SHIVELY’S SUCCESSFUL APPEAL
dick wagner
Times, as expected. We (particularly Jabine, who was at one time
interested in the apparent manipulation of Simpson-case news) may wonder
why a reporter would call a principal in a story, interview her on the
phone, and then the story (of some small general interest) would not
appear, even buried in the paper as a space filler. (…when fillers are
particularly needed to balance a flood of Christmas advertising.)
Jabine may be quick to remind us that Bill Boyarsky, who was the Times
man on the Simpson case, wrote a column on January 12, 1998, hinting at
the Wasz plot, and that column has since been suppressed from the Times
archives. Boyarsky is now City Editor, and has great influence in
determining which stories appear and which do not. (The explanation of
this may be related to the handling of the recent BBC Simpson-case
special. In the early edits of that, Bob Kardashian was specifically
named, but in the final cut he was only identified as "a close personal
fried of Simpson’s." Ah, the privileges one enjoys when he travels in
the circle of high priced attorneys.)
Nonetheless, there is always some media outlet that "does not get the
word," and innocently publishes what is really happening. Such a one,
in this case, is the "Metropolitan News Enterprise," a venerable
specialty (legal, courts, etc.) newspaper published in downtown Los
Angeles. The following is an article that appeared this week. I went
to their web site, http://www.metnews.com, and could not find a link to
the article, but I understand that an e-mail inquiry through that site
will bring an e-mail response that will give the text I reprint below.
NOTES: As I explain on our site, http://www.wagnerandson.com, the time
of Jill’s sighting of the fleeing OJ Simpson was not really 10:50 as the
grand jury transcript seems to indicate, but actually was 10:40. The
10:50 time was an invention of Marcia Clark, which a careful dissection
of the words of the transcript will reveal. Frank face-to-face
interviews with Shively herself give the 10:40 figure.
Original defendants, author Joseph Bosco, and publisher William Morrow
& Company, were dropped from this suit long ago when Bosco provided
conclusive evidence that he had faithfully reproduced Bozanich’s words.
Notice in this article that Brian Patrick Clarke, Jill’s accuser, is
characterized as "Clarke, an actor and Shively's former boyfriend…" I
point this out because the relationship between the two has sometimes
been disputed by posters here, and used to support their idea that Jill
was an unreliable witness. The concept that Clarke was Jill’s boyfriend
is accepted by more than me. (The Appellate Court also understands it
that way, and the situation was detailed in a tabloid article <"TV DOC
CONNED ME INTO BED," the Globe, April 27, 1993> more than a year before
the Bundy crimes.)
--dick wagner
________________________________________________
Court of Appeal Reinstates Libel Suit Against Prosecutor Over Simpson
Book
By a METNEWS Staff Writer
A libel suit charging a top local prosecutor with defaming a witness in
the O.J. Simpson case was reinstated Friday by this district's Court of
Appeal. Div. Three ruled that Jill Shively had made out a triable claim
of libel based on a statement attributed to Assistant District Attorney
Peter Bozanich in Joseph Bosco's book, "A Problem of Evidence: How the
Prosecution Freed O.J. Simpson." About 36,000 copies of the book-in
which Bozanich is quoted as calling Shively a "felony probationer"--were
distributed in the United States and Canada, more than 6,000 of those in
California, a publisher's representative said.
Bozanich, a county prosecutor since 1971, was named last Monday as
assistant district attorney in charge of special operations. He was head
deputy in charge of South Juvenile before being named to his new post by
District Attorney Steve Cooley.
Shively was a witness in the aborted grand jury probe of the murders of
Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Shively told the grand jury
that she encountered O.J. Simpson crossing San Vicente Boulevard in a
white Bronco at about 10:50 p.m. the night of the killings, going south
to north in the way one would expect if he were leaving the home of his
ex-wife on the way back to his home.
Shively was ultimately declared an unreliable witness by chief Simpson
prosecutor Marcia Clark, after it was disclosed she had received $5,000
to tell her story to the syndicated television program "Hard Copy."
Shively sued Bozanich, Los Angeles County, Brian Patrick Clarke, Bosco,
and publisher William Morrow & Company in 1997. It was Clarke, an actor
and Shively's former boyfriend, whose false allegation Bozanich
allegedly repeated, according to the book. Clarke is described in the
book as having been married to the sister of the former husband of
Bozanich's wife, Deputy District Attorney Pamela Ferrero Bozanich.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Reginald Dunn granted summary judgment
in favor of Bozanich and the county, which was named as a defendant
based on an allegation that Bozanich was acting within the scope of his
employment when he made the defamatory comment. He also sustained a
demurrer by Clarke.
Those rulings were based on the one-year statute of limitations. But
Justice Walter Croskey, writing for the Court of Appeal, said there was
a triable issue as to whether Shively discovered, or reasonably should
have discovered, the basis for her lawsuit more than a year before it
was filed. Shively claimed she had no knowledge of the statement until
she read the book in December 1996, five months before she filed a tort
claim with the county and 10 months before she filed suit.
Croskey rejected the contention that it was unfair to apply the
delayed-discovery rule so as to extend the time in which to sue
non-mass-media defendants such as Bozanich and Clarke solely with
earlier statements of which the plaintiff became aware solely as a
result of republication in the mass media.
