[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Junot
Date: 7/16/04
Time: 4:15:36 AM
Remote Name: 205.188.116.145
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."
The imprtant thing is that the phone call was alocal call and so unrecorded.
"As an aside, I don't understand why so many people put stock in Elliot's book."
As far as I know, I'm the only one that makes extensive use of it.
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!!"
That is a truly excellent point and perceptive observation. That question HAS occurred to me, though you are the very first person to bring it up.
My answer is: You're right. We don't know, and can't ever know. We are simply stuck with the questions the lawyers did ask and the answers she gave. That said, let me turn your point back on you: we don't know what we cdon't know, and tyour suggestion of what mighthave happened is also without foundation.
In rebuttal, let m urge you to go read Ferrarra's testimony again, this time paying close attention to the way she handled questions about time. She was, to say the least, extremely 'squishy' about time issues. you may notice that lawyers actually got her to move some of her times round without her seeming to noitice that they had.
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]"
There was ONE highly reliable and exact mechanical time source that nihgt -- Park's cell phone records. Park testified that he first rang the Ashford gate bell about the time he made his first cell phone call, which was 10:40.
"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."
Except for Park's cell phone record.
"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 din't mean to imply you did. The phrasing was as an anticipation of the lext logical question you or any reader should ask. [snip]
"Then you get into your interpretation of what you may or may not do if you saw police standing over bodies...."
Or any believable person.
"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!"
Depends on how open minded he is about the true evidence, as opposed to the common public perception of what the evidence is. Fetzer has apparently fallen for the publicly perceived evidence.
"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?.."
Reread the paragraph. I didn't say that.
"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..."
You've just pointed out people who have other ideas of who the murderer was, but they seem to agree that the source of the 10:30 call to the West LA police station was by the murderer or an accomplice!
"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!"
Lack of common sense has never stopped anyone from doing anything. [snip]
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."
I STAND BY THAT STATEMENT.
"You trash the integrity and good intentions of everyone in this group from Jasper on..."
Very rarely do I question a person's intentions. Intelluctual integrity is another matter.
"Well, if this group is so far beneath your exalted level of intelligence, just what are You doing here??!!"
Remember the joke about the gambler who was told that the poker game he went to every week was crooked? "Yeah, but it's the only game in town," he replied. [snip] "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."
why bother? My web site is linked to this one. It's a hell of a lot easier for you to go read my web site than it is to basically copy or retype everythign on it here. If you're not going to read it there, why would you read it here?
"I repeat:
"HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE WERE NO THUMPS?? WHAT'S YOUR EVIDENCE??"
There is a famous quote from sherlock Holmes: "When you eliminate the impossible, then what's left, no matter how unlikely, is the answer.
I hjave consistently and repeatedly argued that it was not physically possible for the thumps to have occurred as Kaelin testified to them, and therfore Kaelin must have made them up.
Now, the proper rebuttal for my argument should be simple -- come up with an explanation that fits the facts. I will not respond to any other answer.
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??
John Arthur Junot. Put up or shut up. That's not the same thing as "shut up".
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!
And none from you as to your assertion that Kaelin was on the phone to Ferrarra at ten twenty.
"How do you know that Kaelin starts his call to Ferrara after 10:30?"
Because he made the phone call to the back number at the West LA station at 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?"
No. Just that Ferrarra had no timepiece avaialble an no sense of duration and Kaelin manipulated the time.
"Then what about the call ending at 10:50? That would turn 10:50 into 11:00 wouldn't it?..."
No. Kaelin was manipulating the time. Ferrarra thought it was ten minutes, when it was, say, only five.
"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...."
As recorded by Park's cell phone records.
"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...."
First, consider that Kaelin had seen OJ's leaving routine several times while at Rockingham. he knew the routine and likely had timed it. What he didn't anticipate was that Dale St. John would send a new driver who was unfamiliar with OJ's routine. When Kaelin went out, what he expected to see was that OJ was already gone or at least packin g up the limo. Instead he was faced with the puzzling situation of the limo still being outside the gate. This is why he went down to the south path. He realized that if OJ had, for some reason, gone to the south path, or even the garage, then his scheme could have been blown to hell.
"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!
[snip. I don't give a damn about the Kennedy assassinations]
"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..."
Hell, what makes you think I respect myself?
"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?? "
That's on my web site. However, since I am the ONLY one who has a solution for the crime that is NOT a conspiracy theory, strictly speaking, I don't even have to supply a motive.
However, cnsider that OJ recently said that in the last month before the murder, Nicole treated Kaelin like her worst enemy. if that isn't motive enough, I'd like to know what is?
Game, Set, Match, I believe.
You're obviously going to believe whatever you want re