Bill Pavelic Speaking Out, William Bill Pavelic Exposing Racism and Racist Cops

PART I:

THE CASE AGAINST OJ

REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE:

The vast majority believe O.J. Simpson did the murder he was tried and acquitted for. To explain why this is not only not so, but could not be so, I need to refresh the reader's memory about the TRUE evidence in this case....but NOT WHAT IS GENERALLY THOUGHT OF AS 'EVIDENCE'.

So I need to start with the things that really are NOT evidence in the case against O.J. Simpson, but which most people think are:

1. THE BRONCO "CHASE"

The image of O.J. Simpson being followed by a long line of police cars ranks with such images as the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Challenger Disaster as part of our shared American iconography. However, while this particular incident is frozen in our memories, it LOOK LIKE dozens of other high-speed chases we have seen, with the cops trying to capture crooks.

I believe -- and I believe most of you will agree with me -- that it is the image of the Bronco Chase, of OJ apparently running from the police, that has established his guilt in the American mind.

So, first, I need to do my best to dislodge this image and the belief in guilt that it brought.

FIRST, IT WAS NOT A 'CHASE'; IT WAS A 'FOLLOW'.

SECOND, IT WAS NOT EVEN AN ATTEMPTED ESCAPE. In fact, the whole time the 'chase' was broadcast, the Bronco was going North, AND IT WAS GOING NORTH WHEN IT WAS FIRST DISCOVERED.

What was REALLY happening? OJ was in the middle of a suicidal nervous breakdown. His best friend, A.C. Cowlings was successful in preventing this by 'humoring' him by attempting to take OJ to Nicole's grave. When this proved impossible, due to police staked out there, Cowling eventually persuaded OJ to go back to Rockingham. Cowlings' Bronco was then spotted by citizens who phoned the police.

Many people think that it was OJ at the wheel driving his own Bronco, and that the Bronco of the Bronco chase was the same Bronco used my the murderer. Not so.

2. JOHNNY COCHRAN PLAYS THE "RACE CARD" IN HIS SUMMATION TO THE JURY, resulting the the widespread belief that the jury "nullified" the evidence in an act of reverse racism.

The fact is, as I will show, is that the objective evidence acquits OJ so that the criminal trial jury's decision, FOR WHATEVER REASON, was the correct one

While there is, in fact, documentable arguments in the form of jury writings and interviews after the trial that Cochran's "race card' had no effect on the jury....if you are one who believes this myth, those statemnts will not change your mind, for you will only interpret them as self-serving justifications. I can only hope that presenting all that is humanluy knowable about the evidence will change your mind.

3. THE BLOOD DROP TRAIL 'TO THE LEFT' OF THE FOOTPRINTS AT THE MURDER SCENE, AND THE CUT ON OJ'S LEFT HAND.

The first three blood drops were here

and the last two were here.

[These are borrrowed from a site created by a Mr.Dick Wagner: Wagnerandson.com
(While there have been better Simpson Case websites in the past, this is by far the best one still in existence. I will have more to say about Dick later on, but do not want to digress.)

THESE ILLUSTRATIONS ARE FROM EVIDENCE ACTUALLY INTRODUCED IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL, and known as the "Bodziak Diagram", after the FBI expert that created it. This illusitration is also reproduced in the Book "the Prosecution Responds" by Hank Goldberg

Note the REAL postion of the drops in relation to the footprints.

The two westernmost drops are too far away from where the prints faded out to be said to have any discernible spatial relationship to them at all.

The easternmost drop, the one nearest the bodies is off to one side of the fotprints. But....

It is not possible to tell if it "to the left" or "to the right" of the footprints because THERE ARE PRINTS GOING BOTH WAYS at that point. Bodziak testified to them, but did not include them in his diagram.

From Bodziak's June 19, 1995 cross-examination testimony by F. Lee Bailey:

MR. BAILEY: --and see what appears to be movement of someone both down at the gate, on the steps and then in a fairly straight line out to the west as if making good one's escape, did you notice something very odd about the pattern?

MR. BODZIAK: About the ones that I have labeled left or right?

MR. BAILEY: Yes.

MR. BODZIAK: There's two many of them.

MR. BAILEY: What do you mean by "Too many"?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, the person in those Bruno Magli shoes didn't just walk down the walkway once. They went back somehow and walked down again.

MR. BAILEY: All right. Now, why are your impressions generally going to the west? MR. BODZIAK: Because that's where the blood is and they're tracking the blood from east to west.

MR. BAILEY: Uh-huh. And what about the stop and turn? I want to point specifically to I believe it's L and m. [referring to diagram posted here]

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: These two here both facing directly into the house (Indicating).

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: You notice by the way that the left and right are on the wrong side?