The justice wrote: "We see no reason that the discovery rule should
not be applied to toll the running of the statute of limitations on
causes of action for defamation, even when the defamatory remarks have
been republished in the mass media. The concept of 'mass media' is
broadly applied to include any publication, no matter how obscure +or+
limited in distribution or reception. Thus, a plaintiff's opportunity
to become aware of a defamatory statement is a relative one which is
heavily dependent upon the particular circumstances. For example, the
likelihood of discovery of a defamatory statement published on the front
page of the local newspaper is significantly different from that of a
similar statement contained in the middle of an obscure book with a
relatively infinitesimal circulation."
Attorneys on appeal were Monique Shana Hill and Gregory Hill of Hill &
Hill for Shively, and Cindy S. Lee of Franscell, Strickland, Roberts &
Lawrence for Bozanich and the county. Clarke made no appearance in the
appellate court.
The case is +Shively v. Bozanich+, B130905.
______________________________________________________
Anonymous
http://www.smartfellowspress.com/_Iago01/00000003.htm
Answer to Anonymous/ Jill Shively
From: Jasper
Date: 9/1/00
Time: 4:09:40 PM
Remote Name: 206.141.209.174
Comments
Anonymous
This is for the person who wrote me the nice letter a couple of weeks ago when the site was really a mess and asked about the woman who said she saw O.J. in his Bronco around the time of the murders.
The so-called witness was Jill Shively. I did not include her name in the Iago appendix because her testimony before the Grand Jury was thoroughly discredited during the Preliminary hearing. I am constantly surprised at the number of people who still think her testimony had substance.
Shively told TV news magazine Hard Copy that she was racing to beat the 11:00 closing time of a convenience store when she was nearly involve in an accident with O.J. Simpson. That's why she was positive of the 10:50 time that she saw O.J. in his Bronco with its lights out running a red light at the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente three blocks north of the murder scene. She was sure about the time because she had to check her watch to be sure she got to the store before it closed and because the incident was so dramatic and it involved a big celebrity. She said that he run through a read light and hollered at another driver to get out of his way. She said that she first thought that the man she saw was Marcus Allen but a closer look told her that it was Simpson.
Shively gave the police the license number of O.J.'s Bronco and told them that she took it down at the time of the incident. Neither of the other drivers who were supposedly involved in the incident ever came forward nor were they ever found.
One person who did come forward was an actor named Bryan Clark. After seeing Shively on Hard Copy he called the defense to tell them that Jill Shively was a liar. He had strong evidence in the form of a lawsuit he won against her in small claims court for 6,000.
Marcia Clark said that she scratched Shively from her witness list because she sold her story to Hard Copy then told prosecutors the very next day that she had told no one her story except her mother. However, if you read her testimony in the transcripts you will see that Shively was a liability to the prosecution case that Marcia was undoubtedly looking for an excuse to discredit. You'll notice that Marcia gets Shively to say that she saw O.J.'s bare arm. According to Marcia O.J. was wearing a long-sleeved sweatsuit when he killed Ron and Nicole on Bundy and when Allan Park saw him on Rockingham. Worst of all was the time she said she saw O.J. at the intersection and the reason she said she remembered the time. Marcia's entire case was built around a timeline for the killing that started and ended before 10:30. If Shively did see O.J. at 10:50, the rest of her case would have been in the toilet. Either it happened before 10:30 or after 10:30. The prosecution couldn't have it both ways. -Jasper
"dick wagner" <wag...@westworld.com> wrote in message news:3A3919...@westworld.com...
> News of Jill Shively's successful appeal did not appear in the LA
> Times, as expected. We (particularly Jabine, who was at one time
> interested in the apparent manipulation of Simpson-case news) may wonder
> why a reporter would call a principal in a story, interview her on the
> phone, and then the story (of some small general interest) would not
> appear, even buried in the paper as a space filler. (.when fillers are
> characterized as "Clarke, an actor and Shively's former boyfriend." I
-------- Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com -------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
----------- http://www.newsfeeds.com ----------
dick wagner
Thanks for this, Anonymous. I am somewhat familiar with Jasper's
"work," and know that many pro-J's are interestd in what he says.
What you have shown us here is pretty much representative of the
typical pro-J understanding of these events, and it is throughly wrong
(but widespread). I doubt that Jasper has actually gone to the site of
the encounter, as I did, actually talked to Jill, as I have often, or
poked repeatedly through Superior Court archives involving Shively and
Clarke, as I also have. When one has done these things, he realizes
several important facts, not known in reading only the popular sources.
A few...
* "She was racing to beat the 11:00 closing time of a conveneince
store..." Jasper says. It was perhaps the best known market (Westward
Ho) on San Vicente Boulevard, not a convenience store. If there was
some reason that she lied about her purpose in being at the
intersection, no one has suggested it.
* "...she was positive of the 10:50 time that she saw O.J. in his
Bronco..." As I have mentioned, 10:50 was an invention of Marcia Clark,
the transcript does not exactly say this, and the fact is that the
encounter was ten minutes earlier. ...as Jill knew when she was in the
grand jury, and as she had told Marcia. But, Marcia found this detail
to be inconvenient to her purpose, and did not ask Jill the critical
question that would have elucidated the fact. (But, it certainly would
have come out if Jill were ever a "real" witness, and subject to cross
examination. Thereby, Marcia's duplicity in leading this witness (in
the grand jury) into a misrepresentation would also be exposed.)
* "She was sure about the time because she had to check her watch..."
Jill was not consulting her watch for the time, she was consulting a
"little battery operated stick-on clock" in her old Volkswagen.
