[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: [email protected]
Date: 3/15/03
Time: 8:40:09 PM
Remote Name: 152.163.188.6
I finally ran down the June 28, 1994 article in the Daily News about Juditha's phone call.
Most interesting.
First, it's front page, headlined: "The Missing Hour. Coroner: Nicole on phone with mom at 11 p.m. Dad: No, it was 10 p.m."
Not 9:37 mind you, but 10 p.m.
So we have the 11 p.m. call metamorphose into a 10 p.m. call that is eventually transformed into a 9:40 call.
What is most interesting about this is that the Daily News is one of the few papers that actually looked into this matter. Here, in summary, is the story they reported:
Headline inside paper: "Nicole Dad Rips Coroner Report." Now keep in mind that Ratcliffe confirmed to me, by phone, that the time she stated in her report was accurate and provided to her by none other than this dad.
Here is the story in the paper:
"Nicole Brown Simpson's dad yesterday said his wife and daughter spoke on the night of her slaying at least an hour earlier than a coroner's report states."
"The crucial hour of difference is a big setback for O.J. Simpson's defense which apparently was counting on the report to bolster its case that the former Hall of Famer was at home at the time of the slaying."
We all, of course, know why. "The timing is important because it would determine if Nicole were still alive at the time O.J. says he was at home. If she were alive at 11 p.m. that would leave Simpson only 15 minutes to commit the slayings, drive the six minute route to his home, dispose of evidence and clean himself." Actually, it makes it impossible for Simpson to have done it at all because parks spotted him on the grounds before 11 p.m.
The article makes clear significance of when Juditha spoke to Nicole: "Once one sees Nicole's mother saying I spoke with her at 11 p.m. and the limo driver says he picked O.J. up at 11:13, the prosecution's case is a FAR CRY from what it was touted to be at the outset, Simpson's attorney F. Lee Bailey told ABC News. Damn straight it was a far cry from what the prosecution touted it to be. That would have flushed it down into the sewers.
"But in an interview with the Daily News yesterday, Nicole's father, Louis Brown, said that the conversation took place about 10 p.m."
"The report, which wads obtained by the News last week, stated that Nicole Brown Simpson was last known to be alive at [11 p.m.] speaking with her mother on the telephone."
The News then makes clear the significance of Lou's statement disputing the time of the call:
"Lou Brown's comments not only raised more questions about Simpson's alibi, they also MARKED THE FIRST TIME that Nicole's family -- which publicly stood by O.J. about the slayings -- SIGNALED they may NO LONGER GO TO BAT for the disgraced gridiron great."
In short, the prosecution got to them to change the time of the call, because without it, they had no case. The Browns thereby also signaled they would not stand by the truth. That completely explains why the defense failed to pursue this issue. They had no way to make the Browns tell the truth.
Lou Brown, however, still sinks the case because: "Brown confirmed that he and his wife, Juditha, recalled that the call she made to her daughter came around 10 p.m. and 'as far as I know that was the ONLY CALL.'" Really. So she made no call to the Mezz to talk to Crawford. There was only that call to Nicole, and at ten, not 9:40 as it later came to be. But wait, the story changes.
The News also notes that Lou Brown had an interest in correcting the error because he "was clearly concerned about the potential alibi provided by the coroner's report."
The News story, however, unknowingly goes on to demolish the entire glasses story in what follows, where we learn:
"Scott Carrier, spokesman for the L.A County coroner's office, said the information in the document was compiled HASTILY. When asked if the specific facts such as the time of the phone conversation were accurate, he said the office could not VOUCH for the accuracy of the information."
So the coroner's office has been had. They won't stand behind the report. But note they also don't deny its accuracy. They merely claim they could not VOUCH for the accuracy of the information. Of course not. How could they GUARANTEE the accuracy of information that had been PROVIDED TO THEM. The key question that no one bothered with is WHO provided the information. It had been none other than Lou Brown. Now imagine if the coroner's office had told the world that the man who now claimed the report was inaccurate had actually been the one who had given that information to the corner's office. Would that have turned Lou into a fool or what? The coroner's office carefully refrained from doing so, and merely said they could not VOUCH for the accuracy of the report. Ratcliffe, however, definitely vouched to me that she accurately stated what Lou Brown told her. And that info was not gathered in haste. She talked to Lou for about 90 minutes.
The News claims that: "Brown's recollection of the time of his wife's last talk with her daughter fits the timing of other events that occurred the night of the killings."
Well, sort of.
First their is the Mezz version:
"According to employees of the Mezzaluna restaurant. . . , she (Nicole) called around 9:15 to arrange for her mother's glasses to be returned to her home."
Notice the problem with Lou's story line? Well, how could Nicole have called at 9:15 to asks if the Mezz had found Juditha's glasses if, as Lou had also said, that "the call she (Juditha) MADE to her daughter CAME around 10 p.m. and 'as far as I know that was the ONLY call." Why would Nicole be calling the Mezz about her mother's glasses at 9:15 if the only call between Juditha and Nicole was at 10:00, which was the only time Nicole could have had an inkling about her mother's glasses being lost?
We also do all agree that Juditha could not have talked to Nicole by phone from her phone at any time BEFORE 9:15, WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THEM TO DRIVE 74 MILES IN LESS THAN 45 MINUTES?
Lou Brown then tells the whole story: "'My wife had called the restaurant to find out if they (glasses) were there. They discovered them on the street outside. She passed that information on to Nicole. As far as my wife was concerned, Nicole was going to pick them up the next morning. But she (Nicole) had different plans. So there you have it,' Brown said."
There you have it indeed. Brown confirms that Nicole learned about the loss of the glasses from Juditha. That call happens at 10:00, according to Lou. But the Mezz employees claim Nicole calls the restaurant at 9:15 to arrange for the return of the glasses. There is a simple explanation for how Nicole could have know that Juditha lost her glasses and arranged for their return before her mother had told her: Nicole was clairvoyant.
The prosecution,m however, assured one and all they would straighten it all out: "Prosecutors said yesterday that all phone records HAVE BEEN SOUGHT to establish when the calls were made."
Get it. They were not claiming they already had them, merely that they HAD BEEN sought. So they had already gone looking for them, but they were not going to tell you what they had already found by then.
What malarkey. They had those records the day after the murders. For them to claim more than two weeks later that the records had merely been sought was a gross deception that covered up that they already had them, but were refusing to divulge what they had.
They still had to make up the story to go with the records. These records they went looking for never, of course, were introduced or saw the light of day. They are still missing.
The Daily News account clarifies how they had to adjust the times and fabricate the story of the glasses to frame Simpson for the murders.
Prien