General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I disagree. The criminal trial left many details and evidence out, and the books and interviews are where alot of those details were found out by readers interested in learning something more detailed from the minds of those so tightly wound into the case.

Books by specific authors give us a different insight into the everyday happenings that you are unable to get from watching a television. The televised trial does not provide us any insight into the minds of those who are presiding over the case, or those who are waiting in nervous anticipation to testify on the witness stand. You are able to read about the behind-the-scenes skirmishes and strategies that you cannot get from watching the televised trial.

Yet you seem to think that the only reason a person would read a book is because they are insecure or need "brag to their friends".

it was basically gossip and made up stuff for the book
martin II

[martin II]

kate

the black power fist is no more than a greeting between mostly black men. it can be like hi, right on, etc. some whites seem to add more meaning to it based on their perception.

Martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


i think in ron ships testimony he stated that he often played tennis at rockingham.
martin II

Yes, he and a member of the LAPD, Chuck Smith, used to play tennis at Rockingham.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,

That makes NO sense, OJ'd out as it pertains to logic!

Scull knew the content of the photos, and NI had to have known how damaging those photos would be to the Criminal Trial! Only someone with the expertise to identify the shoes he was wearing in the photo as BM's would have recognized the photo for anything more than just a photo of Orenthal at a football game. I don't believe the photos became important until someone was able to look at the photo and say that those were BM's on the murderer's feet. Then other photos of the same date were found.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


it was basically gossip and made up stuff for the book
martin II

Please detail for me how you know what is gossip in any book that is written.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II
kate

the black power fist is no more than a greeting between mostly black men. it can be like hi, right on, etc. some whites seem to add more meaning to it based on their perception.

Martin II

So, are you telling me that the juror was saying "hi" to OJ after the verdict was read? I'm sorry, but that is laughable at best.

[weezer]

Originally posted by jotun
All-I have every O.J.issue of the N.E. during [& after] the O.J.murder trial. O.J. was on the cover in most every issue.They have NEVER been "O.J.d out."In fact O.J. was on the cover just a few weeks ago.And any time they could find or create a 'story'.Scull & Flammer had the same agent and those "found ugly___shoe photos"went to England before published in the N.E. These guys knew they could make money.[and did] After all"ugly___ shoes" became quite the catch phrase after O.J.said it.In fact IF he hadn't there wouldn't have been ANY photos.imo.Darden & Clark have both have said they scoured Buffalo.Had been to Bills office etc."Practically went door to door". None. As for the photo in the Bills paper.All that can be seen is that O.J.is wearing shoes. No detail on them. But in the 31 photos there is clear detail on O.J.'s shoes. BUT the men's shoes next to him, are very blurred. The Skull photo is a total FAKE. Just look at those LITTLE BITTY FEET. I saw on one of the tabloid shows,during the money trial,a photo of just the shoes with a pants leg behind them,belonging to Skull. Amazing huh??? jotun :lol:

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Martin II
10:28 - 10:33p

Mandel and Aaronson, walks pass the already 2 dead bodies that lay on the steps of the condo. Minutes after they pass the Akita probably comes downstairs to get some water or was awaken from the dog that was barking at about 10:15p!

The Akita comes down the stairs and notice the door was opened and followed it outside. Realizing NBS was lying down, the dog laid beside her unaware she was dead. The dog then notice RG walked over to Goldman to investigate with his blood soaked underside, and got blood on Goldman's shoe! :lol:

[weezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by bobaugust
There was nothing wrong with Simpson's feet. You may have seen some distorted reproduced photographs or maybe you're deceiving yourself because of the fact that Simpson's head is so large, it makes his feet look smaller. I do appreciate your grasp of the facts and sense of humor.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


i think in ron ships testimony he stated that he often played tennis at rockingham.
martin II That was not your statement.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II
kate

the black power fist is no more than a greeting between mostly black men. it can be like hi, right on, etc. some whites seem to add more meaning to it based on their perception.

Martin II Yes, and "mostly" white men who wear white hoods ONLY belong to a club. Most people understand what the black power salute means.

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


So, are you telling me that the juror was saying "hi" to OJ after the verdict was read? I'm sorry, but that is laughable at best.

kate

i have no idea what was in the jurors mind or what he meant by it. i was just telling you what i know about what it means between some black men.

in some cases jurors have come out and smiled at the defendants, some times they look the other way.

D fung, after testifying walked over to the defense table and actually shook the defense lawyers hands in open court in front of the jury.

The juror that gave the fist must have thought that oj was NOT GUILTY. i see nothing wrong with it at all.

Martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Yes, and "mostly" white men who wear white hoods ONLY belong to a club. Most people understand what the black power salute means.

FBG
I am absolutely convienced that you know way more than i do about the white men that wear white hoods.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
:lol:

netta

if i may add to your post.

the dog then walked down bundy to dorotyh st and walked into dorothy street . The witness that heard the dog barking at 10:20
has a house that is directly opposite there the dog was at on dorothy and bundy.
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II

The juror that gave the fist must have thought that oj was NOT GUILTY. i see nothing wrong with it at all.

Martin II

He might have thought that OJ was not guilty. What if he did think that OJ was guilty and did not care? We will never know which one it is, and raising a fist in a sign of Black Power only serves to give the perception that he had one thing on his mind.

Regardless, my point in posting about it was to refute Netta's claim that only Jeffrey Toobin witnessed this happen. That is untrue.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


netta

if i may add to your post.

the dog then walked down bundy to dorotyh st and walked into dorothy street . The witness that heard the dog barking at 10:20
has a house that is directly opposite there the dog was at on dorothy and bundy.
martin II :lol:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
netta

Gerald Richards under cross examination admited that anyone with time and money could creat a perfect fake

http://www.cnn.com/US/9701/16/simpson/index.html#photo



martin II, Richards statement is correct but just because something is theoretically possible is not proof that it happened.

There was never one single shred of evidence ever presented of how much time or how much money it would take to fake over thirty photographs and negatives of Simpson posing with other people, or how much time and money it would take to fake a publication that had been printed and mailed to the Buffalo Bills Report mailing list. Or how much time and money it would take to bribe every one of those people shown in those photographs with Simpson, or who had the time, the money, and the motive to do this.

Just another lame excuse from you to deny the truth of these murders.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


He might have thought that OJ was not guilty. What if he did think that OJ was guilty and did not care? We will never know which one it is, and raising a fist in a sign of Black Power only serves to give the perception that he had one thing on his mind.

Regardless, my point in posting about it was to refute Netta's claim that only Jeffrey Toobin witnessed this happen. That is untrue.

kate
if the fist was given after the vote was taken then the man had just voted not guilty so i have no reason to belive he voted in a way that was opposit to what he thought. i don't think the man
had any reason to be concerned about how some people would
evaluate his actions.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


kate
if the fist was given after the vote was taken then the man had just voted not guilty so i have no reason to belive he voted in a way that was opposit to what he thought. i don't think the man
had any reason to be concerned about how some people would
evaluate his actions.
martin II I think that's the point -- I do believe he voted EXACTLY the way he thought.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I think that's the point -- I do believe he voted EXACTLY the way he thought.

EXACTLY what he should have done. after 9 months of listening to testimony and then deliberations ,voted his thoughts about guilty or not guilty.

martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


EXACTLY what he should have done. after 9 months of listening to testimony and then deliberations ,voted his thoughts about guilty or not guilty.

martin II :lol:

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


What deliberations? They didn't deliberate :rolleyes: It all happened in Martin's parallel universe where Orenthal didn't murder Nicole and Ron.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


kate
if the fist was given after the vote was taken then the man had just voted not guilty so i have no reason to belive he voted in a way that was opposit to what he thought. i don't think the man
had any reason to be concerned about how some people would
evaluate his actions.
martin II

A man raising a fist in the Black Power salute might make reasonable people wonder if something more was behind his thought process. Indeed, it could have been innocent but my first inkling would be opposite.

Why the Black Power fist? If you'd like to show your connection, why not a smile and a nod of your head? Why use a black unity symbol?

[weezer]

Marijuana stays in your system for different amounts of time depending on how often you smoke it, how much you smoke, and the makeup of the individual (weight/height/etc). If smoke it occasionally it will remain in your system for up to 10 days. If you smoke marihuana on a regular basis it will stay in your system for as long as 30 days. Marijuana is fat soluble. It stores in the fat cells of the body, the brain, the liver, the kidneys, in other words the major organs.

Anyone know what Orenthal's count was?

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


A man raising a fist in the Black Power salute might make reasonable people wonder if something more was behind his thought process. Indeed, it could have been innocent but my first inkling would be opposite.

Why the Black Power fist? If you'd like to show your connection, why not a smile and a nod of your head? Why use a black unity symbol?

kate

I would not expect you to understand.
IT'S A BLACK THING.

MARTIN II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
It all happened in Martin's parallel universe where Orenthal didn't murder Nicole and Ron.

3-4 hours was enough time for them to decide on that little pile of evidence. in your parallel universe it may have taken you three years.

there is no set time for a jury to deliberate.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Marijuana stays in your system for different amounts of time depending on how often you smoke it, how much you smoke, and the makeup of the individual (weight/height/etc). If smoke it occasionally it will remain in your system for up to 10 days. If you smoke marihuana on a regular basis it will stay in your system for as long as 30 days. Marijuana is fat soluble. It stores in the fat cells of the body, the brain, the liver, the kidneys, in other words the major organs.

Anyone know what Orenthal's count was?

these are facts from your book right?
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


kate

I would not expect you to understand.
IT'S A BLACK THING.

MARTIN II

You have no way of knowing my ethnicity, nor the ethnic make-up of those in which I choose to surround myself with in life. YOu have no way of knowing my cultural upbringing or what topics I have chosen to educate myself in. Hence, your statment that you don't expect me to understand is nothing short of prejudiced and misinformed.

Please answer the question presented to you, rather than attempt to sweep it under the rug as a "black thing".

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


You have no way of knowing my ethnicity, nor the ethnic make-up of those in which I choose to surround myself with in life. YOu have no way of knowing my cultural upbringing or what topics I have chosen to educate myself in. Hence, your statment that you don't expect me to understand is nothing short of prejudiced and misinformed.

Please answer the question presented to you, rather than attempt to sweep it under the rug as a "black thing".
kate

i do not have a link but for sure your non blackness comes through very clear in your post. unless you would like to deny it now.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


these are facts from your book right?
martin II :confused: uh - no.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II

kate

i do not have a link but for sure your non blackness comes through very clear in your post. unless you would like to deny it now.
martin II what does her ethnicity have to do with her question to you?

[weezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by martin II
in your parallel universe it may have taken you three years.
:confused: Don't you remember? I'm the one that thought he was guilty BEFORE the trial.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
what does her ethnicity have to do with her question to you?


fbg
her ethnicity really has nothing to do with it at all. i stated that the fist between some black men was just a gesture of hi, hello etc. she asked why not use a smile etc instead of the fist. since it was obvious that she did not think that the fist was, to her appropriate, this leads me to believe that she did not understand what is behind the fist between some black men.
she could be black and still not understand what "Its a black thing" means between some black men.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* :confused: Don't you remember? I'm the one that thought he was guilty BEFORE the trial.

fbg

you and a lot of others.that may be why it hurt so badly when you were told you were WRONG.:)
MARTIN II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II

kate

i do not have a link but for sure your non blackness comes through very clear in your post. unless you would like to deny it now.
martin II

I simply stated that you do not know my ethnicity, I said nothing specific about being black. Ethnicity is a make-up that goes beyond race, in case you are not aware of that.

Nor did I state whether or not the juror's black power fist was appropriate, I only pondered why that was his chosen way of communication. Rather than get an educated response, I recieved what has become your typical MO ~ a whole bunch of nonsense.

[bandit's mom]

This is off topic, but did anyone catch Letterman's OJ joke
last night? Very funny.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II

since it was obvious that she did not think that the fist was, to her appropriate,
martin II

See my above response to you.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

you and a lot of others.that may be why it hurt so badly when you were told you were WRONG.:)
MARTIN II It didn't 'hurt.' It was an insult. AS a country, as a people. I was raised in the 60's -- the time of love and peace. I've always believed in equality for all people and have lived my life that way. The Simpson criminal trial made me feel like I had been duped.

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



fbg;

If I understand you correctly, the National Inquirer refused to run the story because, even though there was a photo with the shoes somewhat visible (sp). The National inquirer wouldn't run the story because they (NI) couldn't be sure of the shoe brand. is that what your saying?

We're talking about the National Inquirer here! I find it very difficult to believe the National Inquirer would care 2 beans about a little thing, such as actual FACTS!

netta
when the arguments about the bm shoes surfaced, every photographer in the country that had ever took photo of oj started looking for their pictures.
martin II

[weezer]

*Snip*Originally posted by nettathirty
The National inquirer wouldn't run the story because they (NI) couldn't be sure of the shoe brand. is that what your saying?
:confused: That's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that if the NI didn't want the picture at the time, it would have to have been because the picture had not yet been identified as depicting the famous shoes.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
It didn't 'hurt.' It was an insult. AS a country, as a people. I was raised in the 60's -- the time of love and peace. I've always believed in equality for all people and have lived my life that way. The Simpson criminal trial made me feel like I had been duped.

fbg
NAW, you were duped by the media then and now by Bob. imo
Talk about feeling duped, do you feel duped by the people that took us to war in iraq?

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* :confused: That's not what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that if the NI didn't want the picture at the time, it would have to have been because the picture had not yet been identified as depicting the famous shoes.

NI was in court daily, they knew the shoes were important the day they were mentioned. oj was on every issue.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I simply stated that you do not know my ethnicity, I said nothing specific about being black. Ethnicity is a make-up that goes beyond race, in case you are not aware of that.

Nor did I state whether or not the juror's black power fist was appropriate, I only pondered why that was his chosen way of communication. Rather than get an educated response, I recieved what has become your typical MO ~ a whole bunch of nonsense.

kate

if you had knowledge of certain things in black culture, you would never have asked the SILLY quesiton of why the black man gave the fist greeting. you would have known why and what it meant.
since you didn't, My comment that ITS A BLACK THING was in order especially for you. imo
jmartin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


kate

if you had knowledge of certain things in black culture, you would never have asked the SILLY quesiton of why the black man gave the fist greeting. you would have known why and what it meant.
since you didn't, My comment that ITS A BLACK THING was in order especially for you. imo
jmartin II

Why so defensive?

It is nothing short of uneducated for you to state that the question is "silly". The fact of the matter is that you have no way of knowing exactly why that juror raised his fist, regardless of if you are jet black or lilly white.

Or are you trying to tell me that you absolutely know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what that juror's thoughts were when he raised that fist?

I'm guessing that yours is the same as everyone else in America, which is pure speculation .

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
NAW, you were duped by the media then and now by Bob. imo
Talk about feeling duped, do you feel duped by the people that took us to war in iraq?

martin II I had all kind of things to say to you but I'm not going to. You are a mean-spirited, razist little man who does not deserve my time.

I support my country and our servicemen.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
Speaking of Letterman, here is an oldie but goodie

http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/top_ten/archive/ls_topten_archive2000/ls_topten_archive_20000126.shtml :lol:

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by socaldiva


He would go ballistic if we told him he didn't understand something because it was a "white thing".

As if people can't learn about & understand other cultures. How stupid!

I know. His (martinII) type of attitude is really disheartening. More than that, I have realized that he is prejudiced. He assumes things about everyone based on no solid ground or reasoning whatsoever.

It's truly sad. I feel sorry for people like him.

[martin II]

I only pondered why that was his chosen way of communication. Rather than get an educated response, I recieved what has become your typical MO ~ a whole bunch of nonsense.

kate, your above statement, is what tipped me off that you did not understand the meaning of the fist gesture. if by chance you are a black man, you would know, but since you didn't understand his communications i knew 'IT'S A BLACK THING"
and you would not understand. do you understand now?
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


He would go ballistic if we told him he didn't understand something because it was a "white thing".

As if people can't learn about & understand other cultures. How stupid! Does he not understand that we acknowledge the verdict as a 'black thing' too.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Lets try to put this into perspective and move on. This image of "Black Solidarity" by the juror was only recognized and mentioned in 1 book, by 1 individual! Strange considering the courtroom was filled with people, and nobody else witnessed this event!

Lets not beat this up to long, we wouldn't want "hotwater, coldwater" .. to misunderstand this as anything other than "Good ole debate"!

Please go back and read my response to you. Toobin is not the only one who witnessed it.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


WTH is 'NI'? :rolleyes: Two of our posters' library subscription: National Inquirer

[Kate Sachel]

I am off to meetings for awhile here. I will attempt to be back in several hours and if not, I will see you all in the morning.

Have a wonderful day/evening/night to everyone!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
NAW, you were duped by the media then and now by Bob. imo
martin II


martin II, no you're the one whose been duped if you actually think the criminal trial acquittal means Simpson was innocent. It doesn't.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel
I am off to meetings for awhile here. I will attempt to be back in several hours and if not, I will see you all in the morning.

Have a wonderful day/evening/night to everyone! G'night Kate

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, no you're the one whose been duped if you actually think the criminal trial acquittal means Simpson was innocent. It doesn't.

bobaugust

bob

People do play on words to fit their agandas.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Ok. I am leaving in the a.m. for Denver & won't be back til Sunday. Hope to see you soon. :seeya: Oh gosh -- now who will martin and/or netta argue with. They'll be raging on poor bob. LOL

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
G'night Kate

kate
sleep well
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Oh gosh -- now who will martin and/or netta argue with. They'll be raging on poor bob. LOL

fbg
well if she dosen't have a laptop and you do not get frustrated, the thread should move along smoothly. The quesiton is what will you do???
MARTIN II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

People do play on words to fit their agandas.
martin II


martin II, so that's your excuse, you play on words to fit your agenda?

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Why so defensive?

It is nothing short of uneducated for you to state that the question is "silly". The fact of the matter is that you have no way of knowing exactly why that juror raised his fist, regardless of if you are jet black or lilly white.

Or are you trying to tell me that you absolutely know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what that juror's thoughts were when he raised that fist?

I'm guessing that yours is the same as everyone else in America, which is pure speculation .

you have done nothing but twisted my words around. it is useless to try to post to you.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Yes!

yes

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Yes!


nettathirty, you're wrong. You can start informing yourself with this article.

"Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."

http://www.adsense.com/duvall/innocent.html

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, you're wrong. You can start informing yourself with this article.

"Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power. They can only find them "not guilty."

http://www.adsense.com/duvall/innocent.html

bobaugust

bob
you know that it a bunch a crap. legalease (sp)

they tried to put oj in jail and failed. how you and some other people spin that defeat is just "after wisk".
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Yes, especially when you consider yourself and expert on a subject you have NO 1st hand knowledge of! I think it's vain when you mock someone who has a differing opinion than yours!

she is a expert on mocking and dagger tossing.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty




Mr August,

OJ is still innocent, and some guy writting an article based on some facts of his opinion means as much as, well NOTHING!



nettathirty, not opinion. Fact. Ask any attorney to explain it to you.

Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial. A jury found him responsible for both deaths. To a certainty.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

hopefully then, this will be your last.
martin II

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, I doubt it because you post assinine posts constantly!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

M Furhmans comments about the dog biting the killer was posted by limakey on page 70 this thread. It was available for anyone reading the thread to see.

Bob has also posted that the comment was included in Furhmans
notes of his investigation of the bundy scene yesterday or the day before.If you read the thread you will see this.

MARTIN II

SFB ~ You need to push yourself away from ALL of your computers where you create all of your different nics. You just don't get it, do you?

Originally posted by martin II

if you don't want to look for it ask bob.
martin II

JMO and MOO!!

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

WTH is 'NI'? :rolleyes:

Isn't it National Enquirer, not Inquirer? So it would be NE, not NI?

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, I doubt it because you post assinine posts constantly!

JMO and MOO!!

2l8

i am wondering how i came to occupy so much room in your head.

if you could only understand that there are many people with opinions different than yours, then maby you would have a chance to work through some of your anger problems.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

How do you mean?

Martin's Mantra ~ Why don't you ask Bob?

JMO and MOO!!

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




nettathirty, not opinion. Fact. Ask any attorney to explain it to you.

Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer in the civil trial. A jury found him responsible for both deaths. To a certainty.

bobaugust

bob
are you referring to that "PAY BACK" "MONEY" gathering?

martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

Yes, especially when you consider yourself and expert on a subject you have NO 1st hand knowledge of! I think it's vain when you mock someone who has a differing opinion than yours!

SFB ~ Socal is an expert on the OJ case. Anyone who has "NO 1st hand knowledge" of the OJ case is YOU. And you don't "mock someone who has a differing opinion than yours!" GMAFB!!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

you have done nothing but twisted my words around. it is useless to try to post to you.
martin II

Brother! Please leave your beloved building with all of your computers and go get yourself some reading glasses. KS has NOT twisted any of your words around and you know it. Just another one of your delusions!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by bobaugust

martin II, so that's your excuse, you play on words to fit your agenda?

bobaugust

No Bob, it's Martin's "aganda!"

:lol:

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,

I don't believe any of the things on your website, but does that make you a liar? NO! Wrong, surely!

You post that because the Criminal Jury found OJ "not guilty", and you believe that does not mean he was innocent. Then anything he said after the criminal trial, in the opinion of you and people like minded as you, you weren't going to believe him anyway!