* "Neither of the other drivers who were supposedly involved [mentioned
by Jill in her testimony] ever came forward nor were they ever found."
In the spring of this year, I have heard from sources involved, private
investigators reviewed the police log of "tips" that came in just after
the Simpson crime, and it included calls (not anonymous) from a man who
appeared from his story to have been the driver of the gray Nissan, and
another who was in the gas station accross the street. The police did
not investigate these leads, because Marcia's grand jury denunciation
had made Jill utterly useless as a witness.
* "[Brian Patrick Clarke claimed] that Jill Shively was a liar. He had
strong evidence in this from of a lawsuit he won against her in small
claims court for $6,000." The claimed loss was for $6,000; he won the
small claims maximum of $5,000. But, he greatly misrepresented this.
After a March (1993) award of $5,000, Jill appealed the verdict and upon
review in June it was vacated. A stipulated agreement was entered in
which she agreed to pay Clarke $2,000 for a debt she acknowledged she
owed him. To agree to pay a debt you acknowledge (and which you had
been willing to pay all along) hardly brands one as an unreliable
witness. However, Clarke's misrepresentation of this fact (compare a
transcript of his "American Journal" statements with the results of the
small claims court in June) casts serious doubt on him as a reliable
source of information.
* "Marcia Clark said that she scratched Shively from her witness list
because she sold her story to Hard Copy then told prosecutors the very
next day that she had told no one her story except her mother." Only
the second cause (misleading Clark in a pre-grand jury interview) was
cited by Clark in the grand jury interview as the reason for rejecting
Shively. In her book, Clark indicates that the "Hard Copy" interview
also motivated her, but there was nothing illegal about the interview,
or anything that necessarily disqualifies a witness. In her second
grand jury appearance (Thurday, June 23) Jill gave her reason for the
misleading answer -- she misunderstood the question to be a question she
had been asked many times since the incident occured.
* Finally, Jasper discusses Marcia's possible tactical reasons for
dismissing Shively, and he may be right about some of these. Certainly,
there was something irrational about Marcia's letting go the only
eye-witness that saw Simpson away from Rockingham during the critical
period of the crimes. (Incidentally, the sleeves of a "long-sleeved
sweatsuit" can be pushed up above the elbow quite easily, and when that
is done, the wearer may appear to an observer who sees him in a car to
be bare-armed.)
If the whole story of Jill Shively is ever told, I think that it will
be a chilling look at how high priced attorneys can manipulate the
circumstances of witnesses to favor their case. I have proposed a quite
plausible mechanism whereby Pavalic (with Shapiro's presumed blessing)
could have influenced Clarke to contact the DAs in the middle of the
night and denounce Shively. See "Conjecture" on our site at
http://www.wagnerandson.com for details.
--dick wagner
boba...@my-deja.com
Dick,
Good work.
But lets talk about this statement you made, "Jill's sighting of the
fleeing OJ Simpson was not really 10:50 as the grand jury transcript
seems to indicate, but actually was 10:40."
I have read your articles about Jill Shively, as I told you before, and
found then very informative. But I have never read where you committed
to a definite 10:40 time until now when you are trying to sell your
latest attempt in an alternative murder sequence. You know as well I do
that all of these times were estimates. Even Shively's 8 to 10 minute
difference of the clock that was in her car. All estimates. The
important fact here is that Shively's sighting of Simpson does fall in
the time line sequence of what we know happened that night. We know that
Heidstra estimated the time he saw the white vehicle driving away. The
estimated time that Jill Shively had her encounter with Simpson happened
after the time Heidstra estimated. The next sighting of Simpson was from
Park. That time we know more accurately because of phone records.
Your now definite opinion of 10:40 is not even consistent with the time
estimates of 10:45 you made when you wrote your articles. So what has
changed Dick? Maybe your desperate attempts to try and make the facts
fit your new scenario?
bobaugust
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
dick wagner
To my discussing Jill Shively and the status of her current legal
struggle, you say...
___________________________________
But lets talk about this statement you made, "Jill's sighting of the
fleeing OJ Simpson was not really 10:50 as the grand jury transcript
seems to indicate, but actually was 10:40."
I have read your articles about Jill Shively, as I told you before, and
found then very informative. But I have never read where you committed
to a definite 10:40 time until now when you are trying to sell your
latest attempt in an alternative murder sequence. You know as well I do
that all of these times were estimates. Even Shively's 8 to 10 minute
difference of the clock that was in her car. All estimates. The
important fact here is that Shively's sighting of Simpson does fall in
the time line sequence of what we know happened that night. We know that
Heidstra estimated the time he saw the white vehicle driving away. The
estimated time that Jill Shively had her encounter with Simpson happened
after the time Heidstra estimated. The next sighting of Simpson was from
Park. That time we know more accurately because of phone records.
Your now definite opinion of 10:40 is not even consistent with the time
estimates of 10:45 you made when you wrote your articles. So what has
changed Dick? Maybe your desperate attempts to try and make the facts
fit your new scenario?
________________________________________
THE 10:40 TIME: First of all, the reason that I talk about 10:40 is
based (as you correctly say) in the concealed "8 to 10 minute error"
that Shively was aware of in her car's clock.
This is how I figure the time... The grand jury testimony has Simpson
leaving the intersection of Bundy and San Vicente at 10:50, and he is
estimated to have stayed there for one minute. Hence he entered the
intersection (according to the grand jury concept) at 10:49.
