The evidence concerning the dog, Kato, that was living at Nicole's condo at the time of the crime, is fairly straight forward. The implications have been contentious. EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF THE DOG: The prosecution presentation of evidence began with a recounting of the defendant's mistreatment of his ex-wife (testimony of January 31 to February 6) and continued with brief interviews of Mezzaluna employees and Goldman's sister (February 7). Dog testimony began late on February 7 with Pablo Fenjves, a neighbor who lived across the alley and 60 yards north of Nicole's condo. Some time after 10:00 o'clock, he was in his third floor-back master bedroom watching the TV news when he heard a barking dog; this is what he related: February 7, line #3140 and following: MS. CLARK: Was there something unusual about that dog barking that drew your attention to it? MR. FENJVES: It was a -- you know, it was fairly persistent, it was at a significant pitch, and as you may recall, I described it at the time as a plaintive wail. Sounded like a, you know, very unhappy animal. MS. CLARK: I am sorry. I can't hear you, sir. MR. FENJVES: It sounded like a very unhappy animal. MS. CLARK: And that's what drew your attention? MR. FENJVES: Yes, it did. MS. CLARK: Had you ever heard dogs barking in the neighborhood before? MR. FENJVES: Yeah, there's plenty of dogs barking in the neighborhood, but this was, as I said, persistent and unusual and unhappy. MS. CLARK: So did you stay and listen to the barking for a while before you went downstairs? MR. FENJVES: Uh, no. I don't recall whether I went and looked -- I believe I may have gotten up and looked through the shutters, and then I just -- I went downstairs to my office. MS. CLARK: About what time was it when you went downstairs to your office? MR. FENJVES: I'd say around 10:20. MS. CLARK: And by that time, you had heard the dog barking for how long? MR. FENJVES: As I said, you know, it could have been five minutes, it could have been seven, eight minutes. February 7, line #3190 and following: MS. CLARK: You stayed down in your office for how long? MR. FENJVES: 35 minutes, 40 minutes. I came back upstairs at 11:00 o'clock. MS. CLARK: And when you came back upstairs at 11:00 o'clock, was the barking still audible? MR. FENJVES: Yes, it was. MS. CLARK: Where did you go when you came upstairs at 11:00 o'clock? MR. FENJVES: I got in bed. MS. CLARK: And when you got in bed, was the dog still barking? MR. FENJVES: Yes, he was. MS. CLARK: What did you do at that point? MR. FENJVES: I was reading for a little while. I mentioned to my wife that, you know, I was concerned about the dog. Umm, our own dog was on the bed and he was reacting to the barking by growling a little bit, and I may have -- I think I went back and took another look through the shutters and I noticed the line of windows at the residence. And was a light on and I assumed that somebody was home. And there were a lot of units as you can see from the map that were closer to the sound. So I thought somebody may have already done something about it. MS. CLARK: So you felt that there might have been something wrong, but someone else may have reported it already? MR. FENJVES: Umm, it was -- you know, it was hard to interpret what was going on. The dog didn't sound as though it was in pain or anything like that. It sounded, as I said, unhappy. MS. CLARK: And when you got up to go to the shutters in your master bedroom, you went to look in the direction of where the barking seemed to be coming from? MR. FENJVES: Yes. That is correct. MS. CLARK: And where did you look? MR. FENJVES: I looked directly toward the condominium in question, and I noticed the row of lights as I mentioned, and then I went back to bed. Thereafter, on February 8, followed testimony of Eva Stein (line #540), Nicole's neighbor to the north rear who was awakened about 10:15 by the sound of an "unusual, insistently barking dog" coming from a direction to the south. At line #1082, Louis Karpf, boyfriend and housemate of Stein, relates that he arrived home from the airport at about 10:45 and went to mailbox on Bundy and there saw a dog running aimlessly in the street, and he said of the dog, "I've never heard a dog bark like that before." At line #2069 Steven Schwab, who lived in the neighborhood in an apartment complex on Montana relates encountering a loose dog, an expensive Akita, near Dorothy and Bundy while he was walking his own dog; he estimates the time as about 10:55. The loose dog seemed to have blood on its paws and legs, and even on its chest, but did not appear to be bleeding or injured; it acted very strangely. It insisted on following Schwab and his dog, but would stop at any house where there was a sheltered path leading to the front door, and bark loudly down that path. Schwab encountered a black an white patrol car, related the situation, and apparently the policemen sent in a call to Animal Control. Schwab took the dog to his