MR. BODZIAK: Yes.

MR. BAILEY: And do you have any explanation as to how those were made?

MR. BODZIAK: I wouldn't purport to be able to reconstruct exactly what happened, but it appears likely that the person may have been standing over in that bush area where the tree was to get out of the line of sight perhaps and then came out of that area initially in the direction of the doorway and then proceeded back west again.

MR. BAILEY: All right. If the set of prints that leads up to L and M were made by the same shoes as L and M, we have a person who's turned 90 degrees and standing like this; do we not (Indicating)?

MR. BODZIAK: Not if they're two different sets of tracks. [emphasis added]

MR. BAILEY: Okay. So are you assuming that we have a right but no left and a left but no right standing next to one--each other and both facing south?

MR. BODZIAK: Well, I'm not assuming if that's what's there and I can't explain why that is happening.

MR. BAILEY: All right. If a person were exiting the scene with some alacrity--and by the way, you talked about gait and stride. There's nothing that gives us much help on the speeds in these prints, is there?

MR. BODZIAK: No, sir.

MR. BAILEY: Except that they seem close enough together as to suggest, if it's one set, no running, no leaping?

MR. BODZIAK: I--I think even if it's one or two sets, they're relatively close together for a person that's big enough to wear a size 12.

MR. BAILEY: All right. You have identified a Bruno Magli or Magli 46/size 12 shoe as the only prints, left and right, that you are able to single out, correct?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: And no other shoe of any manufacturer have you been able to pin to any of these impressions, true?

MR. BODZIAK: That's correct.

MR. BAILEY: So if there was more than one person running, it would appear that they were both wearing Bruno Magli 46; is that right?

MR. BODZIAK: Or one person went back--after they have worn the blood off their shoe, they went back to the front gate area, reobtained blood on their shoe through whatever activity or walking through the blood they were doing, and then exited that area again. So it could be the same person. In fact, it's very likely that it's the same person

Which is to say, it is not possible to tell if that drop was bled from someone bleeding from his Right hand walking east, or from his left hand while walking west.

ACTUALLY, NEITHER IS TRUE. Because now consider the position of the last two, middle two, drops in relation to the footprints they are closest to.

THEY ARE IN BETWEEN THEM.

What really happened, dear reader, is not that the police detected a blood drop trail to the left of the prints and so went looking for a man with a cut on his left hand. On the contrary, what happened is that they saw OJ had a cut on his left hand AND THEN decided to describe the blood trail as "to the left" of the prints.

I will soon show that THERE WAS NOT SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO BECAUSE THE FOOTPRINTS AND THE DROPS WERE LAID DOWN AT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES.

Though there were, indeed, five drops of blood that contained OJ's DNA at the Bundy murder scene, I will show that they had to have been planted

Among other things, this means that the cuts on OJ's left hand are irrelevent.

4. The gloves found at the Bundy murder scene and behind Kaelin's room at Rockingham.

diagram of Rockingham estate

What these gloves prove is that the killer, or at the very least an acccomplice to the killer, went from the murders to Rockingham that night.

(The only other explanation for the position of these two gloves given by anyone is that Fuhrman planted the Rockingham glove after picking it up at Bundy. I will be dealing with a number of other theories of the crime later on, including this one. Again, I do not wish to digress right now. However, I will say that all other theories of the crime but mine -- and this includes those of the prosecution and defense at the civil trial and the plaintiffs (especially Petrocelli) at the civil trial -- have people doing things that are physically impossible, adverse to their interests under the circumstances, contradictory, or all of the above.)

The evidence of the gloves greatly simplifies the solution to the crime, because it narrows the suspect pool to TWO. For there were TWO men at Rockingham that night. BOTH had believable motive for the murders; BOTH had access to the items of physical evidence used in the murders. (The gloves, the shoes, the knife, the sweatsuit, the knit cap, the Bronco, and samples of OJ's blood), and NEITHER has an alibi for the time of the murders.

Therefore, if you can clear the one, you can convict the other

OJ could not have produced the evidence as it was found on the morning of June 13, 1994, this evidence including Kaelin's three thumps. NO ONE has produced a theory of the crime which has OJ doing the murders and producing the thumps and dropping the glove behind Kaelin's room which does not transparently violate the laws of physics and/or common sense.