Petrocelli did a GREAT - OUTSTANDING job convincing 12 people of something, they were convinced of when they entered the courtroom!

netta
they were nominated to MAKE HIM PAY SOME MONEY. They were only able to get a demand for money.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

2l8

i am wondering how i came to occupy so much room in your head.

if you could only understand that there are many people with opinions different than yours, then maby you would have a chance to work through some of your anger problems.
martin II

Like I said, don't flatter yourself. Why would I possibly want a prejudiced and razist person to "occupy so much room in your (my) head?" As I have told you before. You stop posting assinine posts and I will stop posting to you. It's that simple. But we know that it won't happen because that's all you know how to do ~ is post assinine posts. UGH!

:punch:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
are you referring to that "PAY BACK" "MONEY" gathering?

martin II


martin II, did you read the article I posted as to what "not guilty" means?

Do you understand this reality or do you still believe that the criminal trial decision to acquit means Simpson was innocent?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
you know that it a bunch a crap. legalease (sp)


martin II


martin II, yes I know what a bunch of crap is. Your ignorant opinions.

The article I posted talks about what the law is not the fantasy you want to believe. Before you start making claims that you evidently know nothing about I suggest you too should ask any attorney to explain this to you.

But since you've never learning about something first before you express your opinions before, I doubt if speaking to an attorney to learn the law will change anything you say anyway.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

What in the heck does "SFB" mean?

I'll never tell!

Spreading your jam a little thick with the expert comment, aren't you?

I never said I was an expert, you seem confused! You might be L8 4 ur meds as well! lol

Thank you for admitting the obvious! Yes, I would definitely have to be off of my meds to think that you are an expert of anything!

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,

I don't believe any of the things on your website, but does that make you a liar? NO! Wrong, surely!

You post that because the Criminal Jury found OJ "not guilty", and you believe that does not mean he was innocent. Then anything he said after the criminal trial, in the opinion of you and people like minded as you, you weren't going to believe him anyway!




nettathirty, I don't doubt that you don't believe any of the things on my web site. It's very evident you never consider things like testimony, facts, and evidence that are on my web site to come to your opinions.

You would rather use what you think you remember or what other people have said as the basis for your beliefs.

The fact is that a "not guilty" verdict in a criminal trial in no way means the defendant didn't commit the crime. It normally means the jury wasn't convinced that the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Simpson case it also meant that the jury had another agenda and and acquitted Simpson based on other reasons than his obvious guilt.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Like I said, don't flatter yourself. Why would I possibly want a prejudiced and razist person to "occupy so much room in your (my) head?" As I have told you before. You stop posting assinine posts and I will stop posting to you. It's that simple. But we know that it won't happen because that's all you know how to do ~ is post assinine posts. UGH!

:punch:

2l8
you could at least try now to sound like you are 15.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Like I said, don't flatter yourself. Why would I possibly want a prejudiced and razist person to "occupy so much room in your (my) head?" As I have told you before. You stop posting assinine posts and I will stop posting to you. It's that simple. But we know that it won't happen because that's all you know how to do ~ is post assinine posts. UGH!

:punch:
based on your post i don't think you can help it.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

2l8
you could at least try now to sound like you are 15.

martin II

Dayum! How did you know that I am 15?

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II
based on your post i don't think you can help it.
martin II

It's not just me SFB!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

lame lame lame

What post of mine are you talking about? Or, maybe I should go ask Bob, right?

:rolleyes:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

Do you mean, SOB?

:lol: :rolleyes: :lol:

Not hardly!!

[2L8 4A D8]

:seeya: Socal: I hope that you have a safe trip. Will miss you!

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Dayum! How did you know that I am 15?

2l8
your post tell it all.
martin II

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

If she is 15, you must be 3 :rolleyes:

Thanks Socal. You beat me to it! When God was handing out brains, Martin thought he said trains, so he asked for a slow one!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

& I think Netta said "I'll have what he's having" :lol:

:lol: :beer: Yep, just like "Two Peas in a Pod!"

JMO and MOO!!

[weezer]

Anyone have any explanations (that can be supported) as to why Orenthal had Nicole's keys on him?

Simpson went to Chicago with a set of keys in his duffle bag which were later shown to match exactly the key to the gate of Nicole's condo and she had worried about them when she relaized they were missing. They weren't on a ring with all of his other keys. They were on a separate ring, in his bag, taken to Chicago, on an overnight trip in which he was supposedly packing lightly. Why did he have those keys that night?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Anyone have any explanations (that can be supported) as to why Orenthal had Nicole's keys on him?

Simpson went to Chicago with a set of keys in his duffle bag which were later shown to match exactly the key to the gate of Nicole's condo and she had worried about them when she relaized they were missing. They weren't on a ring with all of his other keys. They were on a separate ring, in his bag, taken to Chicago, on an overnight trip in which he was supposedly packing lightly. Why did he have those keys that night?

Because I believe that the evidence shows that OJ murdered Nicole, it is my belief that he had the key on him that night because he was at her residence murdering her.

I believe that the reason he apparently stole the key in the first place was to have full access to her at any time he wished.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Because I believe that the evidence shows that OJ murdered Nicole, it is my belief that he had the key on him that night because he was at her residence murdering her.

I believe that the reason he apparently stole the key in the first place was to have full access to her at any time he wished. Those are my thoughts also. Since he had the keys with him in Chicago and the Bronco ride, wouldn't it make sense that he'd also transported other things? I mean, there's been a lot of speculation as to what happened to his clothing, shoes and the murder weapon and I think it is a reasonable assumption that he took those to Chicago with him also.

[weezer]

*Snip*Originally posted by Kate Sachel
I believe that the reason he apparently stole the key in the first place was to have full access to her at any time he wished. I just wanted to add that it was this kind of discussion that changed my mind from believing he'd lashed out in anger to realize that he had premeditated the murder. Testimony showed that the days leading up to the murders were marked by increased tension and animous between Nicole and Orenthal. I believe the day he stole the keys, he knew that he was going to kill her.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* I just wanted to add that it was this kind of discussion that changed my mind from believing he'd lashed out in anger to realize that he had premeditated the murder. Testimony showed that the days leading up to the murders were marked by increased tension and animous between Nicole and Orenthal. I believe the day he stole the keys, he knew that he was going to kill her.

I had struggled with that also. Sometimes I still swing back and forth, but I am also more inclined to believe that this was premeditated at this point.

I do also believe that Nicole believed that she would die by his hand. I think that is why she opened the safe deposit box and made out her will.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I had struggled with that also. Sometimes I still swing back and forth, but I am also more inclined to believe that this was premeditated at this point.

I do also believe that Nicole believed that she would die by his hand. I think that is why she opened the safe deposit box and made out her will. Besides him stealing her keys, I also cannot find a benign explanation for him dressing in dark clothes AND taking a knife to her home.

Oh, I agree that she knew that he would eventually kill her. I'm surprised by people who don't understand that part of the 'make-up' of an abusive relationship is the 'battered' partner trying not to make the batterer angry. She must have really been done to have gotten a place to live away from Brentwood and then blown him off at the recital!

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


you have done nothing but twisted my words around. it is useless to try to post to you.
martin II

You only believe it is useless to post to me because I give you relevant, and thought provoking questions that you are unable to reasonably answer. Hence, your only defense is to state that I simply wouldn't understand or that it is useless to post to me.

You are very transparent.

Regarding the juror who raised his fist in a sign of Black Power; he is a former Black Panther member. It is reasonable to question his motives behind his chosen form of communication. Rather than intelligently respond to my ponderance and offer constructive debate you would rather crawl into a hole and insult both me and yourself by saying "oh, it's a black thing".

Since I am not a black man, and this topic drew my interest, I thought it helpful to consult someone (that person being my boss)who is indeed a black man to garner his thoughts on the topic. He chuckled and advised "the Black Power salute is indeed obviously a black thing, but you certainly don't have to be black in order to understand it's message".

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer


SNIP

She must have really been done to have gotten a place to live away from Brentwood and then blown him off at the recital!

I agree. I believe she reached her breaking point. The one thing that every single person who knew the Simpsons agreed on is that Nicole was "Super Mom", the most amazing mother to her children.

When OJ threatened her with tax evasion, which meant uprooting her children for the third time in one year, she had absolutely had enough because this time he was playing with the welfare of their children.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by nettathirty



MartinII

The Civil Trial jury was A lynch mob, fueled by the Gallop Poll that some 70% felt OJ was guilty!

imo jhmo moo

No, unfortunately, if wasn't a lynch mob, seeing as how they
didn't have the power to hang the double murderer. As for
the reason that 70% of the American pubic thought OJ was
guilty AFTER the criminal trial... hmm... let's see if we can
figure out why they would think that...........

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kate Sachel
[B]

I had struggled with that also. Sometimes I still swing back and forth, but I am also more inclined to believe that this was premeditated at this point.


Interesting. I'd always assumed he went over there with
the specific intent to murder her since there is no other logical
reason for the hat and gloves. I rarely see either on anyone
in California, even in the dead of winter. Certainly you
wouldn't see it in June, unless someone had some bad
intentions.
Of course, that doesn't say when he planned the murders.
Whether it was days, weeks or hours, but I tend to assume
it was probably something he'd thought about for awhile.
I can't believe you just wake up one morning and decide
to murder the mother of your children. I guess I'd like
to believe it required some thought, even for a monster
like OJ.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


No, unfortunately, if wasn't a lynch mob, seeing as how they
didn't have the power to hang the double murderer. As for
the reason that 70% of the American pubic thought OJ was
guilty AFTER the criminal trial... hmm... let's see if we can
figure out why they would think that...........


75 % of white america thought oj was guilty BEFORE the criminal trial ever started.
cnn polls.

martinII

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


You only believe it is useless to post to me because I give you relevant, and thought provoking questions that you are unable to reasonably answer. Hence, your only defense is to state that I simply wouldn't understand or that it is useless to post to me.

You are very transparent.

Regarding the juror who raised his fist in a sign of Black Power; he is a former Black Panther member. It is reasonable to question his motives behind his chosen form of communication. Rather than intelligently respond to my ponderance and offer constructive debate you would rather crawl into a hole and insult both me and yourself by saying "oh, it's a black thing".

Since I am not a black man, and this topic drew my interest, I thought it helpful to consult someone (that person being my boss)who is indeed a black man to garner his thoughts on the topic. He chuckled and advised "the Black Power salute is indeed obviously a black thing, but you certainly don't have to be black in order to understand it's message".


Great.. so now you can create your own interpretation of what the juror meant by the fist greeting and that should satisfy you.

so after talking to your boss, do you now believe the fist greeting
is in fact 'A BLACK THING"??

martin II

[weezer]

*Snip* Originally posted by bandit's mom
[BInteresting. I'd always assumed he went over there with
the specific intent to murder her since there is no other logical
reason for the hat and gloves. [/B] I'd always assumed he was wearing cap and gloves to conceal himself in order to spy on her and that there had been some kind of escalating confrontation. My thoughts on his intentions changed when I realized he had stolen her keys and that he'd taken the knife with him.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II



75 % of white america thought oj was guilty BEFORE the criminal trial ever started.
cnn polls.

martinII What was the percentage of black america that thought he was not guilty BEFORE the criminal trial every started?