apartment building, arriving there at 11:05, but left the new dog outside his door, since he had a cat, and was concerned about the interaction. There was a call on his answering machine indicating that Animal Control was closing at midnight, and he would have to keep the dog overnight if he could not bring it by then. Schwab tried to lead the dog back to where he had found it, but the dog refused, most forcefully, to go back down Bundy. While he was in the courtyard of his building, and considering what to do, a neighbor, Sukru Boztepe, came in, and offered to take the dog. Schwab gave it to him. At line #3717, Boztepe tells of taking the dog to his own apartment, but shortly finding that the dog became very agitated, an insisted on going outside. Boztepe and his wife then let the dog lead them to Bundy, and directly down that to Nicole's condo, whereupon the dog stood on the sidewalk, faced the porch, and barked insistently. The Boztepes instantly realized that there was a corpse of a woman at the foot of the steps and ran across the street to pound on doors to get someone to call the police. There was no answer at the first door, but at the second, the police were called. At line #4666 Elsie Tistaert, an old woman who lived across the street from Nicole, tells of seeing and hearing a dog bark incessantly in the street for half an hour at some time after 10:00 o'clock, and calling 911 to report it. They referred her to Animal Control, but she was not able to get through. Some time later she went to bed, but was awakened about midnight by urgent calling from her front door, which she did not answer. She called 911 to report that incident, however, and was informed that there was police activity across the street from her. DIRECTION OF PAW PRINTS: On February 23, Detective Lange testified (line # 1779 and following) in cross examination to Johnny Cochran concerning what he saw the next morning of the bloody paw prints at the crime scene– MR. COCHRAN: Now, with regard to the dog Kato on that night, you looked inside the interior of that residence; did you not? DET. LANGE: Yes, I did. MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any bloody paw prints inside the interior of the residence? DET. LANGE: No. MR. COCHRAN: Did you see any bloody paw prints that went westerly toward the rear gate of that particular residence? DET. LANGE: No. MR. COCHRAN: You saw paw prints; did you not? DET. LANGE: I saw what I believed to be paw prints, yes. MR. COCHRAN: And the paw prints that you saw moved in an easterly direction from the front gate out toward the sidewalk; is that correct? DET. LANGE: Initially, yes. MR. COCHRAN: And then did they make a turn, a right turn to go kind of southbound on Bundy? DET. LANGE: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: Then do they make a right turn to go kind of westbound on Dorothy for a short period of time? DET. LANGE: That's correct. MR. COCHRAN: You never saw any paw prints either going inside the interior or in that long walkway there on the side of the house, on the north side of the house, did you? DET. LANGE: No. From photographs shown on court TV, more even than the attorneys chose to elicit from the witnesses could be seen. There were no bloody paw prints on the porch, or farther west than the blood pool at the foot of the steps. The paw prints appeared to move in a fairly regular way east to the front gate, and there move around, as though the dog was in some confusion, or was exploring something. From the gate they proceeded directly and unwaveringly out to the sidewalk, and turned south. At no time did the paw prints turn around and look back to the west in the direction that the Bruno Magli footprints fled, nor do they appear to have interacted with any person present. DOG HAIRS: The dog also produced hairs that were found at the crime scene. On June 30 (line 1861 and following) Douglas Deedrick, FBI hair and fiber specialist, testified about the general nature of animal hairs: MS. CLARK: Did any of those dog hairs removed from the evidence in this case exhibit the same microscopic characteristics as those of the dog Kato? MR. DEEDRICK: Yes, they did. MS. CLARK: Which ones? MR. DEEDRICK: With reference to the Rockingham glove, there were a number of fur hairs that were found, and I believe I need to go into some distinction here as to what fur hairs means. Fur hairs are the underlying soft hairs that form the underbelly or undercoat of animals. Guard hairs are the coarser hairs, the larger hairs that make up the outer coat, for instance, of a dog. So they're called guard hairs and fur hairs. The finer hairs, the softer hairs would be fur hairs. And on the Rockingham glove, there were fur hairs. On the Bundy glove, on the outside of the Bundy glove, there was a guard hair. On the knit hat, on the outside, tan and black hairs because the Akita also had black hairs and the standard. There were a number of hairs recovered from Goldman's shoes, pants and shirt, all of