But there is a clock error. For convenience, I use 10 minutes; you
could use 8 minutes with no objection from me. To do this conveniently,
simply make all of my times two minutes later than I say, it does no
substantial harm to the scenario to do this. But, from this point on I
will discuss the situation with a 10 minute error.
When this clock error is applied to the grand jury times, we come up
with the true times of the incident: Simpson enters the intersection at
10:39 and he leaves at 10:40. It is a five minute drive from that point
to his Rockingham gate (under the circumstances of the moment). So, he
arrives home at 10:45. Park sees him at 10:55. From this he is
occupied with some other activities (or is simply waiting for something
to happen) for ten minutes before he crosses the drive and enters his
house. (Are you beginning to see the reason for thinking that he had
"signaled to Kato," Bob?)
CROSS CHECK WITH HEIDSTRA: This thinking is confirmed by
cross-checking with Heidstra's times. The best that I can make of
account is that he saw the "white SUV" turn right from Dorothy and go
down Bundy at 10:37. My tracing the route from there to where Shively
saw Simpson gives an elapsed time of two minutes plus/minus 15 seconds.
So, the Heidstra and Shively times are mutually supportive.
SIMPSON'S TIME BENCHMARK AT BUNDY: Then, I back up two minutes earlier
from the moment when Heidstra saw the "white SUV" turn the corner, and I
come to the moment when Heidstra was in the alley and heard "Hey, hey,
hey." I back up two minutes for the driver of the SUV, assuming that he
is Simpson and has just come from the scene of Nicole's body, and I find
that he has just started down the path toward the alley. Then I notice
that within that bloody footpath, at print "M" there is a sideways
backing into the shrubs on the north side of the walk that has been
characterized as "he turned to look back toward the street. The man in
the Bruno Magli shoes heard from the street the same sound that Heidstra
heard in the alley on the other side of Bundy. Therefore, I put Simpson
at footprint "M" at 10:35.
"ESTIMATES": All times are "estimates," Bob. If you try your best to
set your house clock accurately, when you go to measure something by it
there will be an error -- probably small, on the order of seconds -- but
there will be an error. The figure you report is an estimate. Even the
timestamp on Park's telephone bill is an estimate, but the error is only
a fraction of a second.
In the case of the time estimates discussed here, the error in the
estimate is greater -- on the order of a few minutes. I have estimated
the error in the ending timeline (just discussed) to be plus or minus
two minutes, and the error on the beginning timeline (the event of the
murders) to be plus or minus one minute. If you would like to slip my
assertions about the time of things around by these amounts, I would not
object -- it would be within what I recognize as a margin of error.
MY "EARLIER ESTIMATE OF 10:45": I honestly don't remember ever
estimating that Shively saw Simpson at 10:45, but that is possible. The
articles on our site (see particularly "Ending Timeline," 8/17/98 at
http://www.wagnerandson.com which shows the times I have mentioned
above) have evolved over the space of a couple of years, and my
understanding on some details has changed in that period, as posters
here have brought things to my attention. If you are aware of a
specific oversight like this, please let me know and I will investigate,
and most likely change it.
Thanks,
--dick wagner
boba...@my-deja.com
Dick,
Yes I do see the reasons. The reasons why you have changed your version
of the facts to fit your current futile attempt to create a murder
scenario that shows Simpson was not the killer.
> CROSS CHECK WITH HEIDSTRA: This thinking is confirmed by
> cross-checking with Heidstra's times. The best that I can make of
> account is that he saw the "white SUV" turn right from Dorothy and go
> down Bundy at 10:37. My tracing the route from there to where Shively
> saw Simpson gives an elapsed time of two minutes plus/minus 15
seconds.
> So, the Heidstra and Shively times are mutually supportive.
No. Both times are estimated by different people using different means.
The only thing we know for sure is that Shively saw Simpson after
Heidstra saw the white vehicle.
> SIMPSON'S TIME BENCHMARK AT BUNDY: Then, I back up two minutes
earlier
> from the moment when Heidstra saw the "white SUV" turn the corner, and
I
> come to the moment when Heidstra was in the alley and heard "Hey, hey,
> hey." I back up two minutes for the driver of the SUV, assuming that
he
> is Simpson and has just come from the scene of Nicole's body, and I
find
> that he has just started down the path toward the alley.
Dick, wait a minute. You are confusing me. Heidstra testified he heard
the two men arguing at about 10:35. He testified that he saw the white
vehicle at a "little before 10:45. You know that these are only
estimated times yet the difference is closer to 10 minutes than 2
minutes.
> Then I
notice
> that within that bloody footpath, at print "M" there is a sideways
> backing into the shrubs on the north side of the walk that has been
> characterized as "he turned to look back toward the street. The man
in
> the Bruno Magli shoes heard from the street the same sound that
Heidstra
> heard in the alley on the other side of Bundy. Therefore, I put
Simpson
> at footprint "M" at 10:35.
Well, it seems all of your time estimates are screwed up. The method you
used to get them was flawed. You were using wrong information.
> "ESTIMATES": All times are "estimates," Bob. If you try your
best to
> set your house clock accurately, when you go to measure something by
it
> there will be an error -- probably small, on the order of seconds --
but
> there will be an error. The figure you report is an estimate. Even
the
> timestamp on Park's telephone bill is an estimate, but the error is
only
> a fraction of a second.
