[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 5/11/03
Time: 1:28:49 PM
Remote Name: 68.73.55.158
Rose,
Dick’s theory was based on two pieces of information that he didn’t get around to checking out in detail, the precise position of the Bronco relative to the curb and the driveway, and the correct dimensions of the driveway. With the layout of the property he was working with when he developed his theory, Park’s early statement about seeing O.J. “cross the driveway” seemed to fit the theory. But when you read Park’s O.J. sighing testimony in the criminal trial and see where he placed the X (exactly where O.J. said he was when he dropped off his bags) you get an entirely different feel for what happened.
The mistake I made with the Bundy Curve and the couple is a perfect example.
Dick’s approach and mine are essentially the same. You gather as much information as you can. You separate what’s relevant and what isn’t (the most dangerous part of the process). You put together as many scenarios as you can think of to explain the evidence and you go with the one that you think explains it best. Then you throw it out to other informed people to critique. Some responses will show their weakness in particular areas and some will show yours. You look for the ones that show yours and try to correct them.
Dick and I were involved in that process with you acting as an intermediary (the board was screwed up when he tried it) when he died. I found out that I was wrong about the blood drops in the foyer. He found out that he was wrong about the contour and dimensions of the driveway. I don’t know where he would have eventually come out on this but I do know that we were making progress toward the same end, the truth.
One more thing…
I noticed several typos in my previous post that I’m sure you saw or will see for what they were. Over 120 “questions” do not “separate the two events.” Over 60 questions and 60 answers separate the two events. Here you can easily tap into my THOUGHTS to see how came up with 120. When I typed, “Kato saw Kato” instead of Park saw Kato you now that I was thinking ahead to Kato. When you read the transcripts of Park’s testimony and Kato’s you will find similar missteps. That’s why you have to work so hard at times to figure out what they meant AFTER you find out what they said.
With us it’s not an issue because everything we need to know to make the adjustment is on the same page. Sometimes it’s in the same paragraph or the same sentence. With the transcripts it’s far more difficult. You often have to pick up pieces from the grand jury, the preliminary hearing, the criminal trial, the civil trial, two or three books, a television interview and a photo or an article on the Wagner site to put a single statement in context.
Good luck. --Jasper