these being white in color. All of these compared with the Akita known standard. In following testimony, Deedrick says that he found one guard hair on the Bundy (left) glove, and "3 or 4" fur hairs on the Rockingham (right) glove, and leads us to understand that the Akita's guard hairs are brown or black and stiff, whereas the fur hairs are white and soft. He also points out the fact that these may not have come onto the gloves through direct contact with the dog, but through secondary contact. That is, the Bundy front yard was a place the dog frequented, it could have shed hairs, and it could theoretically have been those shed hairs that later come in contact with the glove. For two reasons, we will consider that the presence of the dog hairs on the gloves represents an actual contact by the dog with the glove, rather than secondary transfer. First, leather gloves have a smooth surface, and do not well adhere a hair; a blood covered glove would much better adhere a hair. Therefore, it seems most likely that hairs later found on the gloves were acquired after they became blood covered. So far as can be determined, the gloves did not travel far in the yard after they became bloodied, and so would not have been exposed to many locations containing dog hairs. The left hand glove, for example, is believed to have been shed into the location it was later found. The history of the right glove is less certain. However, the right hand glove contains "3 or 4" hairs, and these are all fur hairs; it seems unlikely that incidental contact would produce so large a number, and all of one kind. Secondly, it is more productive to consider that the hairs represent direct contact between the dog and the gloves. As a general policy, all evidence can theoretically be the result of some random event connected to the crime, and if we generally reject evidence for this reason, we have nothing left. For example, if there had been a Bronco carpet fiber on Goldman's shirt, we would not reject the implication of contact between Goldman and Simpson because of the possibility that it could have blown onto the ground at some previous time, and was innocently adhered to the shirt when Goldman fell on it. By the same standard we do not reject the obvious implications of the dog hairs on the gloves, but hold the possibility of innocent cause in the back of our mind. Furthermore, the total number of hairs associated with Goldman and the artifacts at his feet, though not explicitly stated, seem to be greater than half a dozen, and is thus more than could reasonably be accounted for by secondary transfer. (Incidentally, it is somewhat infuriating that the FBI specialist who testifies with great confidence about what hair came from whom, has apparently not yet mastered the art of counting. Many of his references as to number use such words as "some", "few" "three or four" or "many". We should expect better from those who claim to be pre-eminent experts.) We therefore take the presence of hairs identified from the dog on the Bundy glove, the knit cap, and Goldman's clothes to indicate that when the dog was in the vicinity of the front gate (and Goldman's body) he sniffed around these things and transferred his hairs onto them. Apparently, from the testimony above, guard hairs were transferred to the cap and the Bundy glove, but fur hairs were transferred to Goldman's clothes. We can easily see why this would have been. The cap and glove were somewhat sheltered from the dog by the leaves of the agapanthus plant, and he would have investigated those items by poking his snout under the leaves. Insofar as a dog's snout is covered predominantly by guard hairs, it is these that would have been transferred to the cap and glove. However, Goldman's body is not similarly sheltered, and when the dog examines it, he can stand beside the body and reach across it with his neck and head; in this way, fur hairs from his chest come in contact with the blood spattered clothing, and adhere. When the dog moves, those adhering fur hairs are left behind. This view of the dog's behavior in the vicinity of Goldman's body is further confirmed by the paw prints which show some wandering near the gate, and otherwise proceed rather directly from the scene. Now, there was also found three or four fur hairs on the right hand glove taken to Rockingham. Using the same logic, we conclude that this indicates that the dog's chest or belly came in contact with that glove at some time after the crime, and before it was removed from Bundy. (Before the crime, the smooth surface of the leather would not have adhered the hairs; afterward, the blood on the leather would have.) When we try to visualize the event in which the dog's chest or belly came into contact with the glove, we are instantly puzzled. If the glove was on the hand of a man, either the dog stood on his hind feet facing the man, and the man reached out and touched the exposed front of the dog with the bloody glove, or the dog laid