[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Junot
Date: 6/13/03
Time: 7:13:06 PM
Remote User:
Jasper wrote:
"John,
"...[I moved this paragraph from the very end to the very beginning because it refers to information I consider more impratnt than any in the rest of his posting}..Now I knew that O.J. was innocent, so was Kato (becuase the Bronco hadn't moved)..."
Damn it, Jasper, that statement is total bullshit, second only to your recent statment that there was no evidence for several people having been in OJ's house when one of those in question was his sister-in-law and the other a houseguest that OJ himself testified to inviting into his house several times.
Kaelin was careful to park the Bronco as close as possible to the spot he took it from, and probably within a foot or so. it is really easy to do this; I do it with my own car all the time. It was and is, therefore, impossible to tell whether or not, as you say, the Bronco was not moved, or that it WAS moved and then replaced where it was left. What in the world do you think Kaelin would have done? Park it 30 more feet up the street so that OJ could tell it had been moved?
"...and my Fuhrman-did-it theory was no longer a theory so I had to document my process of getting there. I did it by leaving all of the e-mails in the book..."
You should have put them in an eppendix if you thought your really really needed to see them.
"...Those who were willing to accept the fact that I didn’t propose a theory then cherry pick my way backward to the evidence that supported it could go straight to my conclusions..."
Unforturnately, JG, the evidence of your own writing and work product show that you not only DID do exactly that, but that you have done it while consistently believing you have NOT been doing it. That is, if you have not exactly "cherry picked" evidence, you have consistently distorted or misrepresented lots of it. Besides, it is simply bad writing practice to expect or require your readers to do your work for you. if you want to tell them something, tell them. At the very least, you shuold have had a section clearly labeled 'conclusions' so that your readers could go directly to it.
"...For those who are unwilling to accept anything that doesn’t agree with their conclusions, what can you do? --Jasper"
Gee, do I ever know that feeling. But the least you can do is make your conclusions easy to find.
[real start of post]
"Lets put things into perspective…. I have studied thousands of pages of text, hundreds of diagrams and photos, hundreds of hours of tapes and done hundreds of calculations to dig out information that wasn’t readily available...."
So did I, but you are arguing an appeal to authority. You are also asking readers to simply take your word for it. You are, furthermore, seeming to be both bragging and whining at the same time: "You should believe me because I worked my fingers to the bone..." Well, la-te-da, poor baby.
"...Do you honestly think its reasonable for me to go back to the time, day and location of everything YOU think is important NOW when you demand it?..."
I expect you do do exaclty what I did on my web page : Have your documentation and sources easily available. I have copied or linked to parts of transcripts and other sites on the Net. When I quote books, I provide the title, author, and page number of the citation, and all of the books I use are available in major city libary systems.
"...Look at what you did when I retraced my source of the stride analysis...."
Yes, let's look at that. I went back to your citation and did a copy/paste to this site so that it would be convenient for everyone. I also examined it to see if it did, or even could, provide the information you say it did. I say it couldn't and doesn't, but our readers do not have to merely trust me about it; I've made it easy to check for themselves.
"...You went directly to the source I gave you. I didn’t have the pictures to go with it so it wasn’t enough -- didn’t count. -- demonstrated that I didn’t do all of MY homework...."
Well, duh. Wouldn't your 'homework' include copying and posting, or at least preserving, the pictures you used so that others could check your work? Oh, yeah, that's right, you worked your poor self to death, which means we are required to just take your word for such things.
"...The pictures are no longer in circulation although they were available then to anyone who cared to study them...."
In truth, I remember seeing a picture of a footprint with a chalk outline, but I can't remember where or when.
"...The only reason it comes up now is because you missed it then and it doesn’t fit your theory...."
Actually, it fits my theory quite well. I've been trying to emphasis to you that the ture foot size of the killer is irrelevant.
"...When I saw it I didn’t have a theory..."
Why, then, idd you even bother to make a mental note of it and do calculations at all?
"..Documenting what I did in the O.J. case in 94 and 95 was not my job. It wasn’t even my top interest. A class action race and age discrimination lawsuit against Ford took up much of my spare time. Again and again I saw Ford a representative in the media handing a grinning black leader a check for a worthy “black” cause. Nobody outside of Ford knew what was happening because Ford was sponsoring all of the network news shows (more grinning black faces) and a court order barred the plaintiffs from going public.
Between 1994 and 1996 I was working hard on publishing and promoting my first book and writing the last two books in my Random Factor science fiction trilogy..."
I hope you were getting paid by the word; you'd end up rich as Bill GAtes.
...My interest in the O.J. case had mostly to do with the fact that it exemplified the major theme of image assassination running through all of my books and the fact that O.J. was beginning to look more and more like a major character in my trilogy.
"When I started Messiah, I ran into a logic problem that required me to know beyond any doubt whether O.J. was the killer..."
It would be interesting, but is not vital, to know what that 'logic problem' was.
"..Until then, news reports that didn’t match the tapes I made of the trial were enough. They were a great way to make people believe he did it, whether he did it or not. It was the same stunt that Ford was pulling with the lawsuit.
"I joined the Court TV discussion group, found the transcripts and started to do serious research and calculations of my own. The thought of writing a book about the case didn’t occur to me until the spring of 1997. The idea then was simply to document the national discussion that was going on at the time with dated e-mail correspondence...."
Why bother? Don't you realize all that crap is stored in the newsgroup archives?
"...But when I was about to wrap it up at the end of chapter 27 and pair it down by a hundred pages or so, I discovered that the blood drops straddling the Rockingham gate were coming out instead of going in and everything changed. I did more calculations and found that the Bronco hadn’t moved...."
You did not have the ability to make calculations that could come to that conclusion. The Bronco WAS moved adn then replaced at its starting position and, once th engine had cooled, there was simply no way to tell if it had been moved. since NO pictures of the parked Bronco were taken before the next morning, you did not have a starting position to calculate from. OJ certainly couldn't tell it had been moved, or not. How could you?
"...I learned Fuhrman’s heigh and figured out his shoe size..."
None of which has any bearing on the central question: could someone besides him made the shoeprints? You certainly did not have the raw data or techniques with the 'resolving power' required to determine that the killer HAD to be 6'3", but could not have been 5'10". That's like telling people you can see the Apollo footprints on the moon with a telescope in your back yard.