[martin II]

kate


kate

There are several gestures that people call black power salute.

1. The gesture Mr carlos made at the Olympics in Mexico city.

2. Another one that is made with like the arm crooked at the
elbow with fist closed in front of ones face.

3. Another with closed fist tapped against ones chest.

Each identify a different levels of intensity by the one making the gesture.

Which black power salute was made by the juror after the criminal trials.

martin II

[martin II]

kate
Lionel Cryer was employed as a phone company marketing executive during the oj simpson trial.
martinII

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
What was the percentage of black america that thought he was not guilty BEFORE the criminal trial every started?

i don't know but a very large % agreed with the not guilty verdict.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II
kate


kate

There are several gestures that people call black power salute.

1. The gesture Mr carlos made at the Olympics in Mexico city.

2. Another one that is made with like the arm crooked at the
elbow with fist closed in front of ones face.

3. Another with closed fist tapped against ones chest.

Each identify a different levels of intensity by the one making the gesture.

Which black power salute was made by the juror after the criminal trials.

martin II I have never heard such BS..............

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snip* I'd always assumed he was wearing cap and gloves to conceal himself in order to spy on her and that there had been some kind of escalating confrontation. My thoughts on his intentions changed when I realized he had stolen her keys and that he'd taken the knife with him.

Yes, that does make sense about the spying. I just hadn't
thought of it that way, but that's probably hindsight, knowing
that he did end up murdering her.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


i don't know but a very large % agreed with the not guilty verdict.
martin II And do you know what the percentage of black america thought he was guilty AFTER the trial?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
And do you know what the percentage of black america thought he was guilty AFTER the trial?

something like maby 15--25% not sure. if you know post the numbers. i know there was a unexpected wide margin between the two groups opinions.

Martin II

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by nettathirty



I know..

The evidence was presented deceptively, and the media was fuel on distributing papers in record numbers!

Did I get it right!

No, sorry. They thought he was guilty because he IS!!!

Thanks for playing.

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



I know..

The evidence was presented deceptively, and the media was fuel on distributing papers in record numbers!

Did I get it right!
netta
the media and book authors gave the people what they wanted to hear.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I have never heard such BS..............

fbg
i am sure you have not heard of this before
martinII

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


something like maby 15--25% not sure. if you know post the numbers. i know there was a unexpected wide margin between the two groups opinions.

Martin II Hmm -- it's only a guess on my part BUT I'm guessing that the same percentage of black america that thought he wasn't guilty BEFORE the criminial trial, is the same percentage that thought he wasn't guilty AFTER the criminal trial.

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



How do you know Nicole was worried about her keys? How do you know that OJ wasn't given the keys by Nicole?

cora said nicole thought fay resnick stole the extra set of keys from the table drawer.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II
kate
Lionel Cryer was employed as a phone company marketing executive during the oj simpson trial.
martinII Lionel Cryer - #247 (seat 6) - Placed on jury Jan. 18, Black male, 44, high school graduate, works as a phone company marketing representative. Florio-Bunten told Ito she thought that he may be writing a book. Gave Simpson "power salute" after the verdict. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/finaljury.html)

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Lionel Cryer - #247 (seat 6) - Placed on jury Jan. 18, Black male, 44, high school graduate, works as a phone company marketing representative. Florio-Bunten told Ito she thought that he may be writing a book. Gave Simpson "power salute" after the verdict. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/finaljury.html)

FBG

same info i have.
i am sure he was expressing his pleasure that 11 other jurors agreed with him and oj was on his way to Rockingham.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Hmm -- it's only a guess on my part BUT I'm guessing that the same percentage of black america that thought he wasn't guilty BEFORE the criminial trial, is the same percentage that thought he wasn't guilty AFTER the criminal trial.

FBG

If your GUESS is correct,

Leave it to black Americans to get it right.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


So, are you telling me that the juror was saying "hi" to OJ after the verdict was read? I'm sorry, but that is laughable at best.

hi--right on--glad you are not going to jail, have a nice day. etc

ANY OF THE ABOVE.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


FBG

If your GUESS is correct,

Leave it to black Americans to get it right.
martin II So why is it that you feel it is right that black america could make up their minds before the trial and that is okay but white america is not afforded the same privilege?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
So why is it that you feel it is right that black america could make up their minds before the trial and that is okay but white america is not afforded the same privilege?
you cannot make a guess statement and then ask me why
one side of your statement is correct or wrong
get out of here
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
So why is it that you feel it is right that black america could make up their minds before the trial and that is okay but white america is not afforded the same privilege?

fbg
maby black americans did not belive oj would have any reason to kill nicole.
maby black americans made up their minds based on that sham of a case that was presented by the prosecution and the reasonable doubt standard that the jury found. after all it was the court system that blacks and whites have been told we must accept as a just system. It was just that this time the system did give most white people the results they thought they should receive. That MAY be why you are here bashing the jury and the system.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



How do you know Nicole was worried about her keys? How do you know that OJ wasn't given the keys by Nicole?



nettathirty, how do we know Nicole didn't give the keys to Simpson? Because Simpson was asked about them and denied he had them. He even tried to suggest to the police that Lou Brown had given those keys to AC Cowlings. Cowlings testified he was never given or even saw a key to Nicole's condo.

Evidence Dismissed,

"In Cowling's Bronco detectives find Simpson's travel bag, the same bag the police had seized - and Vannatter inspected - on Monday, June 13. Inside the travel bag, detectives find his passport, his treasured NFL Hall of Fame ring, a disguise kit, a variety of credit cards, toilet articles, a change of underwear, and two sets of keys. These items are booked as evidence."
***
"On Wednesday, June 22, Lange interviews Lou and Juditha Brown at their residence in Dana Point. Before Lange leaves the Brown's home, Juditha also tells him that Nicole had complained less than two weeks before the murders that an extra set of two keys to her house was missing. Each key fits Nicole's front door and front gate. Nicole believed that Simpson had stolen them."
***
"Rosa Elvia Alonzo, who had worked as Nicole Brown's housekeeper since December 1993, later confirmed the missing keys scenario to Detectives Bert Luper and Cliff LeFall. The detectives wrote in their report "(Alonzo) stated Ms. Brown had a habit of leaving her keys (key ring with many keys, including house and car keys) on a hook in the kitchen. These keys were were missing between 6-4-94 and 6-5-94."

Within days after Lange's interview with the Brown family, while examining the times on the official property report seized from Cowlings Bronco on the night of Simpson's arrest, Lange and Vannatter focus on a second set of two keys found in Simpson's possession at the time of his arrest, which were still unidentified. They wondered if there is a connection with Brown's missing keys.

Talking to other sources, Lange and Vannatter learn that on June 8, four days before the murders, Brown had attended a personal intervention for a close friend, Faye Resnick, who was badly strung out on cocaine. While at Resnick's home, Brown was still concerned about her missing set of two extra keys. Resnick stayed with Brown for a short period of time and left on Friday, June 3. While at Resnick's home, Brown went through Resnick's purse to see if she had the keys. Resnick did not have them. And that concerned Nicole even more, because she feared that Simpson really might have taken them.

The two detectives open their official investigation of the extra set of keys shortly after Lange's June 22 interview with the Browns. Earlier, Lou Brown had told Lange that on Friday, June 17, he had changed the locks on her condominium and discarded the old locks and keys. Consequently, the old locks no longer exist, so the keys Simpson had cannot be checked.

However Lange and Vannatter obtain Nicole Brown's original key from Cora Fischman, one of Nicole's neighbors, who kept an extra set in case of an emergency. Using this key, Lange and Vannatter have a lock constructed which that key will fit.

Then, the detectives take the two keys in Simpson's possession and insert them in the newly constructed lock.

Both keys fit the lock perfectly. In fact, they are identical keys that would have fit all of the residential doors at Nicole Brown's home, as well as her front gate.

In other words Simpson had two identical keys to Nicole's front gate and front door in his possession at the time of his arrest. To Lange and Vannatter, this is even more damning evidence against Simpson."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Famous detective visits Ukiah
By Carole Hester
http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/features/ci_3918890

"Special for the Journal

Almost anywhere in the world the name "Mark Fuhrman" has a ring of familiarity. He's a little grayer now, a little more settled in his skin than the famous detective of the OJ Simpson trial.

His visit to Ukiah recently for a Ukiah Area Republican Women fundraiser benefiting a scholarship for college-level students going into law enforcement brought out 140 attendees at the high-priced dinner.

Final book sales haven't yet been tallied but organizers are hoping to clear at least $4,000 for the scholarship fund.

Fuhrman, best-selling author of five books, has a new one out about the JFK assassination, called "A Simple Act of Murder."

Fuhrman reported that according to a Gallop poll, nearly 80 percent of the American people don't believe that John F. Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman, and the House Assassinations Committee has found that the president was "assassinated as the result of a conspiracy." Yet the conspirators have never been identified or brought to justice.

It is Fuhrman's claim that once you've read his book, "you'll know who killed JFK."

The popular author explained that 450 books have been written on the assassination and "none but mine were written by a detective." He read all 26 volumes of the Warren Commission report and 27 of those 450 books.

Fuhrman's talk and media presentation included vivid photos, informative diagrams and original drawings by Fuhrman himself that are also in his book. He explained complex forensic matters clearly and made them easy to understand. He's an entertaining speaker, sprinkling his presentation with humor, despite the serious and heavy subject matter and was generous with his time and attention to the guests.

It was haunting to reopen the national tragedy of our President's assassination. Fuhrman dedicated his book, "To a nation, and a family, who have suffered." As most will agree with his book's opening statement, "Everyone who is old enough remembers exactly where they were when they learned President Kennedy had been killed." With that act a nation was pulled into the drama of this tragic event.

Feelings that surface every time references are made to any part of that event -- the shooting, Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, the Warren Commission, Dealey Plaza and the grassy knoll -- rose again to haunt the listeners as Fuhrman presented his research. He hopes to overturn accepted notions about the way the murder occurred and answer many questions that have plagued the American people ever since that fateful day in Dallas.

Fuhrman discussed factors in the tragic event: Dallas was a turnstile for the mob, major facts were overlooked or hidden, Jack Ruby really liked the Kennedys and only dropped in on the courthouse that fateful day of Oswald's arrest to see what was going on. He always "carried" (a gun) due to large amounts of cash he often had on him. He decided when he saw Oswald that he'd save Mrs. Kennedy from having to go through a trial -- and shot Oswald. It wasn't premeditated.

After his presentation on "A Simple Act of Murder," the audience was invited to ask questions. It was no surprise that a good many of the questions dealt with the OJ Simpson trial that vaulted Fuhrman to fame. When asked, "what is Judge Ito doing now," the author responded, "He is practicing civil law."

Those who have served or who are serving in law enforcement were recognized. The audience was especially supportive when Julian Covella was introduced. You may recall he was the young police cadet who had the presence of mind to help Marcus Young and his actions saved the brave Ukiah Policeman's life.