down, and the man stooped to rub the glove on the dog's underside. (Nice doggie.) Neither of these images is consistent with the situation in which the man has just committed a double homicide, and the anguished dog realizes that one of the victims is its mistress. This image of the man/dog interaction is further confounding by the fact that in spite of the enormous events of the moment, the dog does not bark. (He at some time wails, but we recognize a distinction between barking and wailing.) Other interactions can be imagined; they are theoretically possible, but are inconsistent with a situation in which there is a bloody double murder, the killer is in a hurry, the dog does not bark, and the dog comes in contact with the glove by way of his chest or belly, but not another part of his body. In contrast with the strained and improbable imaginings that could lead to an explanation for this evidence, we can resort to the very simple model that was so comfortable in explaining the fur hairs on Goldman's clothing. The dog was investigating something else, and inadvertently put his chest in contact with the bloody glove. Of course, if the dog came from the house after the crime was complete, the first thing he would have encountered was the fallen corpse of his mistress, and this would have been a very great and preoccupying cause for investigation. We can not imagine that the same dog that later sniffed over Goldman's body would not have done similarly with Nicole's if his course passed that first. Nicole's prostrate position, like Goldman's makes the geometry correct for contact between the dog's chest and the highest parts of Nicole's body. But, how could the dog's sniffing over Nicole's corpse account for the transfer of his chest hairs to the right hand glove? This could happen if the glove, at the time the dog encountered it, was not on a person's hand, but was loose, lying on top of Nicole's body. Immediately, this may seem to be an invention of convenience, but wait. Early in the trial, when they were attempting to discredit the coroner's office, the defense team made a brief issue of the fact that in crime scene photos taken before the bodies were removed there was a splattering of blood drops on the back of Nicole's bare left shoulder. It was the defense purpose to show that these were washed away by the coroner's people before autopsy, and never analyzed. After having used the splatter to show that, the matter was forgotten. However, the fact remains, there was a splattering of blood drops on Nicole's shoulder that has never been explained, but must have been an artifact of the crime. We now see – with the help of the dog hairs – that this was the place upon which rested the right hand glove when the dog came in contact with it. As the dog stood to the west of Nicole's body and reached across it with his head, his chest would have come in contact with her left shoulder, and a bloody glove lying there would have adhered fur hairs, as seen. FOLLOWING THE TRAIL: Such a chain of events also explains another puzzeling fact in the dog evidence. Although the man in the Bruno Magli shoes fled to the west, and in fact the medium of the shoe prints was his mistress's own blood, the dog showed no interest in – or even any recognition of – that trail. We understand that dogs are remarkably interested in scents, and follow trails of scents. In fact, the last thing in Nicole's yard that this dog observed was Goldman's body, and his later paw prints lead directly from the yard to the location on Dorothy where Goldman's car was parked. By doing so, this dog behaved exactly as we would have expected a dog to behave: it followed the trail of a scent connected with an event that greatly disturbed it. However, the Bruno Magli trail was much more conspicuous, and the dog showed no interest in it. We now see the reason for this. If the dog deposited his fur hairs on the loose glove that lay on Nicole's shoulder, and the man in the Bruno Magli footprints carried away that glove, the carrying away must have occurred after the dog visited the body. The Bruno Magli footprints did not yet exist at the time the dog was in the yard, and there is little surprise he did not show recognition of a trail that did not yet exist. Alternative explanations rely on remarkable claims of specialized knowledge of dog psychology, and some put great emphasis on that fact that because Simpson had the bill of sale for the dog, the loyal dog would behave in a particular way to anticipate the implication of its behavior, and protect Simpson from suspicion by by acting in otherwise un-natural ways. In contrast, the only assumptions we have made concerning the dog's behavior are rather fundamental. We do not believe that under the grave circumstance of this bloody crime involving its mistress the dog would have interacted in a playful or friendly way with the killer (Simpson or any other). And, we believe that the dog would have shown an interest in the most