>Date: Fri, 2 Apr 1999 12:58:02 -0800 >To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Constantine) >Subject:Re: DEATH SCENE > > Robert: Gil Garcetti acknowledged to Joe Bosco, a free-lancer for the >news weeklies and author of "A Problem of Evidence," that Simpson did >not commit the murders. Garcetti quietly reopened the investigation at >Bosco's urging, then peremptorily slammed it shut again, claiming that >he could not subject the LAPD to the "embarrassment" of yet another trial >of the century. Bosco related the details to me at his home in Santa Barbara in the Fall. He nearly had the story published by Time, but it was pulled at the last minute. > Also, the WorldNetDaily web site has more of Bosco's investigation, >including details on William Wasz, the hit man hired by Robert Kardashian >to kill Nicole Simpson in 1/94, but arrested before Wasz could carry out >the contract. - Alex C. > > >>Thomas P. Jabine wrote: >> >>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >>> Robert Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >1. How did the cap get there without having blood on it? >>> >Did it fall there before the blood spattered on the agapanthus? >>> >Afterward? What was the sequence of the hat arriving where >>> >it did during the course of the struggle? Whose blood is on >>> >the agapanthus? >>> >>> Are you sure the cap had no blood on it? It sure looks like it >>> does in the picture. >>> >> >>[Not according to court testimony.] >> >>> >2. What was the sequence of events that put the glove >>> >there between the two bodies and right next to the envelope >>> >containing the glasses, after so much bloodletting? Did Goldman pull it >>> >off Simpson after Simpson had severely wounded (or killed) >>> >Nicole? Who was bleeding, and thus the source of the spatter >>> >under the resting glove, before the glove came off, Nicole >>> >or Ron, or both? >>> >>> What's your answer? I see only questions here, not a theory. >> >>[One person could not accomplish this. After Nicole was down,perhaps >>mortally, but before Goldman was down, but probably >>restrained by the person who was making the "controlling cuts" >>on his neck, another person picked up the bloody envelope, >>poked in it, folded it, and threw it back on the ground. Goldman >>tried to break free, and judging from the various angles of blood >>spatter on the envelope, moved around in the cage before he >>was subdued and killed. Multiple assailants eliminate an enraged >>ex-spouse committing a double-homicide at the spur of the moment.] >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> >3. Someone picked up the envelope, partially opened it, >>> >examined the contents, and left a fingerprint on a lens, >>> >>> There you go again, Bob. The closest testimony to that claim >>> was that there was a smudge that could have been made by a >>> finger. >>> >> >>[Without the laboratory examining for fingerprints, and with thelens being >>lost while in police custody, and without an eyewitness >>account, we are left to speculate. Dr. Lee was pretty clear, >>despite repeated prosecution objections that a finger or finger-like >>object made that smear. We also can't be certain that a human >>hand folded the envelope. But if not, I'll leave you to come up >>with an alternate means of accomplishing this.] >> >>> >then folded the envelope and left it at the scene of the crime. >>> >There was wet blood on the envelope when it was handled, >>> >meaning that it was handled after at least one of the >>> >victims had been bleeding. Common sense would suggest that >>> >the killer looked at envelope after both victims had been >>> >completely disabled or killed outright. How does this fit >>> >into the scenario? Did Simpson look into the envelope after >>> >the murders but not see the cap or the glove right next to it? >>> >Was Simpson bleeding when he handled the envelope? Why didn�t >>> >the SID find his blood on the envelope if Simpson had been >>> >injured in the struggle with Goldman? >>> >>> The cut was on the back of Simpson's finger. My question to >>> you would be, why would trained killers who had the LAPD in >>> cahoots pay any attention to the envelope, and if they did, >>> why would they leave it behind with possible fingerprints on >>> it? Certainly they would have been wearing gloves, so in fact, >>> how could there be fingerprints at all? Sorry, this evidence >>> is not at all consistent with your theory. >> >>[How many trained killers do you know? Do you know alltrained killers? Do >>trained killers make mistakes? Are trained >>killers capable of making mistakes? Your speculation as to the >>level of competence of trained killers is curious but without >>any basis in reality. Humans are imperfect beings, even evil >>ones.] >> >>> >>> >>> >There is no internal logic to these several pieces of evidence. >>> >If the watch cap came off before the struggle, why didn�t >>> >any of the blood spatters land on it? How could the cap have >>> >come off during a struggle without any blood getting on it? >>> >If it came off after the struggle, why didn�t it pick up >>> >blood from the plant when falling through the foliage? If >>> >Nicole