>
> In the case of the time estimates discussed here, the error in
the
> estimate is greater -- on the order of a few minutes. I have
estimated
> the error in the ending timeline (just discussed) to be plus or minus
> two minutes, and the error on the beginning timeline (the event of the
> murders) to be plus or minus one minute. If you would like to slip my
> assertions about the time of things around by these amounts, I would
not
> object -- it would be within what I recognize as a margin of error.
But your information is incorrect. That is your problem.
> MY "EARLIER ESTIMATE OF 10:45": I honestly don't remember ever
> estimating that Shively saw Simpson at 10:45, but that is possible.
The
> articles on our site (see particularly "Ending Timeline," 8/17/98 at
> http://www.wagnerandson.com which shows the times I have mentioned
> above) have evolved over the space of a couple of years, and my
> understanding on some details has changed in that period, as posters
> here have brought things to my attention. If you are aware of a
> specific oversight like this, please let me know and I will
investigate,
> and most likely change it.
Yes, I read, more than once where you referred to 10:45 as the time that
Shively saw Simpson. You are lucky you never changed it. It is closer to
the truth than the fantasies you are attempting. If Heidstra saw Simpson
leave before 10:45 as he said, and Jill Shively saw Simpson after 10:45
as you concluded earlier, before fantasy land, knowing both times were
only estimates makes it very believable. Like I said. The important fact
is that Shively saw Simpson after Heidstra saw the white vehicle leave.
Evidently you need that extra time that you misfigured, to fit into your
newest fantasy. Sorry Dick, it doesn't work.
Anonymous
The program I used is free and is called Copernic.
http://www.copernic.com/
"dick wagner" <wag...@westworld.com> wrote in message news:3A3971...@westworld.com...
> ANONYMOUS:
>
> Thanks for this, Anonymous. I am somewhat familiar with Jasper's
> "work," and know that many pro-J's are interestd in what he says.
> http://www.wagnerandson.com for details.
>
> --dick wagner
dick wagner
You continue to claim that I have "changed my tune," and only recently
began to assert that the Shively/Simpson encounter was at 10:40, when I
had said (you claim) for a long previous time that it was at 10:45.
But, you give me no specific examples from our site,
http://www.wagnerandson.com where you find this. An actual examination
of that record shows that I have been asserting that Shively encountered
Simspson at 10:39 to 10:40 for more than the last two years.
I went to our site and used the little search engine at the bottom of
the contents page (I don’t know where my son gets these things) and put
"10:45" into it to uncover just where in all those 72 articles I may
have said this thing that you have fastened on. I find ten articles
where that time is mentioned, and I discuss all of them below.
__________________________________
1. In COMPREHENSIVE TIMELINE (1/05/99) there is a list of events, with
their times, and it includes…
10:39 -- Shively nearly collides with Simpson at Bundy & San
Vicente
10:44 -- Simpson arrives back at Rockingham, parks at
Rockingham gate
10:45 -- Simpson gets book bag out of Bentley, puts gun in
Bentley
In this case, I both showed the time of the encounter as being 10:39,
and show that Simpson was already "takin’ care of business" at
Rockingham at 10:45. BTW, in this analysis, I assumed a four minute
time of travel from leaving the San Vicente intersection to Simpson’s
Rockingham gate, rather than the five minutes I have been using the last
few days. Upon seeing this and remembering the previous analysis, I
stand corrected; I think Simpson arrived home at 10:44, not 10:45. In
either case, this article does not put Simpson at San Vicente at 10:45.
2. In STARTING TIMELINE (9/03/98) there are two references to "10:45,"
each with two mentions. There is a discussion of Petrocelli’s theory,
and a typical quote from this article is, "In his book, he [Petrocelli]
says, ‘Knowing that Simpson did commit the murders, we had to reveal
[construct] a timeline in which he left Bundy at 10:45 at the latest’."
This obviously has nothing to do with my understanding of the time of
the Simpson/Shively encounter.
A second meaning of "10:45" is in discussion of Luis Karpf, Stein’s
room-mate who went to the mail box; a typical quote of that is, "He had
been out of town on the 12th, and came back to the condo at 10:45 or
after." Neither does this have to do with Simpson/Shively.
3. In WHO HEARD THE DOG? (5/14/99) there is the following quote,
irrelevant to our purpose, "Luis Karpf, came home at ‘about 10:45’."
4. In ENDING TIMELINE (8/17/98) there is "From the foregoing, Kato hung
up on the phone call with Ferraro at 10:53, and the three thumps was
eight minutes earlier at 10:45." Although this is important, it is not
relevant to our immediate discussion. In the same article there is also
a list of time points which includes,
10:39: Shively nearly collides with Simpson's Bronco
10:40: Shively sees Simpson leave San Vicente and race north
on Bundy
10:44: Simpson arrives home while Park is on the phone in the
limo
10:45: Simpson runs down to Kato's wall and bangs on it, loses
glove
This is the same as the timeline shown in (1) above, which see for a
discussion.
5. In MANDEL/AARONSON CONTRIBUTION (8/24/98) there is another mention
of Karpf, "Louis Karpf (2/08/95), Nicole's neighbor to the north who
had gone out front to retrieve mail about 10:45 said about the front of
his own condo, "Basically, pretty dark," and agreed that it was dark in
front of Nicole's place as well." Not relevant for us.