conspicuous trail that was present. We also think, though with somewhat less certainty, that if the dog came upon the crime in progress, it would have barked considerably, might have tried to interefere, and, if the killer were anyone else than Simpson, would have himself been killed. (The same ears that heard the plantive wail, did not hear earlier barking.) In other circumstances, these few and fundamental characteristics of dog behavior would be readily accepted. Accepting them here leads to a rejection of complicated explanations of dog psychology. And then, there is only one simple explanation left for all the evidence: the killings occurred, shortly afterward the dog came upon the scene, nosed around and left to follow Goldman's scent, the man in the Bruno Magli shoes later appeared and carried away the right hand glove. The paw prints, the Bruno Magli shoe prints, the deposit of dog hairs, and the sounds heard from the dog are all simply explained thereby. The concept is also supported by other evidence not involving the dog. Dick Wagner • Van Nuys, CA (12/08/97) NG059 I am sorry for the delay in answering, but real life intrudes. There had been a discussion of the significance of the fact that Simpson was a relatively rich person, and moved in a circle of others with much money. I had ventured that the police should have suspected the possibility (one of many possibilities) that wealth in the scene made possible a murder for hire, arranged to frame Simpson. This type of explanation for a crime is usually not considered because the money to do the job well is lacking, but not necessarily in this case. Then you asked: >So are you saying that even if Simpson had committed the >perfect crime that he still would have been a suspect >because he could have hired a hit man? I've never heard of >hiring a hit man to kill someone in order to frame another >person, have you? I think you intend your first sentence facetiously, showing that Simpson himself would be subject to greater scrutiny as the source of a hired hit under my idea. But, yes. That possibility should have been suspected, until there became such abundant evidence that Simpson himself had been at the scene of the crime. From that point onward, it really makes no sense to suspect that Simpson hired a professional hit man to do the crime in such a way as to implicate himself. OLD WORLD MURDER TECHNIQUE: As to your second question: As a mater of fact, I have heard of hiring a hit man to kill someone in order to frame another person. I read of this in a magazine article in the early 1950s, and it was very similar to the Simpson case. It involved rival mobsters in an eastern city. "Joe" and "Bill" were at the punk level of mob A, which was engaged in a turf dispute with mob B. Joe and Bill were lifelong pals, and each was the other’s best friend. On night, Bill gets a phone call from an obviously terrified Joe, saying that mobsters from B had him cornered in a warehouse; there was a back way in, but Joe was wounded and couldn’t escape by himself. Joe tells Bill to arm himself, and bring Joe’s gun to him. Bill, of course, does this, approaching the place in the empty warehouse with great anxiety, and ready to engage in a gun battle with the other mobsters. Upon entering the inner sanctum, he finds Joe horribly butchered, blood all over the place, and Bill’s own, and very distinctive knife sticking out of the still warm corpse. Bill is triply horrified: 1) the scene is ghastly, no matter who the victim is, 2) his own best friend is there before him quite thoroughly dead, and 3) his own knife is conspicuous, indicating a very convincing plot to frame him for the crime. Bill did what most people would do under these unexpected circumstances: he grabbed the incriminating knife, and fled, unwittingly leaving many indications of his presence in the process. The police were led by these indications to him, and there found the knife stained with the victim’s blood. Prosecution followed. Interestingly, the event had been so horrible that Bill’s mind shut down, and he had no recollection that he had visited the scene of his friend’s murder, or of the events leading up to it. As a result, he was unable to contribute to his defense, or lead police to investigate in areas that would have cleared him. His conviction was a slam dunk, and he went to prison. Some time later there was a falling out among members of mob B, the truth came out, and investigation confirmed it; Bill was sprung. This is a slightly interesting anecdote in its own right, but its real value is in revealing a human psychological mechanism that few of us would have suspected without being told. If two people ("victim" and "goat") have a close psychological bond, it is possible to kill one and frame the other. This is done by luring the goat to the scene immediately after the crime is done under circumstances that are frightening and when the goat is alone. The goat must thereupon discover his (pick one: best friend, wife, lover, mother of his children) dead in a most horrible and gruesome fashion, and some personal item (pick one: knife, right hand glove, etc.) of his, conspicuously in evidence. It is predictable that he will flee with the incriminating evidence left for him to find, and suffer horror-induced amnesia concerning the event. His later conviction is a certainty. I have previously described this phenomenon, and attributed it as a traditional technique of the Sicilian Mafia; I am indebted to USYSS3C for attaching the name, "Old World Murder" to the technique. I believe that the average person – myself included – has only the vaguest idea of the psychological power of real horror. The portrayals in "horror movies" are a joke; producers know that the public would not stand for an accurate representation of this ghastly experience. "Horror Movies" are better called "Scary Movies." The closest to a believeable vision of horror that I have ever seen is in the "Godfather" when the movie mogul awakes to find the head of his beloved horse on the pillow beside him. Insofar as it is yet an animal, and not a person, this still only flirts with the reality. I believe it is modest to say that a person confronted with true horror will suffer a psychological meltdown, and that his behavior in this state is probably predictable – in general, if not detail – to one who understands the phenomenon. In short, to a professional killer with links to Old World traditions. Notice that the circumstances required to bring this mechanism into play are highly specific; they are unlikely to arise by chance, and really must be engineered as part of a deliberate plot. Because of this, the result is seldom seen, and not widely realized. (However, a similar psychological reaction – horror-induced amnesia – is sometimes seen in combat, where there is no suspicion of a crime having been committed.) As long as we refuse to recognize that this can happen, the same method can be used again with another victim and goat. It is only ourselves that we put at risk by our stubborn insistence upon thinking that Simpson – or anyone else – has a psyche that is so durable that no amount of contrived assault on it can cause it to fail. Notice, also, that with this understanding the previously baffling and nonsensical "three thumps" and the right hand glove are comepletly reasonable expectations. Dick Wagner • Van Nuys, CA (1/09/98) NG089 On the advice of several here in the newsgroup I acquired a copy of M.L. Rantala's book, "O.J. Unmasked." (1996, Catfeet Press.) It was particularly recommended to me because it contains a comprehensive table showing the results of DNA evidence in the case. It also contains a good annotated witness list, and very understandable explanations of some of the technically baffling testimony. Ms. Rantala acknowledges the help of many university reviewers, and this thoroughness makes the book a very convincing and authoritative source. Sadly, the author proceeds from a biased viewpoint, and presents only aspects of the issue that advance her agenda. She believes that Simpson committed the murders, and explains that position carefully and thoughtfully. In the course of this she conveniently omits mention of exactly the evidence that would cast doubt on her position. For example, she goes to great lengths to explain the concept of DNA testing, and does a wonderful job of that – the book is worthwhile for that contribution alone. However, in her tabulation of the blood evidence, she confines herself to listing the results of DNA tests, and ignores the results of serological tests on blood stains. (Although she does mention the concept of serological tests.) As a result, she highlights the well known links of Simpson to the crime scene (the five drop trail, the blood in the Bronco, and the blood at Rockingham) but she spares the reader from the disturbing indications of the blood on Nicole's dress and calf and the distribution of blood on Goldman's clothing. There is also no mention of the "three or four" dog fur hairs on the right hand glove mentioned by witness Douglas Deedrick, which are mysterious to anyone trying to visualize a Simpson-as-killer scenario. (In this way, Rantala's book highlights a disturbing lapse that has implications beyond the Simpson case. The serological tests are quick, and are done early in the investigation; the DNA tests are slow and costly. Therefore, the serological tests serve as a screening process to determine what evidence will be subject to the DNA analysis with its sensational "one-in-a-million" results. Since the prosecutors did not find any stains through serological means on Goldman's clothes that matched Simpson's type, they did not go further and send those stains for DNA analysis. From similar motives, no doubt, a single serological test on the left hand glove did not indicate Simpson and therefore discouraged further examination of that important evidence. Therefore, when we see a list of