal attacks. Therefore, after reading these last posts which you have written to me and Jasper, I must conclude that you are merely a Mean, Nasty, Rude, piece of work, who has no respect for anyone but yourself. And in one of the few times I will disagree with Jasper, it is not enough to say that "it's just his way". You can say that about all unpleasant people: "It's just the way they are". That doesn't get you off the hook!
Oh, Just one more thing sir.
What was Kaelin's motive??
Game, Set, Match, I believe.
PV