[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 6/9/03
Time: 3:24:13 PM
Remote User:
Charlie,
This is a frustrating point with both of us. We’ve probably been through it a dozen times. I can only tell you that I know what you are talking about. I just don’t know how to say everything that’s involved in two words other than size 12. When I say that a man wore size 12 shoes it’s a convenience of language, like saying BM instead of “Bruno Magli Lorenzos or another shoe that could have left the bloody imprint of the Silga treads on Bundy.” It means he COULD HAVE worn the shoes that left the bloody Silga imprints on Bundy.
I am 6’ tall. My shoe sizes range from 11 ½ to 12 ½. My youngest son is 6’ 3”. He generally wears size 12 shoes. Some people have feet that are disproportionately larger or smaller than their bodies. A friend that I worked with at Ford who is roughly my height generally wears size 9 shoes. My studio exec at American Motors was about my son’s height but his feet were much smaller than mine.
So yes, Charlie, I know that height is only a general indication of shoe size. It tells you the probability, not the size. For the size, you have to see the man and measure his shoes.
Kato’s height was only one indicator of his shoe size (range of shoe sizes). There are others (A Problem of Evidence, page 75). I have also seen full-length pictures of Kato and his feet were in proportion to his body. Ditto with Roberts.
The key question is not how many sizes of shoes O.J. had in his closet. The question is whether he had a pair that matched the size 12 Silga imprints on Bundy. He did. Marcia compared them sole to sole, heel to toe with the Bruno Magli Lorenzo’s, which measure exactly 12” (two six inch rulers butted together next to a bloody shoeprint on Bundy). If all the shoes in O.J.’s closet were size 12 ½ or larger he would have been eliminated as a suspect. A range that INCLUDED size 12 meant that he could have worn the killer’s shoes. You can’t frame a man with shoes that he couldn’t have worn. Only one man in 10 wears size 12 shoes or larger and most people’s feet are in proportion to their height.
Using the # 10 envelope next to Fuhrman’s shoe in the pointing finger photo as a standrd of measure you can work out the size of his shoe in the photo. His feet were in proportion to his body so his shoes couldn’t have been smaller than 12 but they could have been larger. They weren’t. Measured the same way O.J.’s Reeboks and the Bruno Magli Lorenzos with the Silga treads where measured, they were size-12. –Jasper