6. In CONJECTURE (10/08/98) we find a case in which the time of 10:45
is mentioned in the context of the Simpson/Shively encounter. The quote
is, "So, it is not far-fetched to think that Shapiro's full-time
investigator, Bill Pavlick, could have known by the night of June 15th
that there was a person named ‘Jill Shively,’ living in Santa Monica,
who claimed to have seen Simpson fleeing in the vicinity of the crime at
about 10:45 on the night of the crime." But, by saying this, I have not
claimed that the encounter was actually at 10:45, only that Pavlick
might have thought it was. Also notice that I mention "at ABOUT 10:45,"
which could include 10:40 as well.
7. In REMEMBERING JILL SHIVELY (7/13/98) we find a couple of references
to this time. The first is in an introduction of who she is and what
her significance to the case is. I said, "The incident that Shively
describes occurred at the intersection of San Vicente and Bundy in
Brentwood at ABOUT 10:45 p.m. on June 12, 1994." The word "ABOUT" is
emphasized in the article on our site, and should caution the reader
against taking it exactly literally.
The second reference is, "She left home to go to the market and was
conscious that the time was 10:45 because she had to hurry to get to the
market before it closed at 11:00." Depending on your reading
comprehension, Bob, this could be a source of confusion for you. In
this passage I am talking about her PERCEPTION, based on the time
reference she had available. She was CONSCIOUS that the time she left
was 10:45, but she was basing this on an erroneous clock, and she was
mistaken. Then, there are references to 10:45 in the paragraph,
One of our group objected that the car clock was not the main
reference, Shively "left home at
10:45." according to the VCR, and got to the market just
before it closed. The time seemed to be
nailed down in three places. But, we went back and re-read the
testimony carefully. She left home
at 10:45 "because I wanted to get to the market before it
closed." There is no transcript mention of
a VCR or any other clock consulted as Shively left home. And,
the time at the market was not
determined by the market actually closing, or Shively seeing a
clock in the market after she got
there, but by looking at her car clock in the market parking
lot. So, the only reference Shively
explicitly consulted according to the transcript was the car
clock, though there is the implication of
another clock in "left home at 10:45."
This is not an assertion that the encounter occurred at 10:45, either.
(There are a total of 6 references to 10:45 in three contiguous
paragraphs related to this point.)
In the same article, there is also this, "For me, there is no longer
any doubt that Jill saw what she told the grand jury, and saw it at some
vague time around 10:45." Maybe this is confusing you, Bob. This
reflects my understanding of the situation just after I first
interviewed Jill, and before I had tried to integrate her experience
with Heidstra’s and timed events at Rockingham. I’ll consider adding an
editorial note to this to help the careless reader from thinking that by
saying this I assert that the Shively encounter was at EXACTLY 10:45.
8. In WHAT HEIDSTRA SAW (4/02/99) we find, "Robert Heidstra was an auto
detailer that lived in Nicole's neighborhood and testified that on the
night of June 12th he was walking his dogs in the vicinity of her condo
at 10:30 to 10:45 and heard…" Obviously not relevant to our purpose
here.
9. In FOUR MEN BANGING ON A WALL (1/24/99) we see, "Junot says that
four men tried to recreate the event Kato described (the "three thumps")
by pounding on the outside of his wall to dislodge and "move" the
painting on the inside of his wall as Kato claimed happened at abut
10:45 on the night of the incident." Obviously this is not a reference
to the Simpson/Shively encounter.
10. In THE POPULAR CONCEPT we find, "He [Simpson] was planning to take
the "red eye" to Chicago Sunday night, with a 11:45 pm departure from
LAX; a limousine was scheduled to pick him up on Rockingham at 10:45"
Not relevant, either.
___________________
So, I have just examined EVERY article on our site that mentions
"10:45" and I can only see a couple of cases where VERY careless reading
could give the idea that I think the Simpson/Shively encounter occurred
at 10:45. In contrast, I say explicitly and repeatedly, in many
articles, that this occurred at 10:39 or 10:40, and I have been saying
that since September 1998. (However, before I met Jill Shively in June
of 1998, I did not have my present understanding of the situation, of
course.) Now, if you are going to continue to claim that I have just
recently "changed my tune" on this, I think it is incumbent on you to
show me exactly WHERE I have made the statement that confuses you.
--dick wagner
boba...@my-deja.com
Dick,
I'm glad that you reviewed your pages, but that was not my point. In
your original writings you do say that Jill Shively had her encounter
with Simpson ABOUT 10:45 P.M.
The point I was making was about your misinterpretation of estimated
times and your silliness by using these estimated times as facts, even
parsing them down to the minute.
I wrote, "Dick, wait a minute. You are confusing me. Heidstra testified
he heard the two men arguing at about 10:35. He testified that he saw
the white vehicle at a "little before 10:45. You know that these are
only estimated times yet the difference is closer to 10 minutes than 2
minutes." No explanation from Dick Wagner.
All you are doing is playing games with estimated times that you make
up. Your estimated times are not even consistent with the testimony. And
then you use these false unsupported times to the minute, to create a
fantasy that you imagine could have happened. That is the method you use
for your whole unrealistic fantasy. You dream up something that you
believe could have happened or someone could have said, although there
is not one shred of factual evidence it ever happened or was said, and
then you use these fantasy facts to build further unsupported
speculation on. It sounds like you have a lot in common with Prien.
For someone like you who has done some good research into some of the
characters involved in this case, you sure give up your credibility
quickly with your obsession to find an alternate explanation for the
truth. Every time you post another attempt of your fantasy scenarios,
you continue to distort and change the known facts to fit your fiction.
