[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Junot
Date: 6/5/03
Time: 5:32:27 PM
Remote User:
Jasper wrote:
"John,
"I cannot give a satisfactory answer to your challenge because I don’t accept the premise. I do not believe in “proving” theories...."
Then why in the hell are you writing books for other people to read containing your own theories?
"... I’m not being a smart-ass here, but I predict that no matter what I say, if it doesn’t tell you, “Kato did it,” you will find it irrelevant, silly, coincidental, inconclusive or wrong...."
Only if it IS 'irrelevant, silly, conicidental, inconclusive or wrong', my friend.
Besides, no mater what I may think of it, what about others?
"You also have me at a colossal disadvantage in terms of the speed with you processes complex information, respond to it and forget it.
One day I spent 12 hours hunting down reference and cross-references for details about evidence and testimony that you accused me of making up to prove my theory and to fraudulently discredit yours. About ten minutes after I posted it, I went back to the board and saw a reply from you. It was a point-by-point rebuttal of everything I said, everything you thought I said and every motive you attributed to me for saying it, whether I said it or not. I couldn’t type as fast as you replied. I’ve been working on this message for about five hours so far…..."
five hours to type two paragraphs?
"...The evidence you cited that would cause you to abandon your theory of Kato’s guilt only shows why I abandoned him as a suspect. There was too much supposition and too few facts to support it. Your “pseudoblood theory,” for instance, is a fact (no threat of having it disproved)..."
My 'pseudoblood theory' is NOT a 'fact', and I have never presented it as such. I have never done more than claim it as a reasonable and believable hypothesis of how Kaelin could have planted OJ's DNA on the crime scene. MOREOVER AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, my didea is subject to research and proving (of disproof) by modern forensic techniques. So there is, at the very least, a 'threat of disproof'.
"...The crucial question is whether the fact that O.J.’s blood drops could have been planted on Bundy meant that they WERE planted that way (shades of The Great Randy – no EDTA test to nail it down)..."
BTW, it's "Randi".
Actually, you have indirectly brought up a subtle point: another question to ask about the blood drops is, is there any possible way they could have been dropped directly from OJ's body and still have them (a) dropped from a stationary position, (b) from less than two feet above the walk, and (c) end up containing less tan 1% of the DNA one would expect to find in blood drops of that type. This question was actually never answered by any expert at either of the trials.
Also, about the EDTA. There IS such a test for EDTA. it was developed by five highly regarded forensic scientists (including one or two involved in the OJ case)who discovered the the blood found on the back gate and on the socks WAS UNDOUBTEDLY planted, because the only way that blood could have scored so high in EDTA was if the blood had been mixed with EDTA. this test and its finding did not exist at the time of either trial.
"..It brings up a host of questions about Kato and O.J.’s cut finger (he didn’t see it). Moreover, it certainly wasn’t necessary IF the killer had access to the lab. His only task then would be to plant the incriminating IDEA..."
If you want to say the plice planted the five drops, then, among other things, you should explain why they made such obvious goofs in their planting, i.e., not holding the source of the drips at hand height, not moving it so that it would leave tailings, and not making sure that they were off to the side of the shoeprints.
"...I can’t comment on the Bronco more than I have because you have all the evidence you need to abandon the idea that anyone drove it to and from Bundy on the night of the murders..."
I ned to get clear on this: are you saying the Bronco was NOT used in the murders?
"..You can make a better case for the Nissan...."
What Nissan? Kaelin's? If the murders were a police plot and frameup, why use Kaelin's personal car? Were they planning to frame Kaelin?
"..It’s like a war movie where the enemy opens fire on a squad of GIs and the sergeant hollers to his men, “Hit the dirt!” When you have that kind of evidence nobody should have to tell you what do about it..."
I simply do not understand what you mean by this paragraph.
"..If you want the truth you have to use theories ONLY long enough to disprove them..."
Until you find one you can't disprove, then you stick with it.
"...You ask a question (If O.J. didn’t….?) or make an assumption (If Kato did…). Then you plot the corollaries for EVIDENCE THAT YOU DON’T HAVE YET but evidenced that must exist if your theory is correct (Heidstra’s real ally rout, the Bundy curve, Fuhrman’s partner, Fuhrman’s alibi, his SUV, where he lived, etc.): IF x is true y is possible, z is impossible and e must exist somewhere between c and f. You may not recognize this but it’s YOUR analytical framework for concluding that Fuhrman’s story of O.J. dropping the glove and sneaking into the front of his house was so dumb. I use it all the time..."
My point abut the dumbness of Fuhrman's 'theory' is that he has 'OJ' going into the main house and then leaving it again, when he was supposedly trying like hell to not be seen by the limo driver. It's dumb for toher reasons as well, but this one point makes it ipso facto false.
"...Imagine a scenario in which your theory calls for a redheaded dwarf with a yellow necktie to walk in a bar and hand a left-handed Lithuanian bartender name Joe a 500-dollar bill. If all of those things happen when you have had no prior KNOWLEDGE of them, only contextual voids that require these particular elements to fill, you no longer have a theory that you can discard..."
I simply do not understand that last sentence.
"You have a fact. I did it with Iago. I did it with the Smoking Gun and the Smoking Gun 2. I do it on the boards every week. –Jasper"
Jasper:
One last point, as Columbo used to say:
You did not deal with my most important question: WHAT NEW EVIDENCE WOULD CAUSE YOU TO ABANDON YOUR THEORY?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last changed: June 05, 2003