[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 3/4/03
Time: 7:42:02 PM
Remote Name: 68.73.58.140
Charlie,
Like you, I don’t now of anyone who has actually heard the tapes of the interrogations. Like Miss Marple, I know how important it is.
In my recent court battle I had to read tons of transcripts. NONE of them were accurate (also a lot of omissions and skipping around). In my final arbitration hearing transcripts weren’t even allowed. The quality of the tapes (we had to fight to have the hearing recorded) is so poor that you can’t hear or decipher some of the most critical testimony. That’s way I seem to have so little patience sometimes when someone selects a word or two from the Simpson trial transcript out of context to “prove” a point. You can’t prove anything from a transcript alone. You have to crosscheck it with the tapes. When you do that, you see differences.
I read the transcripts in Evidence Dismissed, Killing Time and Murder in Brentwood. I saw what you and Chris Springer saw. I missed what Miss Marple saw. I just assumed that there would be some difference in the process of copying the original and that the original was the one that counted. I used the one from Evidence Dismissed.
The transcripts in Evidence Dismissed and Killing time looked the same to me. I just skimmed the transcripts in Murder in Brentwood. I was looking for reliable information at the time and I could tell at a glace that I couldn’t trust a word of it (Killing Time and Evidence Dismissed identifies the participants as “Lange”, “Vannatter” and “Simpson.” Murder in Brentwood identifies them as “T.L.”, “P.V.” and “O.J.”)
When I put Suing Ford online, you will see in chapter 18 why I think that Miss Marple’s “and in” observation is correct. It is consistent with my personal experience. These were the kinds of things I found in the altered documents that Ford submitted to the Federal Court, the EEOC and the arbitrator. As far as I know, no large institution has ever had to pay a substantial penalty for strategic alterations like these in official documents.
This sort of thing could be a common practice. It certainly conforms to the LAPD’s M/O. –Jasper