[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 7/16/03
Time: 8:16:10 AM
Remote Name: 68.74.29.50
John,
Does this look familiar…?
“I cannot give a satisfactory answer to your challenge because I don’t accept the premise. I do not believe in “proving” theories.... I predict that no matter what I say, if it doesn’t tell you, “Kato did it,” you will find it irrelevant, silly, coincidental, inconclusive or wrong. You also have me at a colossal disadvantage in terms of the speed with you processes complex information, respond to it and forget it....”
“If you want the truth you have to use theories ONLY long enough to disprove them. You ask a question (If O.J. didn’t….?) or make an assumption (If Kato did…). Then you plot the corollaries for EVIDENCE THAT YOU DON’T HAVE YET but evidenced that must exist if your theory is correct (Heidstra’s real ally rout, the Bundy curve, Fuhrman’s partner, Fuhrman’s alibi, his SUV, where he lived, etc.)..."
You thought that most of this reply was incomprehensible. You labeled it an evasion and dismissed it. I tried again and again. You never seemed to catch on to the fact that I look for things that would cause me to abandon my theories as soon as I propose them.
Remember this…?
“I use theories to TEST assumptions, not to prove conclusions…. To rule out bias, I then I attack each theory zealously by proposing questions that I don’t already have the answer to.
“For instance, when my Kato-did-it theory required that someone drove the Bronco to Bundy and back to Rockingham I looked hard for objective evidence that THE BRONCO DID NOT MOVE. If such evidence didn’t exist I couldn’t have found it. If it did exist, the nature of prejudice dictated that this was the only way I’d be likely to see it.
“The Bronco result was starling. I got the same startling results when I looked into O.J.’s claim that the photos of him wearing the Lorenzos were faked. These and other finding that I didn’t expect forced me to scrap a terrific “Kato-did-it” theory (Your theory minus the stuff you have from Mark Elliot) and a Shipp-did-it theory that was almost as good.”
“…I have already asked HUNDREDS of question that would have caused me to abandon Fuhrman as the killer if the answer to any of them had been “no.” I did this for over five years. I think that’s enough.”
To see the whole string of replies you have to go to the Messiah Board where you started the string. It ended with my “nut and bolt” analogy, which you accepted.
Unfortunately, my brother died two years ago so I can’t help you there. You made a false analogy, anyway. Kato did not approach Fuhrman. Fuhrman approached Kato – and he went though a considerable amount of trouble to do it. --Jasper