From Famous Crimes Revisited: from Sacco-Vanzetti to O.J. Simpson by Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Jerry Labriola, Stong Books, Southington, Connecticut, 2001, Page 207”

“…1. How do you explain the Rockingham glove still being damp with blood at 6:00 [the next morning] if it had been dropped there at 10:45 on a dry night?…”

Some have doubted that the glove was still wet.

so consider this from Philip Vannatter's testimoney of March 16, 1995. He is being questioned by Darden:

Q WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?
A WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.
Q AND THE BLOOD THAT YOU SAW BACK AT BUNDY JUST PRIOR TO YOUR DEPARTURE A FEW MINUTES BEFORE 5:00 IN THE MORNING --
A YES, SIR.
Q -- DID THAT BLOOD APPEAR TO BE DRY?
A NO.
MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL?
A IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE.

The main thing that clears OJ is that NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO GIVE A BELEIVABLE EXPLANATION OF HOW OR WHY OJ WOULD PUT THE ROCKINGHAM GLOVE BEHIND KAELIN'S ROOM.

Now, exactly what other evidence is there against OJ?

Well, none. Unless you say that not having an alibi for the time of the murders is evidence

But, if you say THAT, then you must also consider that as evidence against Kaelin, for the fact is:

PART II: WHY KAELIN IS THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD HAVE DONE THE MURDERS

THE CASE AGAINST KAELIN

Brian Gerard ("Kato") Kaelin killed Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, and this can be proven from the existing evidence.

KAELIN HAS NO ALIBI FOR THE TIME OF THE MURDERS

Compare these excerpts from the official transcripts.

From Kaelin’s preliminary hearing testimony (criminal trial), July 5, 1994:

Q And what did you do after that?
A After that I was going to type up some letters, so I went to type up some letters but the typewriter wasn't working, so I made another phone call.
Q Who did you call?
A My friend, Rachael. [Rachel Ferrara]
Q And what time was it when you called her?
06 A I called her at about 10:10, around there.

From Rachel Ferrara’s criminal trial testimony, March 28, 1995:

Q ON JUNE THE 12TH OF 1994, DID YOU RECEIVE A CALL FROM KATO KAELIN?
A YES.
Q AT APPROXIMATELY WHAT TIME?
A APPROXIMATELY 10:20.

And:

Q AND SO AFTER HE TOLD YOU IT WAS 10:30, AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT DID SOMETHING UNUSUAL OCCUR DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR CONVERSATION WITH HIM?
A YES.
Q WHAT WAS THAT?
A WELL, HE DESCRIBED IT AS AN EARTHQUAKE. UMM, HE SAID THERE WAS A BANG ON HIS WALL.
Q OKAY.
AND ABOUT HOW LONG AFTER YOU HAD ASKED THE TIME AND HE TOLD YOU IT WAS 10:30 DID HE DESCRIBE AN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRING?
A AFTER 10:30?
Q RIGHT. YOU ASKED HIM WHAT TIME IT WAS; HE SAID 10:30, CORRECT?
A RIGHT.
Q AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT HE DESCRIBED AN EARTHQUAKE OCCURRING?
A UH-HUH.
Q HOW LONG AFTER THAT TIME WHEN HE SAID IT WAS 10:30 DID HE DESCRIBE HEARING AN EARTHQUAKE?
A APPROXIMATELY TEN MINUTES.
[i.e.--around 10:40]
Q DID HE TALK TO YOU ABOUT GOING TO MC DONALD'S WITH MR. SIMPSON?
A YES.
Q DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR CONVERSATION DID YOU HAPPEN TOASK KATO KAELIN WHAT TIME IT WAS?
A YES.
Q AND HOW DO YOU HAPPEN TO RECALL THAT?
A BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO GO OUT AND DO SOMETHING AND I ASKED HIM -- I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF IT WAS TOO LATE AND HE SAID -- I ASKED HIM WHAT TIME IT WAS AND HE SAID 10:30.

And this passage from the book, “Kato Kaelin: the Whole Truth” by Kaelin’s ghost-writer Marc Eliot, based on 17 hours of taped interviews: Page 90:

“…at 9:45 [Kaelin] decided to call back Tom…[O'Brien, a friend in San Diego]to complete the conversation ….Kato hung up….it was then ten o’clock when he sat down at the IBM Selectric…”

(Even Daniel Petrocelli admits that Kaelin had no alibi for 10:00 to 10:20 the night of the murders. I spoke to him during a book tour appearance in my area.)