Event coordinator Kathy Davidson had everything running smoothly. Mistress of ceremonies Marilyn Butcher, president of Ukiah Area Republican Women, kept a tight reign on time. Miss Mendocino County, Kaleena Quarles, performed a couple of patriotic songs and Danielle Brassfield entertained on the keyboard. Heather Hamilton led the pledge after asking for a moment of silence in support of our troops serving all over the globe.

Sponsors for the evening were: Anderson Logging, Marilyn Butcher, Tony Craver, Ken Fowler Motors, Marty Lombardi, John Mayfield, Floyd Ross and Selzer Realty. Brutaco Winery's Garden of Roses was the perfect location for this outdoor dinner under a tent.

Kimarie of Fantasy Stills photography has photos of the event and available for purchase on line at www.fantasystills.com. Click on Image Quix link, select event (Mark Fuhrman Book Signing) with the password "jfk." Images are available to view June 6, 2006."

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




nettathirty, how do we know Nicole didn't give the keys to Simpson? Because Simpson was asked about them and denied he had them. He even tried to suggest to the police that Lou Brown had given those keys to AC Cowlings. Cowlings testified he was never given or even saw a key to Nicole's condo.

Evidence Dismissed,

"In Cowling's Bronco detectives find Simpson's travel bag, the same bag the police had seized - and Vannatter inspected - on Monday, June 13. Inside the travel bag, detectives find his passport, his treasured NFL Hall of Fame ring, a disguise kit, a variety of credit cards, toilet articles, a change of underwear, and two sets of keys. These items are booked as evidence."
***
"On Wednesday, June 22, Lange interviews Lou and Juditha Brown at their residence in Dana Point. Before Lange leaves the Brown's home, Juditha also tells him that Nicole had complained less than two weeks before the murders that an extra set of two keys to her house was missing. Each key fits Nicole's front door and front gate. Nicole believed that Simpson had stolen them."
***
"Rosa Elvia Alonzo, who had worked as Nicole Brown's housekeeper since December 1993, later confirmed the missing keys scenario to Detectives Bert Luper and Cliff LeFall. The detectives wrote in their report "(Alonzo) stated Ms. Brown had a habit of leaving her keys (key ring with many keys, including house and car keys) on a hook in the kitchen. These keys were were missing between 6-4-94 and 6-5-94."

Within days after Lange's interview with the Brown family, while examining the times on the official property report seized from Cowlings Bronco on the night of Simpson's arrest, Lange and Vannatter focus on a second set of two keys found in Simpson's possession at the time of his arrest, which were still unidentified. They wondered if there is a connection with Brown's missing keys.

Talking to other sources, Lange and Vannatter learn that on June 8, four days before the murders, Brown had attended a personal intervention for a close friend, Faye Resnick, who was badly strung out on cocaine. While at Resnick's home, Brown was still concerned about her missing set of two extra keys. Resnick stayed with Brown for a short period of time and left on Friday, June 3. While at Resnick's home, Brown went through Resnick's purse to see if she had the keys. Resnick did not have them. And that concerned Nicole even more, because she feared that Simpson really might have taken them.

The two detectives open their official investigation of the extra set of keys shortly after Lange's June 22 interview with the Browns. Earlier, Lou Brown had told Lange that on Friday, June 17, he had changed the locks on her condominium and discarded the old locks and keys. Consequently, the old locks no longer exist, so the keys Simpson had cannot be checked.

However Lange and Vannatter obtain Nicole Brown's original key from Cora Fischman, one of Nicole's neighbors, who kept an extra set in case of an emergency. Using this key, Lange and Vannatter have a lock constructed which that key will fit.

Then, the detectives take the two keys in Simpson's possession and insert them in the newly constructed lock.

Both keys fit the lock perfectly. In fact, they are identical keys that would have fit all of the residential doors at Nicole Brown's home, as well as her front gate.

In other words Simpson had two identical keys to Nicole's front gate and front door in his possession at the time of his arrest. To Lange and Vannatter, this is even more damning evidence against Simpson."

bobaugust

BOB

No key fit the back gate which is where it is believed oj parked his bronco. He would have to walk out of the west alley to dorothy then up bundy to get to the front gate to use this key.

Why would oj carry the keys to the gate with him from 6/12/ to the day of his arrest if he had used them on 6/12 to enter to kill nicole?

oj having the keys means absolutely nothing .

martin II

[martin II]

bob
you are using a lot of band with with these extra long post.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


BOB

No key fit the back gate which is where it is believed oj parked his bronco. He would have to walk out of the west alley to dorothy then up bundy to get to the front gate to use this key.

Why would oj carry the keys to the gate with him from 6/12/ to the day of his arrest if he had used them on 6/12 to enter to kill nicole?

oj having the keys means absolutely nothing .

martin II


martin II, the keys would most likely fit the lock on the rear gate at Bundy.

Why would Simpson carry the keys with him? Who knows but your question is irrelevant since they were found in his bag along with his personal items.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
you are using a lot of band with with these extra long post.
martin II


martin II, you are confused.

It's not a waste of band width to make a long posting. An example of a waste of band width is your previous post where you asked why Simpson would carry the keys. You quoted my entire post in your response.

That's wasting band width. What you should have done was only quote the portion of my posting that was relevant to the question you were asking, not my entire post. Understand?

bobaugust

[martin II]

martin II, the keys would most likely fit the lock on the rear gate at Bundy

bob

"MOST LIKEY" sounds like a guess or your opinion.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Mr August:

Those pesky facts overlooked by Clark and her ego, that are available in books for the mere price of $40.00!

I chuckle when you reference these books, with you knowing I don't give them any validity!



nettathirty, honestly I could care less what you find valid or not valid.

You seem to put more faith in what you think you remember witnesses said instead of reading their actual testimony and you believe in fantasy scenarios from people who have no expertise in what they are talking about, like Dick Wagner, while you ignore what the attorneys and key players in this case tell us in their books.

I'm sorry to say you're one of the last persons I would rely on for providing or even understanding the real facts in this case.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
martin II, the keys would most likely fit the lock on the rear gate at Bundy

bob

"MOST LIKEY" sounds like a guess or your opinion.
martin II


martin II, it sure seems to me a reasonable assumption that if the front gate and front door at Bundy used the same key than the the rear gate could very well have also used that same key.

I've never read anywhere where that has been confirmed or denied.

Congratulations on finely editing my previous post in your response and saving some band width.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
you are using a lot of band with with these extra long post.
martin II

You are the LAST person who should throw stones. How many times have all of us been telling you to "snip" the long posts when answering them SFB? Hotwater does not have a problem with long posts. What s/he has a problem with is Posters not "snipping" long posts when answering them! Do you get it now? Or do we need to have Hotwater send you a Personal Message? I can certainly alert Hotwater. Just give me the go-ahead!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II

FBG

If your GUESS is correct,

Leave it to black Americans to get it right.
martin II

IMO, that is the most hateful, prejudiced and raczit comment you could ever make. However, why doesn't it surprise me?

Keep it up Out4Justice, FedUp, Netta30, Nettathirty, Rayraytwo and Martin II because me thinks you might have to create another nic pretty soon!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

2L8 4meds

That goes to show how much you know, and why your not the moderator!

:lol: :rolleyes: :lol:

Where have I ever posted or said that I wanted to be the Moderator SFB? You and your ilk are lucky that I am not the Moderator because YOU and all of your reincarnated nics would be banned immediately, if not sooner! Just curious, is Nettathirty your age or your IQ? I venture to guess that it is the latter.

JMO and MOO!!

[jotun]

All---I have watched the O.J. saga from day 1.Barely knew who O.J.was.I have forgoten more than most people know about this case.I watched every minute of THE 'TRIAL OF THE CENTURY' Just curious.Did ANY of you, except for Bob August,actually SEE any of it????? jotun

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

2L8 4meds

That goes to show how much you know, and why your not the moderator!

My post was directed to Martin II, not you. But then again since Martin II is an alter ego of yours, I guess you feel that you are qualified to answer for him and vice versa. All you have to do is just slide on over to one of the many computers that you have at your disposal in the building that you keep all of these beloved computers at, right?

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

2L8 4MEDS

SFB you would do that just because we disagree with you, and don't buy into your "well everybody feels he's guilty" mentality!

No. If you and your other reincarnated nics would just stop posting your assinine posts, outrageous theories, your prejudice/raczit comments and start posting with some common sense, expertise, knowledge and integrity, I am sure that you all would definitely be taken more seriously. All of you just keep on going on and on and on ~ ad nauseum. Everytime I log on to this Board, it's like "the same sh*t, just a different day" and its becoming tiresome to say the least.

I am not an expert on the OJ case and I have never professed to be, but enough is enough. It's just amazing to me that all of you have the audacity to thrash, trash and bash the most knowledgeable Posters on this Board. All of you have no one but yourselves to blame for my attitude!

Also, knock it off about 2L8 4Meds. It's right up there with your "Grandmother" post made to Socal!

JMO and MOO!!

[limakey]

Kate,

Your comments about the defense manipulating the crime scene is an absolute scream! You have been very honest about your feelings on this case, you have no problem with the criminal trial jury's verdict. Yet, you constantly want to blame the defense for their manipulations.

Just what did they manipulate or use to their advantage? Was it the defense's fault that Vanatter never, ever in his long, long career ever carried a vile of blood back to a crime scene before? Was it the defense's fault that blood was found on the back gate how days or weeks later? Was it the defense's fault that no expert on either side saw the blood on the socks until months later? Is it the defense's fault that blood wasn't found in the Bronco until weeks later?

Is it the defense's fault that Mark Fuhrman, after telling the LAPD why he could no longer be a cop, they didn't believe him and called him a liar, a wannabee and whatever else but he was okay to report back to duty? Was it Mark Fuhrman's fault they didn't believe him?

The police have total control over crime scenes, it is their domain. In the begining of this case and throughout this case all the leaks came from the LAPD. Like Nicole's blood being on the socks, before the DA's sent them out to be tested.

We know for a fact that Lange and Vanatter and other police officers did go to the press because they were upset with Clark and Darden. We know Darden called in on Geraldo's show and said what he thought about the testimony of the cops.

To be honest and to be fair, both sides, when given the opportunity, they are going to spin whatever they can to their advantage. As you very well know, in today's world, a guilty verdict in the court of public opinon is a hell of a lot more sweeter and finanically rewarding. I think at the time of Marcia Clark's book contract, she had the second highest book deal in our country. General "Stormin" Norman S (can't spell his last name) was the only person who made more from his book deal.

The defense didn't manipulate anything, they had the resources and the experts to challenge each and every piece of evidence in this case and they were successful. As you know, if the jury came back with any other verdict, it would have been an illegal verdict because the law and the judge's instructions would have been ignored.

[martin II]

limakey

Good to hear from you and your excellant post.
:beer:
MARTIN II

[martin II]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


IMO, that is the most hateful, prejudiced and raczit comment you could ever make. However, why doesn't it surprise me?

