[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 5/5/03
Time: 8:05:08 PM
Remote Name: 68.73.53.39
Miss Marple,
First reports are often way out of whack. Given the circumstances surrounding Roberts and Nolan’s first interview with Schwab, I don’t think that anyone on the prosecution team was shaken up in the least about the first time he gave. The police and prosecutors weren’t interested in clarifying the timeline to determine whether O.J. could have done it. They wanted to confuse the timeline as much as possible to make a case that he could have done it.
The discrepancy is only 20 minutes, anyway (Schwab later backtracked the events and figured that he must have seen the dog at 10:55 – not 10:45). The time he found the dog does not mark the start time or the end time of the murders. Marcia could have argued that the dog wandered around for 45 or 50 minutes before Schwab found it. She DID argue that it wandered around for 35 or 40 minutes before Schwab found it. Hell, she had O.J. wandering around for 15 or 20 minutes after the murders before he “banged into the side of Kato’s bungalow and dropped the bloody glove.”
Robert’s interview with Schwab established only that he could be challenged about the time he found the dog. No big deal. The CONFUSION in the timeline worked for the prosecution.
Roberts’ notes is another story. Nobody outside of the LAPD or the DA’s office ever saw them. The same goes for Nolen’s notes. What if they didn’t match? What if Roberts’ notes didn’t match Schwab’s first story but Nolen’s notes did? Without the notes we can only speculate.
The one thing that is clear to me is that Fuhrman was able to resurrect Roberts as a witness because he talked Marcia and the other detectives into hiding his role as Fuhrman’s partner. They lied outright or withheld the truth to protect Fuhrman's lies. There is no way they could ever admit to doing that without risking a stretch in prison. –Jasper