[ Home | Contents | Search | Post | Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Jasper
Date: 9/14/03
Time: 10:50:36 PM
Remote Name: 68.73.197.51
John,
I read Dick’s analysis. In fact I studied it item for item. I don’t agree with his analysis and I don’t fine an “empty” fifteen minutes that have to be explained.
We know that Ron was wearing his uniform when he left the restaurant. We know that he wasn’t wearing it when he was killed. We don’t know why he decided to wear those heaver rubber and canvas boots or when he decided to put them one. We don’t know whether he took a dump or if he did whether it was a long one or a short one. We don’t know how long he spent in the shower (some people take short ones some people take long one. We don’t know how long he took fussing with is hair or whether he sat down for a while and watched television. We don’t know when he left his apartment. We don’t even know whether her drove there or he walked.
The early timeline is associated with tainted evidence or testimony to explain it, particularly the evidence “found”: by Fuhrman and Roberts. Here is a partial list:
The socks
The blood trail “from Bundy”
The splintered wood by the Bronco that matched an old fence in an ally near Bundy
The “dark sweats” in the washing machine
The Rockingham glove
The 10:30 call about the undiscovered bodies
The missing knife
The missing shoes
The blood on the passenger side of the Bronco (Fuhrman says it got there when O.J. drove to the alley east of Bundy and threw it out of the passenger window).
You need a long timeline to fit all of those items of evidence into time O.J. had to leave where they were or disposed of them.
The longer timeline fits the evidence that could not have been contrived or tampered with. --Jasper