DNA tests we are seeing a list of only that evidence that prosecutors believed would contain links to their preconceived suspect. We should expect more objectivity than this from a criminal investigation.) Most important, the implications of the evidence she does present are superficial, as is the usual analysis. For example, the author devotes an entire chapter to blood on the back gate, and meticulously reviews the arguments for and against accepting this as factual evidence. In the end, there is little doubt that this is actually a blood stain from O.J. Simpson deposited on the night of the crime, and she goes on to another topic. There is no wonder at why this blood stain would exist at all; no inquiry into what Simpson could have been doing to have left this stain in such a place under the circumstances of the night. It was Simpson's left hand that was bleeding, recall, and according to the prosecution (and Rantala) it was wounded during the knife fight in Nicole's front yard. Therefore, the blood must have been deposited as Simpson left the scene. But it is on the right side of the gate for one traveling in that direction, and it is at the top of the gate. Hence, Simpson must have reached across his body and up, with his arm across his face to account for this. Furthermore, the stain is on the hinge side of the gate, not the side that one would reach to open it. Lastly, as Rantala mentions, it (Prosecution Item #117 from the top of the back gate) is the most abundant of Simpson's blood stains associated with the crime. Although these indications might be explained by some scenario in which Simpson had committed the murders, they are not consistent with the usual picture that he fled down the back walk, pushed through the gate and went directly to the Bronco. (This image is supported by the even spacing in the five drop trail; that is consistent with a uniform rate of travel for Simpson until he reached his vehicle.) As neither the prosecution nor the defense wrestled with these implications, Rantala does not. This book, then, makes the usual mistake: "Simpson was at the scene of the crime at about the time it was committed, but denies it. Therefore, he must be the killer." That is something less than compelling logic, no matter how universal it has become. This book is, in fact, what would be guessed from an endorsement inside the front cover by Vincent Bugliosi, a memorial to the prosecution's case. However, the prosecution got half the story right – Simpson was at the scene of the crime – and this book is an excellent explanation of that half of the truth. In particular, it convincingly blows away the foolish arguments of the defense that tried to deny this abundantly proven truth. Unfortunately, by ignoring the implications of inconvenient contrary evidence, it comes to the wrong conclusion. I must thank those who urged me to get this book. It is an excellent reference for half of the story, and for that I value it. Dick Wagner • Van Nuys, CA (1/08/98) NG088 Sorry for my tardiness in replying to your earlier comments that have now fallen off my server. Since the main comment is from Ron, I replay that below: >Dick: >I really haven't been following your current scenario, so excuse me if this >question has already been asked. >Say I go along with your concept of some rich people hating Butch enough to >frame him for murder. My question is, why such a complex, risky frame, with so >many uncontrollable elements, and endless variables? >Setting up Butch would take a grand total of two people, and would be air tight. >All you need is a good-looking woman of questionable virtue, and a killer. >To be brief, woman places herself in Butch's path. Butch & woman go to her pad >for sex & some coke. During course of night, she substitutes a line of heroin >for Butch's line of coke. Butch nods out. Killer, (who obviously told her a >different story of what he was going to do) comes in, chops her to shreds, >places the knife in Butch's hand, and leaves. Anonymous call to cops ends deal. >No loose ends, only one person left in the know. >I came up with this off the top of my head, and it involves about 1/1000th of >the hassle and chance of discovery as your theory does. >Don't you think that somebody actually planning something like this could have >come up with something similar? (I presume that "Butch" is Simpson in this.) You are, of course, quite right in saying that the Bundy murders involved a remarkable amount of planning and technical skill that is rarely seen in a crime that was committed by anyone outside the government itself. I have made the offhand estimate that this crime cost in excess of $100,000 to execute. I believe it is likely that there are a few technical details of the crime (e.g., disabling the front gate remote latch) that have not even been hinted at. There are very clear indications in the testimony of Dr. Lakshmanan that Nicole (but not Goldman) was murdered in a highly professional manner by someone