It hasn't worked yet. You just get sillier and sillier. I feel sorry for
you Dick. Your are obsessed with an impossible task, Trying to show
that a proven killer did not do what it was proven he did. But keep
trying if you must. I will be happy to help keep you straight with the
realities of this case and point out the faults of your fantasies.
dick wagner
BOB:
You began, early in this thread, by claiming that my assertion that the
Shively/Simpson encounter occurred at 10:40 was a recent invention of
mine, and that until recently I had said the time of that event was
10:45. I researched the question and demonstrated that for more than
the last two years I have used the 10:40 number, and I never used the
10:45 number as more than a vague indication of when that event had
occurred. You now claim that the time of the encounter was not your
point, but any AFOJS reader can simply look above in this thread and see
the several and forceful places where you made that point. You are
frankly beginning to look silly, Bob, and I’m not surprised that people
don’t take you much serious. Must be the cold up there does something
to you brain, huh?
"CAN’T KNOW THE TIME PRECISELY": Trying to deflect attention from you
earlier gaff, you now assail me because I have specified the times of
events in the crimes with a precision you will not find elsewhere. Such
precision, you say, is impossible. Many others than you do not believe
that it is possible to make such close estimates, either. Not because I
think that you will understand, but for others who think the same, I
will explain.
First of all, not all of the time estimates in this crime are vague. I
mention a few…
STORFER: Ultimately his estimate of the time when he first heard the
dog rests on the clock on a VCR that was set the previous spring. Some
brief activities (putting his son to bed) occurred between the beginning
of the barking of the dog, and his reference to the VCR, but these can
be estimated closely. There was a known clock error that he applied.
When all of these factors are accounted for, it is reasonable to
estimate that his statement of the time is 10:20 +/- 1 minute.
FENJVES: He was watching a TV program when he first noticed the dog’s
bark and by relating that event to the segment he was watching, he
estimated the time. It is reasonable to assign an error of 3 minutes or
so to a time estimated in this way.
STEIN: She makes only a very rough estimate of the time, and her
testimony is more useful for other reasons than the time. Although she
estimates the same time as Fenjves, her estimate is based on knowing the
length of time (half an hour) that she lay in bed without looking at a
clock, waiting for her house mate to come home. I have put a ten minute
tolerance on this.
PILNAK: She is compulsively punctual, and is constantly aware of
time. She consulted a clock, which itself is frequently calibrated, to
give the time (10:21 to 10:24) she was talking to her friend on the
porch. I estimate that the accuracy of the time of her observation is
high, with an error of not more than a minute. That is, she and
Telander came onto the porch at actual time of 10:20 to 10:22.
SHIVELY: She related the time she saw Simpson at Bundy and San Vicente
to a "little battery operated clock in her car." The relationship
between the events and the clock time is very accurate – better than a
minute, I should say. But the clock itself was in error by an ESTIMATED
"eight to ten minutes." This estimate itself is subject to
uncertainty. To deal with this situation, I first subtract from the
clock time (10:50) of the event, the clock error (I’ll use the figure of
9 minutes in this analysis to avoid argument.) But, to this, one must
apply the observational error (less than a minute) and the uncertainty
in the amount of the clock error (I figure 2 minutes). From this, the
actual time that Simpson left the intersection is 10:41 plus or minus 3
minutes. He entered the intersection one minute earlier.
HEIDSTRA: His estimate is not very precise. He knows when he left his
apartment, and he estimates the time it took to get to the events in
question, but those estimates are admittedly rough. (I am sorry now
that when Rose and I walked this same route, I did not take the
stopwatch with us. I would like to have an independent estimate of the
time from his apartment to the alley.) However, I have traced and timed
his actions after he started into the alley, and from that point, I have
a confident idea of when things happened. I have put a tolerance of
five minutes on the time he got to the alley.
ELAPSED TIME, HEIDSTRA TO SHIVELY: In my recreation of Simpson’s
flight from Dorothy to San Vicente, I went at the same time of day, and
day of the week that he did, and by the three most likely routes. My
elapsed time on these was two minutes plus/minus 15 seconds, and I
estimate that the error in those measurements is not more than 5
seconds, since they were done with a stopwatch in hand. Because these
errors are small compared to other sources of error, I have neglected
them, and say that the time between Dorothy and San Vicente is 2 minutes
exactly, with no error -- a reasonable approximation, I think.
COMBINING OBSERVATIONS: The power of this analysis, and the thing that
most people overlook, is that independent observations, each with their
errors and uncertainties, nonetheless have to match, if they are caused
by the same event.
For example, Stein’s poor estimate of the time the dog began to bark
amounts to "10:05 to 10:25." But, Fenjves estimate is "10:15 to 10:20,"
and so these two estimates reinforce each other, and we know that
Stien’s experience was really at "10:15 to 10:20," even though she could
not estimate it that close herself.
On the other hand, Storfer heard the dog begin to bark at "10:19 to
10:21" (accounting for observational errors) and continue for "several
minutes, at least." But, Pilnack thought she was in a position to begin
hearing from "10:20 to 10:22" and did not hear. So, if the dog barked
for at least three minutes (which it seems to have according to Storfer)
there is not enough error in their time estimates to account for the
fact that one heard the dog, and the other one did not. The attorneys
resolved this conflict by convincing the public that "someone was
lying," and the public -- unable to decide which -- just disregarded the
testimony entirely. But there is another explanation, which I believe.