NEXT EXHIBIT IN THE CASE AGAINST KAELIN:

KAELIN HAS COMMITTED PERJURY ABOUT WHAT HE DID ON THE MURDER NIGHT:

From Kaelin’s civil trial testimony of November 12, 1996:

Q. Okay. Were you looking at the clock and watch at all?
A. No.
Q. Then what happened?
A. Then I heard these three noises that were thumps, three loud thumps, and my picture moved in the...
… Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) When the noises occurred, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
…… Q. Okay. Now, when you got off the phone, did you look at a watch or a clock?
A. No.
Q. (BY MR. PETROCELLI) Okay. Do you have an estimate of the time that you heard these noises?
A. In between the 10:40 to 10:50 hour.[Compare to criminal trial testimony above]
Q. Okay. Now, is that -- what do you base that on?
A. The phone calls.
[Kaelin is referring to the cell phone records of Alan Park that came out during the murder investigation.]
Q. All right. Did you at any time --
[Please note here that Kaelin actually anticipates Petrocelli's question. He could answer it before it was even asked because Petrocelli had fed him the questions well beforehand.]
A. I didn't, I never looked at a clock.
Q. I can't hear you.
[Sounds like a cheerleader, doesn't he?]
A. I didn't look at a clock.
Q. At any time?
A. No.

So, just exactly how did Mr. Kaelin know what time it was at 10:30 to tell Rachel Ferrara?

Even if you believe there is an innocent explanation for this discrepancy, at least you must now see that KAELIN IS THE ‘CLOCK’ FOR HIS OWN ALIBI. Which is to say, he really is his own alibi.

EXHIBIT THREE:

KAELIN DISPLAYED GUILTY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE BRONCO BEING USED IN THE MURDERS WHEN HE LIED TO THE COPS ABOUT ‘EVER HAVING DRIVEN’ THE BRONCO.

From “Kato Kaelin: The whole Truth” Page 105:

“Detective Lange asked Kato if he’d ever driven O.J.’s Bronco. He said no.”

From Kaelin’s civil trial deposition of February 14, 1996:

Q: Now, where was the Bronco when you drove up to Gretna Green?
A: The Bronco was kind of parked in front of the driveway, blocking Gretna Green's driveway. The flashers I believe were on. And I think at some point I moved it, I think.
Q: To park it normally?
A: Yeah.

From Eliott, page 233:

“…On the rare occasions I found myself [Kaelin] at the Bundy residence, usually to deliver a package or pick up the kids for O.J.,…
”

The only two cars available to BGK for those errands on O.J.’s behalf would have been his own Datsun 380 zx and OJ’s Bronco. Which would you have chosen?
And, finally, from OJ’s 6/13/94 interview with Lange and Vanatter:

Vannatter: OK. We've impounded the Bronco. I don't know if you know that or not.

Simpson: No.

Vannatter: ...take a look at it. Other than you, who's the last person to drive it.

Simpson: Probably Gigi. When I'm out of town, I don't know who drives the car, maybe my daughter, maybe Kato.

Why mention Kaelin unless Kaelin had access to the Bronco and had driven it before?

Now, why would BGK have lied to the cops at that time and place? Because doing so would have made him a suspect. Also note, that, from the Eliot book account, BGK told this lie to the cops a good two minutes or so BEFORE he was ‘officially’ notified of the murders. According to BGK, he was thinking the cops were there to notify them of a plane crash. Why lie about driving the Bronco?

OJ could not have produced the evidence as it was found on the morning of June 13, 1994, this evidence including Kaelin's three thumps. NO ONE has produced a theory of the crime which has OJ doing the murders and producing the thumps and dropping the glove behind Kaelin's room which does not transparently violate the laws of physics and/or common sense.

From Famous Crimes Revisited: from Sacco-Vanzetti to O.J. Simpson by Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Jerry Labriola, Stong Books, Southington, Connecticut, 2001, Page 207”

“…1. How do you explain the Rockingham glove still being damp with blood at 6:00 [the next morning] if it had been dropped there at 10:45 on a dry night?…”

Some have doubted that the glove was still wet.

so consider this from Philip Vannatter's testimoney of March 16, 1995. He is being questioned by Darden:

Q WHEN YOU SAW THE GLOVE, DID YOU NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT IT APPEARED MOIST OR STICKY?
A WHEN I ILLUMINATED THE GLOVE, IT APPEARED TO HAVE BLOOD ON THE GLOVE OR WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE BLOOD AND IT DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE DRIED BLOOD WHERE IT WOULD BE FLAKY AND FALLING OFF. IT APPEARED THAT IT WAS MOIST.
Q AND THE BLOOD THAT YOU SAW BACK AT BUNDY JUST PRIOR TO YOUR DEPARTURE A FEW MINUTES BEFORE 5:00 IN THE MORNING --
A YES, SIR.
Q -- DID THAT BLOOD APPEAR TO BE DRY?
A NO.
MR. DARDEN: MAY I HAVE ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR?
THE COURT: CERTAINLY. (DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEYS.)
Q BY MR. DARDEN: DID THE GLOVE APPEAR SHINY AT ALL?
A IT APPEARED TO BE -- IT APPEARED TO BE WET WITH SOMETHING, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT SHINY OR MOIST. IT APPEARED TO BE A LEATHER MAN'S GLOVE.