were already down when the glove landed on the >>> >ground, was she down before Goldman passed >>> >through the locked gate? Why would the killer let him in? >>> >>> In order to kill him? >>> >> >>[And why would Goldman oblige? And if there was no blood acrossthe sidewalk >>when he entered, how did blood get on the envelope? >>Did Goldman enter, drop the envelope, watch Simpson kill Nicole >>and then pick up and examine the envelope, and then when Simpson >>attacked him, put up a struggle. Did Simpson do this while making >>the controlling cuts from behind on Goldman's neck?] >> >>> >Did Nicole open the gate prior to Goldman even arriving? >>> >If Goldman were already through the gate and inside the killing >>> >area before the fighting began, how could all three be upright >>> >and struggling in that small space with Nicole landing where >>> >she did and Goldman only feet away with Simpson apparently in >>> >between and not getting very much blood on him and without >>> >either victim landing any serious punches on him? >>> >>> Your "theory" has *six* people in that same area. >> >>[How many police, laboratory and coroner's personnel and assistantDAs were in >>that space over the next twenty hours?] >> >>> >>> >>> >If Simpson�s >>> >hand cut occurred soon after the glove came off, at some time during >>> >the struggle, why wouldn�t his blood be on the envelope? >>> >>> You're repeating yourself here, you already asked that above. >> >>[You have no answer.] >> >>> >>> >>> > If the >>> >glove came off during the struggle with Goldman, which ended >>> >with Ron�s death, and if Simpson had only disabled Nicole >>> >and then went back to kill her, why didn�t his left hand, moving her >>> >body, holding her around the neck or pulling her head back by the hair, >>> >bleed on her? >>> >>> How do you know it didn't? >> >>[It certainly wasn't visible in any photos. One would have to presume thatthe >>laboratory personnel found that bloody smears most probably left by >>the killer were not important enough to either note or test. In order to >>attack my theory, you have to presume trained killers who do nothing >>wrong and LAPD lab personnel who do nothing right.] >> >>> >>> >>> >If he is bleeding as he walks away, why doesn�t >>> >he bleed while grasping his ex-wife in order to slash her throat? >>> >>> How do you know he didn't? >> >>[See above.] >> >>> >>> >>> >If he >>> >took time to find and examine the envelope, why didn�t he >>> >notice and recover the cap and glove only inches away? >>> >>> Maybe he suspected there were drugs in the envelope, and either wanted >>> to find them as an act of self-justification, or to keep them for >>> himself. >>> >> >>[If you are willing to ascribe to Simpson, who had just killed his ex-wifeand >>the mother of his children, and another person, and there is >>no record that Simpson had ever killed anyone before, a curiosity >>as to the contents of the envelope but a certain stupidity about all >>of the other incriminating evidence scattered about, why is it >>impossible for you to ascribe a similar curiosity to another killer, >>who was not at all concerned about the evidence scattered about >>because he and his confederates planted it?] >> >>> >The difficulty in the inherent contradictions of these pieces >>> >of evidence as being the debris of Simpson�s solo rampage >>> >cannot be resolved. However, if these items are viewed as >>> >evidence planted after the murders in order to point the >>> >crime towards Simpson, only then can there be logic to the >>> >pieces of evidence. The coincidence of Simpson losing two >>> >gloves, one at the scene of the crime and one in his yard, >>> >then is not a coincidence at all, >>> >>> So what you were calling a "contradiction" a moment ago, you >>> now concede could instead be a coincidence. >> >>[Please read it again. You apparently didn't understand what Iwrote. I said >>that the coincidence was not a coincidence. That >>is, intentional. Both gloves were planted to lead suspicion to >>Simpson.] >> >>> >>> >>> >but planted evidence. >>> >>> What you appear to be saying is that if we view the gloves as planted >>> evidence then the gloves are planted evidence. >> >>[I say that the gloves are planted evidence, not coincidental carelessnesson >>the part of a solo, enraged ex-spouse.] >> >>> >>> >>> >Most >>> >likely at least some of the planting was accomplished before >>> >the first cops arrived at the scene, >>> >>> Did you notice that you offered no logical basis for this statement? >>> >>> >so Fuhrman�s participation in >>> >manipulating evidence is not necessary, although not ruled out. >>> >This >>> >>> "This" being your own speculation. You have yet to show any evidence of >>> planting. >> >>[I have shown that the murders could not have been accomplished by oneperson. >>I have shown that the envelope was examined before Goldman >>was killed but after there was bloodletting. I have raised questions about >>how the cap ended where it did in the condition that it did without a >>logical answer except that it had been planted there after the killings. >>If the cap were planted after the killings, if the bloody envelope had >>been manipulated before Goldman's demise, then how did the glove >>get there in between the two. Let's just make a wild jump and say >>that Goldman cooperated while OJ examined the envelope, and that >>after both victims were killed OJ planted the cap up the agapanthus >>to incriminate himself. Did he intentionally drop the glove between >>the envelope and cap to incriminate himself? Or did someone else >>leave it there to incriminate him?] >> >>> >>> >>> >would also point to not only a premeditation to murder >>> >Nicole and maybe Goldman, but also a premeditation to pin the >>> >murders on Simpson. The person or persons doing this would have >>> >to know what kind of gloves that Simpson had worn in the past >>> >(not much need for gloves in LA), and would have had to have >>> >been able to create a link between the shoeprints and Simpson, >>> >regardless of whether or not the Bruno Magli photographs that >>> >appeared during the civil trial are real or faked. >>> >>> So why did Simpson deny that he would ever own those ugly-ass shoes? Why >>> did he deny owning the gloves? Was he part of the conspiracy too? >>> >> >>[Simpson denied that he owned those shoes because he never did own them.The >>shoe photo was faked. I don't recall Simpson denying owning gloves, >>although I do recall a court demonstration where the gloves did not fit OJ's >>hands.] >> >>> >There were pieces of evidence that would have gone far in finding the >>> >killer but which have been lost forever. There is the partial >>> >fingerprint on the lens of Juditha Brown�s glasses. >>> >>> There is? Again you misrepresent the testimony. >> >>> > Sometime between the >>> > >>> >murders and before the trial, while the glasses were in the custody of >>> >the police labs, the lens with the fingerprint disappeared. Fuhrman and >>> >>> What fingerprint? >> >>[What lens? Do you have a theory for how the lens disappeared while in >>policecustody? Or why there was no record of the lab testing the glasses for >>fingerprints >>when it appeared that someone was handling the envelope?] >> >>> >>> >>> >his partner Brad Roberts reported a >>> >bloody fingerprint on a gate at the murder scene. This, too, seems >>> >to have been overlooked and lost by the lead detectives and the forensic >>> >team. >>> >>> Why would Fuhrman put it in his notes if he was part of the conspiracy? >> >>[Logic says that there was either a bloody fingerprint or there wasn't. >>EitherFuhrman and Roberts lied about the bloody fingerprint's existence, or >>they >>didn't lie. If they lied, to what purpose? If they didn't lie, then why >>wasn't >>the fingerprint seen and recovered? My answer would be that whoever >>was examining the crime scene knew that a fingerprint left by the killer >>would not be Simpson's, therefore it should not be recovered.] >> >>> >>> >>> >Very curious are the bloodied keys. When the keys >>> >to the car that Goldman had borrowed were returned to their owner, >>> >they were still bloodstained. Officially, there was no blood test >>> >performed by the authorities on the keys, but the most logical source of >>> > >>> >the on the keys blood would have been the killer, as it is hard >>> >to imagine Goldman holding onto the keys for the time it would >>> >take for his own blood to trickle down his arm. >>> >>> And yet you think he should have landed some serious punches on >>> Simpson. Has it occured to you that if Goldman dropped the keys >>> on the ground it would have been very easy for them to get his >>> or Nicole's blood on them? >>> >> >>[There is no question that there is blood on the keys. But even if itwere >>only the blood of either or both of the victims, the location of >>the keys and the blood on them could give evidence of how the >>victims were killed. Since the keys were not in Goldman's pocket, >>they most likely were in his hand. They could have been used as >>a defense weapon. Think about how all this speculation could have >>been resolved if only the lab had run a test on the blood found on >>the keys. My point is that the failure to test the blood on the keys >>transcends sloppiness. It is intentional avoidance of evidence that >>could have definitively identified the killer.] >> >>> >At some point >>> >during his death struggle he resorted to his open palms to >>> >defend himself from the knife thrusts, but by then he would have >>> >had to have dropped the keys. Even if it were Goldman�s blood, >>> >it seems only logical that in the search for the truth the labs would >>> >have tested this potential defensive weapon before returning the keys to >>> >the owner. Unfortunately, this third source of blood >>> >information was lost to the world. There was a curious castoff >>> >pattern of blood across Nicole�s back that detectives claim was >>> >lost when her body was covered by a blanket. That blood could >>> >have been the killers, or perhaps Goldman�s, which would have >>> >helped to establish the sequence of the killings. That, too, is lost. >>> > >>> >One bit of evidence does suggest that Nicole was already bleeding >>> >out while Goldman was upright and struggling is that there is dirt, >>> >moistened by blood, caked on the heel