There are locations from which the dog could have been barking so that
Fenjves, Stein, and Storfer would hear, but Pilnak would not. Nobody
was lying. And, Pilnak’s testimony is valuable for telling us where the
dog’s location was when the others heard it.
HEIDSTRA/SHIVELY OBSERVATIONS: The foregoing shows the power of
combining time estimates from different observers as applied to the
early timeline. When done with the late timeline it results in
sharpening the precision with which we know the time beyond the accuracy
of the individual estimates. In the particular case of Shively/Heidstra
it does this because most of the Shively error is to make the actual
time earlier than the raw observation, and with Heidstra it is to make
the actual time later than nominal. It is a happy circumstance that
there is only a small overlap in the possibilities. Consider…
According to Shively’s data (using a 9-minute clock error) the time
when Simpson left the Bundy/San Vicente intersection was 10:41 +/ 2
minutes (see above). He entered the intersection one minute earlier, at
10:40 +/- 2 minutes. He left Bundy/Dorothy two minutes before that, at
10:38 +/- 2 minutes.
Now, working from Heidstra’s end, he left home at 10:15, and arrived at
the alley about 15 minutes later. But both his exact time of leaving
and his elapsed time of getting to the alley have some uncertainty.
Heidstra testified that he entered the alley at "10:30 to 10:35," but on
cross-examination conceded that it could have been as early as 10:29.
This gives a nominal time of 10:32 with a tolerance of +/- 3 minutes.
Following events can be estimated rather closely and produce a time of
the "Hey, hey, hey" occurring 3 minutes after entering the alley (at
10:35), and a time of seeing the "white SUV" as 5 minutes after entering
the alley (at 10:37). From this, we are led by Heidstra’s testimony to
think that he saw the SUV at 10:37 +/- 3 minutes. That is, between
10:34 and 10:40.
But this has to match with Shively’s observation which puts the "white
SUV" at Bundy and Dorothy at 10:38 +/- 2 minutes, or between 10:36 and
10:40. To account for other factors (Heidstra’s apparent friendliness
to the defense, which wanted his observations as late as possible, and
later events at Rockingham, I have taken my estimate as the middle
(10:37) of his range, even though that puts the same number at the low
extreme of Shively’s range. Nonetheless, I have said that the actual
time might be moved a couple of minutes to account for errors in the
witness estimates of time. (To be strictly accurate, I think the
Heidstra sighting of the "white SUV" occurred at 10:37 +3/-1 minutes.)
In this way, Bob, I hope that you can see that the time of
inter-related and independently observed events can actually be known
more accurately than any one observation gives it.
PROFESSIONAL APOLOGY: Now, if there are any statisticians out there, I
must quickly say that this is a casual analysis, done for a layman’s
contemplation. In a thorough analysis, the actual distribution of
errors for the individual sources would be estimated, and the overlap
computed, then the resulting distribution in the times of a commonly
observed chain of events would be reported. In this way, one does not
simply consider a fixed error, but the likelihood of particular possible
errors. Although it is more accurate to approach the problem that way,
it is much more complicated to understand, and I sincerely doubt that in
the present instance it gives a substantially different result than I
have determined.
Dick Wagner • Van Nuys, CA (12/16/00) NG_688m
ps: Within your abundant hyperbole, you throw around reference to
Simpson as "a proven killer". All that was proven is that he was at the
crime scene at or after the time of the crime. It was not proven what
he did when he was there. If you want to understand this case, Bob, you
need to look more closely at the evidence than the comic book
presentation of the attorneys and the media. Also, you will have more
success after you have some experience with quantitative thinking --
beyond arithmetic.
boba...@my-deja.com
Dick,
Sorry Dick, I totally disagree with you. You can justify your estimates
all you want, but all you are doing is making the numbers work the way
you want them to work. All of the times were estimates by different
witnesses who heard and saw different things. That is the problem with
eye witnesses. No two people who witness the same event will agree with
what they saw or heard. The important and only meaningful fact from
these witnesses is the order the events happened. Heidstra heard two men
arguing. Heidstra, some time later saw a white vehicle leave the
neighborhood. Shively encountered Simpson. Simpson was seen entering his
house. That's it Dick. Period. Your little games with estimated times is
meaningless. These events and times tell us what happened as it relates
to Simpson, not someone's imagined fantasy. You have overanalyzed the
real facts to fit your imagination. You may think that is valid. I
certainly do not, nor does any other reasonable person believe your
fantasy or your playing around with estimates to come out the way you
want them to.
As to proving Simpson was the killer, that was done to a certainty. It
only takes someone with a little common sense to understand what the
physical evidence tells us. All of the know relevant physical evidence
points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. There is no physical
evidence that points to anyone else but Simpson as the killer.
There is no evidence of anyone else at the murder scene except for
three people. The two victims and the killer. There was never one
single piece of physical evidence ever planted or tampered with. Your
whole fantasy about multiple killers, and planting evidence is exactly
that. Pure Fantasy. You have no proof. You have no facts, You have no
evidence to support any of your imagined claims. Only your vivid
imagination, based on other peoples hearsay and fiction.
Your last attempt at an alternative to the truth also fails when
confronted with the real witnesses presented by the defense. All of whom
testified to events that they saw or heard during the supposed time your
little fantasy took place. No one heard or saw what you imagine to have
happened. No one. Your exercise to step between the rain drops has
failed again, Dick, and will always fail. There are too many rain drops
for you to succeed. You are showing us again a lesson in futility. It
seems you are the only one who isn't learning from it.