[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 5/5/03
Time: 6:12:13 PM
Remote Name: 68.73.53.39
Charlie,
When you go back over all the discussion about the killer’s shoes, their size and shoe sizes in general, I think that you will see imprecise language and imperfect knowledge at the start of the discussion as the biggest communication problems. We now know that shoe sizes are not standard from country to country or brand to brand. We know that the same brand can carry a size that varies from style to style. The edges could be sharp or rounded making for different imprint measurements. There are variations in interior vs. exterior dimensions depending on the wall thickness of the part of the shoe covering the foot and the offset of that part of the shoe to the edge of the sole, etc.
We have gotten used to calling the killer’s shoes Bruno Magli’s because of the brand name of the shoes Bodziak discovered that matched the shoeprints and the fact that they were seldom identified by the full name, Bruno Magli (the brand) Lorenzos (the style). Bruno Magli had two men’s styles with the same Silga (manufacturer) treads, Lorenzos and Lyons. The difference was in the height of the heels, which left a longer space between the heel and the sole in the Lorenzo imprint than in the Lyons. Once again, the SILGA imprint is what really counts and they could have been made with shoes that were not Bruno Magli’s.
The prosecution’s only O.J. ties to the Bruno Magli brand name are the shoes that Nicole purchased for her self, the fact that O.J. once looked at a pair and the statements of Denise and Dominique that they saw O.J. wearing them. The shoes that O.J. habitually wore to affairs like his youngest daughter’s dance recital LOOKED LIKE Bruno Magli Lorenzos but they weren’t.
You hit the nail on the head when you said that a pair of similar shoe to ones that left the Silga imprints proved nothing. We don’t even really know what the killer’s shoes really looked like above the soles. As you say, you need the exact shoes to prove anything. But circumstantial evidence is not considered inferior to hard evidence in court if you can draw the circumstances tight enough to exclude all but one person. That’s what Marcia tried to do.
Following the idea that the killer understood the criminal justices system well enough to anticipate what the prosecution would do if the EXACT shoes were missing, I looked for someone with that knowledge who could also have left the bloody shoeprints. I looked for someone about O.J.’s height who could have filled a pair of size-12 Bruno Magli’s and left a pattern with the toes pointed straight ahead. I looked for someone who had shown a predilection for manufacturing evidence and a talent for getting people to see incriminating evidence that wasn’t there. You know who I found. –Jasper