Keep it up Out4Justice, FedUp, Netta30, Nettathirty, Rayraytwo and Martin II because me thinks you might have to create another nic pretty soon!

JMO and MOO!!

2l8

here is a suggestion for you.

instead of making wild accusations about what you think about people with multiple nics, which adds nothing to the oj discussion,
why not read SOMETHING about the trial and post it for discussion.
martin II:confused:

[martin II]

bob

i was looking at the link you posted on page 82 to a company that is selling M Furhman pictures.

Are you now the marketing manager for selling M Furhman pictures to this thread??

Martin II

[martin II]

ALL


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/espn25/story?page=moments/11

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty




Many of you know my opinion about MF, and his role in the Trial of Football Legend OJ Simpson! What I cannot understand for the life of me is, MF knew the question was coming, he knew the tapes were going to be played, and he knew the content of the tape, and still he lied? Can any of you who believe that anyone with 1/2 brain and see OJ is guilty, explain this to me?



Nettathirty, here is a tiny portion of what Fuhrman had to say in his book about this.

"My anger over the perjury charges hs nothing to do with the shame and embarrassment I feel about what I said on the tapes. There is a difference between moral and legal responsibility. I should not have said what I said. But whatever I said no mater how cruel or stupid should have had no bearing on the Simpson case. My recorded conversations with Laura Hart McKinny were an attempt to create a fictional screenplay, but my words were used as if they were testimonial fact. There was no place for imagined dialogue in a trial concerning the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman. I should never have been asked the questions that led to my perjury conviction.

Even if everything my critics said about me was true, none of it would have been relevant to the trial. Likewise, even if the tapes had not been a work of fiction, they would not have been relevant to the case or material to Simpson's guilt.

What did race have to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence? Race was not an issue in the way Simpson's case was handled by the LAPD. Simpson made no complaints about his treatment, nor did he have cause to complain. He was treated better than any suspect I had ever seen in my twenty years on the force. Simpson was above race. He didn't even live in a racial world. He was accepted and loved by everybody regardless of race."

***

"When I testified in the Superior Court trial, I did not think about the tapes. Bailey asked me if I had ever used the "N" word in addressing a person. I could truthfully answer that I had not. I never thought that screenplay notes and character dialogue could be misrepresented as my own words. I hadn't told Marcia about the tapes simply because I didn't remember them at first and when I did, I didn't think they were at all relevant to the case.

But when the tapes became public, I worried. I had seen how the defense and the media had already twisted previous statements of mine. While I couldn't remember exactly what I had said on those dozens of hors of tapes, I was sure that the defense would find a way to make the tapes an issue as part of their strategy to tun the trial of O.J. Simpson into a trial about race and about me."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August:

My understanding of the case is this!


Man walking his dog hears 2 men, 1 with a youthful voice the other he believes to be not youthful! The man also hears a dog barking uncontrollably a gate slam, and a White SUV with it's lights off!

Smears of Blood are found in OJs white Bronco, mostly Ojs blood 1 smear of Ron Goldmans blood and a couple of OJs ex-wife Nicole Simpson!

Gloves that are common gifts of Nicole Simpson to OJ were found 1 at Bundy and 1 at Rockingham. They both have a drop of OJs blood on them near the wrist area of the glove, and the Rockingham glove was found near the back wall of Kato (houseguest) of OJ Simpson bungaloo. Kato told Police he heard 3 thumps about 10:45p or 10:52p depending on which trial transcript you believe.

OJ has NO alibi for the hours between 9:45p to 10:52p!

OJ cells phone records suggest he was in his Bronco at 10:03p trying to contact Paula B.




nettathirty, your understanding is only partly correct.

Robert Heidstra heard the voices of two men coming from Nicole's condo. He heard Nicole's front gate slam.

The blood found in Simpson's Bronco was not mostly Simpson's blood. Simpson's tiny blood drops were splattered all over the interior of the Bronco.
1. Blood drop matching Simpson's found on Driver's door interior, and in two places on instrument panel.
2. Blood on the steering wheel matched a mixture of Simpson's and Nicole's.
3. Blood on center console matched Simpson's.
4. More blood on center console matched both Simpson's and Goldman's.
5. Blood on driver's side wall matched Simpson's.
6. Blood on carpet matched Nicole's.
7. Several blood samples on center console matched Simpson's, Ron's. and Nicole's together.

Simpson's blood was found on the right hand glove at Rockingham along with both victims blood. Kaelin's times were estimated. We know the time he heard the noises on his wall based on the fact that it took Simpson the same amount of time to make it around the house to the front door as it took Kaelin to finish his telephone conversation, find a small flashlight and walk around the back of the house to the front. Both Kaelin and Simpson were seen almost simultaneously by Allan Park. That time was most likely about 10:52 PM.

Simpson has no alibi for the hours between 9:40 PM and 10:55 PM

There is no evidence Simpson was in his Bronco when he called Paula at 10:03.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by jotun
All---I have watched the O.J. saga from day 1.Barely knew who O.J.was.I have forgoten more than most people know about this case.I watched every minute of THE 'TRIAL OF THE CENTURY' Just curious.Did ANY of you, except for Bob August,actually SEE any of it????? jotun



jotun, I don't doubt that you have forgotten more then most people know, but I doubt if you know more than most of the posters on this discussion group who have read the transcripts. A lot of people watched the trial of the century but that alone doesn't mean they or you understood or could remember the words of every witness.

The only way to understand the huge amount of facts in this case is to read the transcripts from the grand jury protocols, the preliminary hearing, the criminal trial, the depositions, and the civil trial.

bobaugust

[martin II]

NETTA
ARTICLE
If you don't like the verdict, don't blame the jury.

for some reason the article repeatres itself.

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp951012/10110004.htm

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey

Just what did they manipulate or use to their advantage? Was it the defense's fault that Vanatter never, ever in his long, long career ever carried a vile of blood back to a crime scene before? Was it the defense's fault that blood was found on the back gate how days or weeks later? Was it the defense's fault that no expert on either side saw the blood on the socks until months later? Is it the defense's fault that blood wasn't found in the Bronco until weeks later?


The defense didn't manipulate anything, they had the resources and the experts to challenge each and every piece of evidence in this case and they were successful. As you know, if the jury came back with any other verdict, it would have been an illegal verdict because the law and the judge's instructions would have been ignored.


limakey, there was nothing wrong or sinister about the fact that Vannatter carried Simpson's blood vial back to Rockingham to give to Dennis Fung so it could be booked with the rest of the evidence that Fung had control over. The fact is that when Vannatter arrived at Rockingham all of the blood from both crime scenes had already been collected.

Evidence Dismissed,
"Fung took custody of Simpson's blood at exactly 5:20 P.M., three minutes after Vannatter's arrival. Thus the chain of custody of the vial of blood form Vannatter to Fung had just taken place - in accordance with standard operating procedure, LAPD regulations and state law."

The blood that wasn't collected from the rear gate at Bundy was a mistake. The fact that it was still there weeks later to collect was a lucky break for the prosecution. Test results proved that claims that this blood was planted from Simpson's reference sample were false. A crime scene photograph taken the morning after the murders even showed one of the blood drops the defense claimed was planted.

No one was able to see the tiny blood stains on the dark colored socks until they were put under high intensity lighting. The socks were not given a high priority so that wasn't done until sometime later. Test results on Nicole's blood found on Simpson's socks proved that blood wasn't planted from Nicole's autopsy sample as the defense falsely claimed.

The manipulation by the defense was to make this case about race. Race had nothing to do with Simpson's guilt or innocence. The defense used race to inflame the jury, distort the truth, deceiving the jury into ignoring the actual evidence in favor of unsupported, unproved, false claims of evidence planting and conspiracy.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

i was looking at the link you posted on page 82 to a company that is selling M Furhman pictures.

Are you now the marketing manager for selling M Furhman pictures to this thread??

Martin II


martin II, no not any more than you are.

I simply posted the complete article so anyone could read it in it's entirety. I would think that the only people who would be interested in purchasing photos of this event would be the people shown in the photos. But if you're really interested I'm sure you could buy some.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob
i see you are now posting furhmans spin. He knew what he had said. If he had not been so arragant and cocky he would have informed the prosecution of his history.

what kind of person would make up these racist kind of remarks
for a play anyway if they were not true. i think this was m furhmans true person. remember his comments at the military recruiting station to that woman about blacks.

this is furhman spin.
martin II

[martin II]

bob

i think one can look at the criminal trial and decide if oj was guilty or not.
martin II

[weepy willa]

Originally posted by martin II
NETTA
ARTICLE
If you don't like the verdict, don't blame the jury.

for some reason the article repeatres itself.

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp951012/10110004.htm


I watched all of the trial,if I was'nt home I taped it. Marcia Clark did think it was a slam dunk. I wonder why in the world they had O.J. put on rubber gloves to try on the leather gloves. The gloves had already been tested for blood samples ! Alan Park said that O.J. did'nt want Kato or Park touching the little black bag.O.J. took the bag into the limo,an airport worker saw O.J. standing by a trash can, why di'dnt they check to see if he put the knives in the trash? Why did'nt they have somebody scour old sports footage for a picture of O.J. wearing "Those ugly a#@ shoes" ,The National Enquirer, did! O.J. was so distraught
:rolleyes: upon learning of Nicole's death ,that he crushed a hotel water glass in his bare hands REALLY? ,The hotel glasses are usually too thick for that O.J. If he crushed the glass in his hand ,he would have cut THE PALM OF HIS HAND ,NOT THE OUTSIDE! O.J. when they showed a big blow-up of Nicole's death picture,O.J. turned away in disgust,( guess he did'nt want to see his handy work!) no crying ,no anger. He showed no emotion when they showed Ron's death scene.I'm not sure who it was Robert H. or another neighbor that gave a statement that they had passed a white bronco in the alley,weeks before the murders,Nicole said O.J. was spying on her.

The news used to show footage a fan /parent took of O.J. earlier in the day,arriving at Sidney's dance recital : O.J. walks forward ,and Justin runs and jumps into his arms,just when a black SUV,pulls up. O.J. bends down to Justin ,and looks up ,I did'nt know but it was Nicole in the black SUV,and O.J. tries not to look her way. ( remember he's mad because he was banished to the back of the recital ,and was'nt with family/ friends. He also was'nt invited back to Mezzaluma with the family, the place where Ron worked . O.J. is free to spend his time looking for the real killer?
:rolleyes: ,and to chip golf balls,while over sleeping and,showering. I wonder instead of yelling "FORE" ,he instead yells "TWO"?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
i see you are now posting furhmans spin. He knew what he had said. If he had not been so arragant and cocky he would have informed the prosecution of his history.

what kind of person would make up these racist kind of remarks
for a play anyway if they were not true. i think this was m furhmans true person. remember his comments at the military recruiting station to that woman about blacks.

this is furhman spin.
martin II


martin II, no I think Fuhrman was exaggerating to describe the realities of violence and life on the street.