of one of his shoes. Since there >>> >are no shoeprints of his passing through the bleedout at the >>> >gate, it would strongly suggest that Goldman was already inside, >>> >in the killing area, when Nicole was mortally wounded. >>> >>> And yet you think four killers did this very bloody deed and left >>> no footprints of their own. >>> >> >>[The two sets of Bruno Magli shoeprints appear deliberate. They >>aren'tpigeon-toed. They were left by someone who wanted to leave them. >>How many shoeprints were found in the foliage?] >> >>> >Clearly, >>> >killing two people simultaneously would indicate at least two >>> >killers controlling the two victims. Wounds to the front and back >>> >of both victims suggest even more in the killing team. Wounds on >>> >the palms of the victims� hands would put a killer at some point >>> >in front of each victim. The "control cuts" on Goldman�s throat >>> >suggest someone behind him, holding the knife to his neck. The >>> >fatal throat wound to Nicole seems to have been delivered from >>> >behind her. Any scenario of the killings would have to account for a >>> >single killer being both in front and behind the victims during the >>> >killings. The lack of reports of screams for help and the >>> >inability of either victim to escape either inside the house (the door >>> >to the condo was found open by the first police at the scene) or >>> >back to the street (the front gate was open and the killer is presumed >>> >to have left via the back gate), make it extremely unlikely that there >>> >was only one killer. >>> >>> I think it was mslu that said that men don't scream. Nicole may have >>> already been incapacitated. There was a witness who says he heard >>> someone say "Hey, hey, hey," though. The same witness said he saw >>> a white car leaving the scene. For some reason he was desperate to say >>> anything but Bronco (Jeep, Blazer, etc., he "wasn't sure"), but this >>> professional car detailer who couldn't identify the car finally >>> conceded that it "could have been" a Bronco. But you prefer to think >>> that four trained killers arrived and departed the scene completely >>> confident that they could do so unnoticed but neighbors and passersby. >> >>[As opposed to a world-known celebrity who would change into suspiciousgarb, >>wear a pair of gloves and knit cap and change into rare DRESS shoes >>instead of staying in a pair of sneakers in order to commit a murder... Do >>you think that Simpson would have the bad taste to wear Bruno Maglis >>with a black sweatsuit and watchcap?] >> >>> >The collection of evidence and its presentation in the criminal >>> >trial suggests a clear intent by the police and the prosecution to >>> >avoid certain pieces of evidence in order to avoid identifying the >>> >killer or killers, and to avoid opening other areas to explore for >>> >other potential witnesses. It also suggests that in many cases, >>> >the defense went along with this avoidance of truth. >>> >>> So again, you have Johnny Cochran participating in a plan to frame >>> a black man as part of a conspiracy ultimately meant to lead to >>> genocide against his own race. Yeah, that's logical. >>> >>> >Who would know what information to collect, and what information >>> >to avoid or destroy without a prior knowledge of the crime and >>> >an intent to obscure the actual killer or killers? >>> >>> This begs the question as to whether the uncollected evidence was, in >>> fact, known to be exculpatory. If it was, why, for example, did Fuhrman >>> mention the fingerprint on the gate in his notes? >>> >> >>[How could it be known to be exculpatory prior to the investigationunless >>investigators had a foreknowledge of the crime? ] >> >>> >It is clear that >>> >certain key pieces of blood evidence were lost, destroyed or >>> >ignored during the investigation. The potential forensic importance >>> >of the keys, the castoff blood stains on Nicole�s back, the bloodstain >>> >under the glove, the fingerprint on the lens was self-evident. >>> >>> Did somebody say propaganda is repeating the lie? This is the fourth time >>> in this post you have mentioned this alleged fingerprint. Show the >>> testimony that says there was a fingerprint on the lens. The transcripts >>> are back up now, so you have no excuse not to. >> >>[In December we had Dr. Lee's relevant testimony up. Are you sayingthat it's >>okay that the lab lost a lens in its possession because it had failed >>to fingerprint the smudge on it? What level of incompetence does it take >>to lose a lens that is stored away? If not incompetence, then how did it >>disappear? Simpson was in jail, he couldn't have stolen it. What member >>of the police/lab/prosecution didn't want that lens to see the light of >>day?] >> >>> >>> >>> >Incompetence alone cannot explain away the deficiencies in >>> >this police investigation. There was an element in the collection >>> >and processing of the evidence that knew where not to look. >>> >>> This assumes that any evidence not collected was exculpatory, >>> something that you have no way of knowing. >> >> [The evidence not collected, lost, etc., which I have mentioned would >>have been DEFINITIVE.] >
