[ Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 6/19/03
Time: 5:22:39 PM
Remote User:
John,
Neither O.J. nor Kato had the technical background to understand the significance of PRECISELY where and how the Bronco was parked. Without that technical background getting the Bronco within a foot of where O.J. said he pared it would have seemed close enough (as you indicated in your unschooled analysis of what Kato did to simulate what O.J. did). At the time (the night of June 12, 1994) O.J. hadn’t said anything about when, where or how he parked the Bronco.
In the interview that Lange and Vannatter had with O.J. on the 13th, either Lange or Vannatter (I don’t remember which) said that the Bronco was parked at a “funny angle.” O.J. was clearly caught off guard by this statement and said that he wouldn’t call it a funny angle. That’s when he mentioned the sharp turn he had to make.
The sharp turn is what produces the 2-degree angle that far up the street. Had the Bronco been farther forward the angle would have been less. If the Bronco had been parked farther back all bets would have been off, because the only way he could have parked it there would have been to back up and drive forward again.
At every turn you challenged my ability to determine the spot where the Bronco had to have been parked if O.J. had made the turn he said he made. You said that it couldn’t be done with the tools and information I had to work with. I gave you the chalk-mark test to see for yourself. Then you said that it was an invalid test because there was nothing analogous to the chalk marks in the photos of the Bronco, the curb and the driveway. I showed you that there was. Now you introduce pints 1 and 2, which violate Occam’s razor, and you say that the benchmarks I used for my mechanical drawing are inadequate because the photos were too fuzzy to make an accurate assessment. Not true.
Plenty of photos were sharp enough to get the critical dimensions required to within less than one inch. The rest is a matter of scale and proportion. Note the police photo of the driveway showing Fung’s blood drop markers (photo section of Evidence Dismissed). On each side of the driveway there are uniform rows of bricks and a line of these bricks running from post to post on the gate. The driveway and the Bronco are cropped out of this photo but other photos show the driveway. You can now proportion the bricks on the north side of the driveway in both photos to within an inch. You can do likewise with the stripe next to the curb. The rest is easy – if you know what you’re doing. “You can’t get there from here” UNLESS you have that knowledge” You didn’t have it until I gave it to you in the last series of posts. O.J. didn’t have it. Neither did Kato.
In automotive design we used a piece of equipment called a “bridge” to plot clay model cars precisely in 3-D space. If we had to make measurements when the model was out of the bridge we used known features of the vehicle and tile lines in the floor. At times all we had were photos of the vehicles and designer sketches of proposed changes. If we had enough known data to work with we could make the necessary changes without a bridge. The same conditions apply with measuring the location of the Bronco. –Jasper