"Agreeing that we needed hard hitting action and tough characters, we began a series of interviews where I laid out police procedures, stories, characters, and situations. These were all on tape. I let my imagination run wild. Throughout the interviews, I was creating fictional situations, sometimes based loosely on true incidents. Characters were developed from composites of many people, from police management down to the lowest criminals. Dialogue in the screenplay was a mx of conversations I remembered, and others that were imaginary.

When I was making up dialogue, I spoke in the first person. But those weren't my own words, my own experiences, or my own sentiments. They were the words of fictional characters I had created based on my imagination and experiences. I knew I had to exaggerate things to make the screenplay dramatic and commercially appealing. I knew enough about Hollywood to understand that producers didn't want a nice, warm and fuzzy movie about good cops, but something dark and hard edged. And since Laura and I sometimes had wine while we had our recorded conversations, occasionally I got a little carried away. As I mentioned Laura was extremely innocent, and I got a charge out of shocking her with some of the things that I said and making her laugh with others.

The bulk of those tapes were made during a period of three to four months. The purpose of the tapes was twofold to educate Laura about the sinister side of the world, about which she knew nothing, and to create characters and action she might use in a screenplay. Laura used the tapes and transcripts as a library she could refer to while writing the script."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

i think one can look at the criminal trial and decide if oj was guilty or not.
martin II


martin II, yes it's obvious you believe that. That's why your opinion that Simpson wasn't the killer is so wrong.

From the beginning of your posting messages here it was evident you were basing your opinions only on what you thought you knew from the criminal trial not even on the transcripts of what witnesses actually said. And your complete ignorance of all of the new information, facts, and testimony learned from the many depositions and the civil trial handicapped you even more. The fact that your personality doesn't even allow you to admit to your mistakes when you're shown to be wrong is more debilitating for you.

It's like someone trying to talk about a realistic view of the world today based only on what they are aware of that happened twenty years ago without bothering to learn what's going on today and then denying that anything is different. You still continue to site false and misinformation using only lame excuses to deny the reality of the truth of these murders.

bobaugust

[goatgirl]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust
[B]

The two detectives open their official investigation of the extra set of keys shortly after Lange's June 22 interview with the Browns. Earlier, Lou Brown had told Lange that on Friday, June 17, he had changed the locks on her condominium and discarded the old locks and keys. Consequently, the old locks no longer exist, so the keys Simpson had cannot be checked.

However Lange and Vannatter obtain Nicole Brown's original key from Cora Fischman, one of Nicole's neighbors, who kept an extra set in case of an emergency. Using this key, Lange and Vannatter have a lock constructed which that key will fit.

**snip for space**

Hi Bob

I found it to be odd that a new lock was made to see if the key would fit, would you not be able to know it was the same key
by comparing them side by side?

Thanks Goatgirl
:)

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by goatgirl

Hi Bob

I found it to be odd that a new lock was made to see if the key would fit, would you not be able to know it was the same key
by comparing them side by side?

Thanks Goatgirl
:)


goatgirl, I would think so but constructing a lock and then using the keys to open it would probably eliminate all doubt if the keys that looked like they would be the same actually worked.

bobaugust

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by bobaugust



goatgirl, I would think so but constructing a lock and then using the keys to open it would probably eliminate all doubt if the keys that looked like they would be the same actually worked.

bobaugust

Hi Bob

Thanks that's a good point, & not for nothing but I just don't understand why the police weren't able to locate Nicole's original lock?

I know that Lou Brown had it replaced, but couldn't the police have just gone to the locksmith & saved them selves a wack of time....

GoatGirl
:read:

[martin II]

martin II, no I think Fuhrman was exaggerating to describe the realities of violence and life on the street.

bob
after the trial and furhman had been caught on the stand with that big lie and decided to write the book, what did you expect him to write. That he did have r***** attitudes as his statements and history indicates? OR write something that his customer base would like to read to motivate them to buy the book?

when he tried for the retirement from the lapd he was not speaking for the benefit of some play, yet he made the same type R***** comments.

To say that he was a prosecution main witness and he did not remember all this r***** talk in his past is just unbelieviable or to put it more bluntly another BIG LIE .

As a lapd officer working the streets i am sure there is enough voilence that he came in touch with that would have been very interesting and FACTUAL for the play. No reason to toss in all that r***** stuff against blacks to make the play interesting, unless that talk represents his TRUE feelings about blacks and mixed couples.

What i am trying to understand is why you go to such lengths to defend this guy.
MARTINII

[goatgirl]

Hi all,

I have a question ......

When Oj called on June 12 around 9-ish to speak w/Sydney
was Sydney's sleep over friend still there?

or did she go home after OJ called?

Thanxs GoatGirl

:)

[martin II]

Originally posted by goatgirl


Hi Bob

Thanks that's a good point, & not for nothing but I just don't understand why the police weren't able to locate Nicole's original lock?

I know that Lou Brown had it replaced, but couldn't the police have just gone to the locksmith & saved them selves a wack of time....

GoatGirl
:read:

GOAT GIRL

My quesiton is why did the police allow L Brown to remove the locks and toss them in the first place.

However the keys oj had ( accoreding to vanhatter) fit the front gate and the house door NOT the back gate where it is BELIEVED oj entered the property.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



goatgirl, I would think so but constructing a lock and then using the keys to open it would probably eliminate all doubt if the keys that looked like they would be the same actually worked.

bobaugust

bob

so they built a new lock using only a key.
however this is base on vanhatters testimony.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

so they built a new lock using only a key.
however this is base on vanhatters testimony.
martin II


martin II, no it's what was written in Lange and Vannatter's book.

bobaugust

[goatgirl]

Originally posted by martin II


GOAT GIRL

My quesiton is why did the police allow L Brown to remove the locks and toss them in the first place.

However the keys oj had ( accoreding to vanhatter) fit the front gate and the house door NOT the back gate where it is BELIEVED oj entered the property.

martin II

Hi Martin

well I understand there was a certain need for the change
of locks ASAP

#1 being their daughter was just murdered & a killer was out there.

plus there were all kinds of crazy looky loos that came to see the Bundy condo...

I just cant understand how the lock wasnt returned, where the heck was it tossed off the face of the earth?

Goatgirl

:read:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by goatgirl


Hi Martin

well I understand there was a certain need for the change
of locks ASAP

#1 being their daughter was just murdered & a killer was out there.

plus there were all kinds of crazy looky loos that came to see the Bundy condo...

I just cant understand how the lock wasnt returned, where the heck was it tossed off the face of the earth?

Goatgirl

:read:



goatgirl, the locks could very well have been discarded if Lou Brown never requested to keep them.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Bailey loses federal appeal to regain law license
http://www.wrgb.com/engine.pl?station=wrgb&id=9832&template=breakout_regional_story.shtml&dateformat=%25M+%25e,%25Y

(Boston - AP) - A federal court in Boston rejects former defense attorney F. Lee Bailey's appeal of his 2003 disbarment for allegedly misusing a client's assets.

The First US Circuit Court of Appeals says Bailey doesn't deserve another hearing to present "new evidence" that federal attorneys gave conflicting testimony.

He was disbarred in Florida in November 2001. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court followed Florida's lead, revoking Bailey's law license in March 2002.

Bailey's legal woes began in 1994 deal he reached with prosecutors to have a client plead guilty to drug smuggling charges.

The deal called for Bailey to use six million dollars in stock to maintain the client's properties. Instead, the government says Bailey transferred the stock to his personal account.

Bailey has represented the likes of OJ Simpson and Patty Hearst.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, no it's what was written in Lange and Vannatter's book.

bobaugust
bob
so the making of the locks to fit the key cora and oj had was never tested in court testimony. Then we are left to believe what lang and Vanhatter said in their book about the keys fitting the front door and the fornt gate.
i had wondered why they never tested the keys to the back gate also. maby they did try ojs key to the back gate and it did not fit so they left that issue alone. imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
so the making of the locks to fit the key cora and oj had was never tested in court testimony. Then we are left to believe what lang and Vanhatter said in their book about the keys fitting the front door and the fornt gate.
i had wondered why they never tested the keys to the back gate also. maby they did try ojs key to the back gate and it did not fit so they left that issue alone. imo
martin II



martin II, there are still a lot of unanswered questions about the details of how Simpson committed these murders.

I have always assumed that all of the outside locks at Bundy were keyed the same since there is no evidence that they weren't. If you assume that the rear gate needed a different key than the front gate, which no one has ever said or insinuated, that still doesn't change any of the evidence that incriminates Simpson or the evidence that tells us when the murders were committed. It only suggests more possible scenarios of what Simpson did before committing the murders.

bobaugust

[jotun]

Lee-Larry King-95-96?
Evidence kept out in O.J.'s
favor.In particular his statement to police,thats a solid gold piece of evidence.All I had to do was read that statement and I
knew that that man didn't kill anybody.No guilty person could ever have lined with 2 seasoned detectives & not step his foot in it somewhere.That statement is flawless.Case took not only America but the world because the man is a hero.Hope someday[it won't be the LAPD you can be sure].Hope the day Marcia's book hits the stands.I don't want her to sell a book,saying O.J.is guilty,since she knows better.There is not a lawyer in this case,who thinks he ever had the time to go over and kill 2 people.The timeline factor,the demenor factor and his statement.Those 3 factor completely eliminate him.Anyone of these could have won the case.Once you get by that you may be able to solve this case.The case is never going to be solved.Except by accident.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by jotun
Lee-Larry King-95-96?
Evidence kept out in O.J.'s
favor.In particular his statement to police,thats a solid gold piece of evidence.All I had to do was read that statement and I
knew that that man didn't kill anybody.No guilty person could ever have lined with 2 seasoned detectives & not step his foot in it somewhere.That statement is flawless.Case took not only America but the world because the man is a hero.Hope someday[it won't be the LAPD you can be sure].Hope the day Marcia's book hits the stands.I don't want her to sell a book,saying O.J.is guilty,since she knows better.There is not a lawyer in this case,who thinks he ever had the time to go over and kill 2 people.The timeline factor,the demenor factor and his statement.Those 3 factor completely eliminate him.Anyone of these could have won the case.Once you get by that you may be able to solve this case.The case is never going to be solved.Except by accident.


jotun, you are very uninformed. You are a perfect example of someone who formed their opinion based on what you heard and saw in the media instead of actually informing yourself by reading the transcripts and learning for yourself the facts and evidence in this case.

The simple fact is that ever single piece of the relevant physical evidence in this case points to Simpson and only Simpson as the killer. Nothing points to any one else. Nothing eliminates Simpson. Nothing.

Simpson had plenty of time to kill both victims and get back home. Nicole's condo was only about a five minute drive from Simpson's estate. The last person to see Simpson before the murders was Kato Kaelin when they returned from McDonalds at about 9:40 PM. Simpson wasn't seen by anyone after that until about 10:45 PM when his Bronco was seen speeding away from Bundy and then again a couple of minutes or so later when he nearly caused an accident at the intersection of San Vicente and Bundy. The driver of the car he nearly hit when he ran a red light speeding home made eye contact with him and identified him.