who came to the scene with a thorough and practical knowledge of anatomy and physiology, rendered her dazed before she knew what was happening, incapacitated her by puncturing the carotid artery, and while she was in that helpless condition thoroughly slit her throat. Thirty seconds, start to finish – at the outside – and never a peep. It must be a great insult to the killer that his considerable skill is not more widely recognized. But, I digress. Your question is, "Why go about it in this complicated way, when simpler methods are obviously available?" As you have said, you considered your alternative only briefly, and like almost any alternative that you might come up with it suffers from a disadvantage that the real crime did not have: in your version, Simpson himself knows the details of factors leading up to the crime, and can supply those details to investigators. Furthermore, in the specific example you have offered Simpson is rendered oblivious at the time of the murder itself by drugs, and this could be confirmed after the fact by a blood analysis. Lastly, your method would be of only secondary value – even if it worked – for one who hated both Nicole and Simpson; Nicole goes free in your concept. None of these disadvantages occur if the Old World Murder method (see another posting I have made today to The General for detailed discussion of this) is used. Simpson himself is rendered mentally incompetent by that method, and may secretly believe that he actually did kill Nicole. Now, you may think that this is simply some convoluted way to show that Simpson is really a good guy after all, because he did not kill his ex-wife. (Under other circumstances it takes somewhat more than this to gain the status of "good guy.") But, as you look deeper into the possibility of an Old World Murder explanation, you will see that it could probably not have been implemented unless there were some shadowy and shameful issue hanging over Simpson at the time that could be used to motivate him to make the trip to Bundy. It is not my objective to rehabilitate Simpson's character in general, but only to try to understand the crime realistically in view of the great abundance of evidence, some of which does not really make sense according to the popular explanations. Dick Wagner • Van Nuys, CA (1/09/98) NG090 NKC: I am sorry to see that you have made this interpretation of my thought. It is not at all what I intended, as "Sherlock," who also responded, correctly understood. Amazingly, you have it exactly backwards. Since I was appealing for the police to suspect that when the victim or a suspect is wealthy, they might guess at the possiblity that money figured in the crime. If this is possible, it opens the way to suspect wealthy people of having committed it (since they have the wherewithall to pay for a professional hit.) Since I ask that the wealthy be suspected as well as the poor, my position is actually anti-elitist. (In the particular case of Simpson, it is true that the suspect had much money. But, others who had as much or more, and could have hired professionals to produce this result implicating Simpson were never considered, as far as has been publicised.) --rjw ROBERT SEIGLER: I have thought about your reminder that the five drop blood trail at Bundy was "too far to the left of" the retreating Bruno Magli bloody footprints. "Too far," of course, is subjective; "too far" for what? In fact, the blood trail is too far to the left for one who is traversing the walk with his hands at his sides. This does not completely surprise us. We know the right hand glove left the crime scene some time after the murders were committed, and was deposited behind Kato's wall later on the night of June 12/13. The simplest explanation (and the one I believe) is that the man in the Bruno Magli shoes transported it. However, the drops themselves do not come from the glove (an interesting observation in itself) but appear to come from the person who carried the glove. In two ways the blood trail tells us about how he was holding the glove at the time. If he had been carrying it with his hands to his sides, his finger would have bleed onto the glove, and would not have dripped on the ground. Also, the trail is "too far to the left," indicating that he was holding the glove away from his body as he traveled. From later indications that his blood (the same blood type as found in the five drop trail) was found only around the wrist notch, we see that he was probably carrying it gingerly by that end between his thumb and forefinger. You also remind us that there is little "tail" on three of the blood drops and none on two of them. Although you mistakenly consider this an indication that the drops were planted, you are correct in mentioning the alternative: the carrier of the glove was moving slowly down the path. We see this confirmed in one part of the bloody footsteps where they stop and turn half way back to the yard. Here, we have two mutuall