After Simpson arrived back home he was forced to park his Bronco outside his locked Rockingham gate. Simpson scaled his fence behind Kaelin's room to enter his estate and was next seen by Allan Park when he walked up and entered his front door at about 10:55 PM.

Simpson's demeanor after the murders is irrelevant. He was hiding what he had done by trying to act like nothing was wrong. Simpson's statement was extremely incriminating. He lied to the police several times. Lies that later confirmed his guilt when he changed his story and created new fabrications and lies in his deposition and civil trial testimony contradicting his original sworn statement to the police.

This case was solved. There is no doubt that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. In the civil trial new evidence was presented and more importantly Simpson testified. Simpson was proved to be a liar and a killer to a certainty. A jury unanimously found Simpson responsible for the deaths of both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Mr August

You posted that Ito and the lawyers had a sidebar about the tapes before MF was asked about the "N" word! The defense did not blindside the prosecution with the tape, MF knew long before Bailey asked the question. Why is MF lying to his reading?


nettathirty, the discussion was about bringing in witnesses who claimed Fuhrman said the "N" word. The tapes were never discussed at that time.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August

The backlash from representing OJ Simpson continues!


nettathirty, no Bailey's problems have nothing to do with the Simpson case.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


What i am trying to understand is why you go to such lengths to defend this guy.
MARTINII


martin II, I'm not defending Fuhrman, I posted his explanations as to what he did and why he said what he said.

It sounds reasonable to me and the one thing I completely agree with him about is that none of this had any relevance to Simpson's guilt or innocence. It should never had been allowed into testimony. It was brought in by Simpson's defense team for one reason and one reason only. To inflame the passions of the jury and blind them to the reality of the evidence that proves Simpson guilty.

That's what Chris Darden said to the court.

Without a Doubt,
"There is no legal purpose." he said, his voice rich with conviction, "there is no valid or legitimate purpose. But Mr. Cochran and the defense, they have a purpose in going to that area and the purpose is to inflame the passions of the jury and to ask them to pick sides, not on the basis of the evidence in this case....The evidence in this case against the defendant is overwhelming. but when you mention that word to this jury or to any African American, it blinds people. It will blind the jury. It will blind then to the truth. It will cause extreme prejudice to the prosecution's case."

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by goatgirl
Hi all,

I have a question ......

When Oj called on June 12 around 9-ish to speak w/Sydney
was Sydney's sleep over friend still there?

or did she go home after OJ called?

Thanxs GoatGirl

:)

Good question GG. I also would like to know if she was sleeping over, why did her parents come and pick her up and take her home? Just curious!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

Juton:

Excellent Post!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You're joking, right? No link. No nothing! Just this Poster's say so? A Poster who has only 3 Posts and the nic of Jotun = nutoj. GMAB!

JMO and MOO!!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

IIRC, there was a change in plans. The friend did not come over that night.

Thanks Socal! Glad to see you are home safe. Hope you had a great trip!

[jotun]

Hey Crabman
O.J.IS INNOCENT!!!!!

[jotun]

All---Line-up-Fox-June 11-06
Lange"walked thru and QUICKLY we learned that,this was perhaps O.J.Simpson's wife." WHATT thought they said they didn't know WHO she was for hours.And were too lame to figure out "Daddy" on the speed dial.And still didn't know afer Sydney told them who her Daddy was.

Lange-"When we got there [Rockingham] of course we didn't know, what we had inside.WE ALL FELT WE HAD AN ADDITONAL CRIME SCENE INSIDE HIS HOME.And of course we DID." WHATTT. Didn't they ALL testilie, that O.J. wasn't even a suspect??

Denise was also on.Seems to
have gotten her face lifted
for the her anniversary appearences.

[jotun]

Netta-The Dream team didn't know about the Fuhrman tapes at the time of his testimony in Feb.? His LIES were not meant to help O.J. Nor the LIES of Philips,Lange or especially Vanatter. JUST WORKED OUT THAT WAY.Fuhrman was recalled by the defence,near the end of the trial,but not allowed by Ito,in front of the jury.He took the 5th [self-incrimation] on all guestions.Including the PLANTING of the glove.Fuhrman-"I WISH TO ASSERT MY 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVELEGE'

Here is an interesting link to a post by a policeman on his theory.Which I mostly agree with.Hope it works.
http://memory_lane.tripod.com/oj/ron.html What do you think? Can anyone print it out on the board? jotun

[jotun]

Bob-Which posters have read the transcripts??? I have read the grand jury,the prelim hearing,and all hearings,plus watched.Watched the entire murder trial 2 times as a I taped it.Read & own 3 newspapers a day. All the news-tabloid &cable shows.Every tabloid any magazine that had a story. Time, Newsweek etc.Even watched your hero, Enron PetroSELLI on Geraldo every night.He would say. 'He's lying and he not even good at it .' The next night."He's lying but he's so good we can't even tell'. The next night 'We know it's true because O.J.said so!'O.J., according to Enron- Selli was the worst the best and the most honest liar.World-glass.Read all the depos availible.[Read them out of there order saved the 2 bestfriends for last.Then the depo angel himself-O.J.]
"Didn't Mr. Simpson do this or that" "NO' they would mostly say. Or 'That was Nicole' You say his depo is full of lies.That is just your opinion. After the money trial Gloria Alred wanted the state attorney to file purjury charges on O.J. I taped his interview. He said he read All of O.J.'s depo & All O.J.'s testimony. That he found NO LIES!!!Read most transcripts of the money trial etc.Plus read & own most of the books pro & con. And you say I"m NOT informed????? Based my O.J. IS INNOCENT opinion on the media.How could that be? Since they told me every day otherwise. Including just tonight.Of course all the evidence points to him. ALL that didn't just so happened to get LOST.The most important being the bloody fingerprint on the back gate,and on the missing lens. Tested . Wrong blood. OOPS
IF IT DOESN'T FIT WE MUST LOSE IT. D.A's. motto. You say Shively saw O.J. She said at first that it was Marcus Allen.She also said on Hard Copy[taped] that she ran with Nicole and was told all about O.J.by her.She looks to be at least 200lbs.Anyone
believe that??Marcia didn't.
She should have been the Star Witness.OOPS.Not believeable.You say he had plenty of time.NOT.Nor the desire.If he was in a rage he would have been YELLING. If O.J.had killed Nicole or even went to the scene.That Big Mac would have been laying there in the form of vomit.As he is very squimish about blood according to his friends.On a B.E.T.talk-show interview.O.J.was talking about the birth of his kids.He attened 4 except for Arnelle.Said he threw-up each time as he has 'a weak stomach'and was cussed out each time also.

Yes,the money trial jury unanimously found him liable
for deaths that a murder trial jury unanimously found him NOT GUILTY of. Go figure.
Give it a rest.The trials are OVER.You will NEVER convince US O.J. IS INNOCENTS otherwise. Better people than you have tried and failed.The cops the media etc.Marcia Clark won 19 murder convictions before O.J.
jotun

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August

Darden believes that black people would not be able to see pass this very inflamatory word (according to his BOOK), yet the word is allowed. Now, before the word is allowed the prosecution and MF know the word is going to be allowed and the possible implications it could have on their case with this jury. What do they do, knowing the tapes exist the judge allows the question and the 2 excerts (sp) from the tape to be played in court?


nettathirty, after Darden's argument
Without a Doubt,

"In a ruling that was legally and logically sound, Ito stated that the defense would not be able to introduce evidence of racial animus unless they made an offer of proof showing how Fuhrman could have planted the glove. He even gave them a deadline: three days. If they could not comp up with a proffer by nine A.M., Monday, January 23, (1995) there would be no N-words uttered in that courtroom.

On Monday morning - put up or shut up day - Lee Bailey stood and, without so much as a by your leave, reopened debate on the subject of racial animus. That he was allowed to do so was completely improper. The ruling had been made! Yet Ito allowed Bailey to rave on, unchecked, about how the N-word went to Fuhrman's credibility.

"I cannot imagine a clear case," Bailey blustered, "of the defense having an absolute and inalienable, indelible, irrevocable right to smash into any person so low life as to make those utterances and then to proceed to the witness stand and attempt to incriminate for murder through these defalcations and sporulation a member of the African American race... We're not trying to prove that he planted anything because we don't have to.

In the face of this thunderous barrage of verbiage, Ito caved -- and reversed himself. The defense could present witnesses who claimed to have heard Mark Fuhrman use the N-word within the past ten years.

Marcia Clark wrote.
"If I had to point to the single most serious error that Ito made during this misbegotten spectacle, I would have to say that it was the inexcusable Fuhrman ruling. Race had to place in this trial. Once Ito had permitted the injection of racial venom, a conviction was remote, if not impossible. there would be at least one juror whose raw feelings would cloud his or her reason. Form this point on, I sincerely believe that best we could ever hoped for was a hung jury.

Looking back on this in the clear light of hindsight, though, I can see my reluctance for what it really was - a failure of nerve. I thought that if we could appease Ito and stay in his good graces, he would treat us fairly in front of the jury. If I'd known then what I know now - how he'd swat us around like stepchildren all throughout the trial - I would have taken that writ in the blink of an eye.

I didn't realize that I had nothing to lose. I should have given it my best shot and taken the only opportunity I had to keep the defense from playing the race card.

I didn't. And to this day it remains my most painful regret."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,

FLee Baileys involvement with the OJ case, didn't help his popularity as his problem came to light! Everytime one of these attorneys name hit the papers, it is noted of their participation in the trial of "Football Legend" OJSimpson. Which is probably more inflamatory to "white america" than the "N" word to the Criminal Trial Jury!


imo jmho moo


nettathirty, I doubt it.

Most white people today could care less about the Simpson trial. Most understand Simpson got away with murder

And the fact is that the "N" word is used today very frequently by many African Americans as a word of endearment. Today's generation of kids have heard it used in so many videos and songs it's no longer thought of in the same way as it was over ten years ago.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by jotun


Lange-"When we got there [Rockingham] of course we didn't know, what we had inside.WE ALL FELT WE HAD AN ADDITONAL CRIME SCENE INSIDE HIS HOME.And of course we DID." WHATTT. Didn't they ALL testilie, that O.J. wasn't even a suspect??




jotun, you're confused.

Yes the police testified that when they went to Rockingham Simpson wasn't a suspect. When Lange said they possibly had a another crime scene that was after they leaned that a live in housekeeper should have been in the house. After there was no response from ringing the door bell at Rockingham and no one answering the telephone. After they saw blood on the outside of Simpson's Bronco. And still at that time Simpson wasn't a suspect, they feared he might have been another victim.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by jotun
Netta-The Dream team didn't know about the Fuhrman tapes at the time of his testimony in Feb.? His LIES were not meant to help O.J. Nor the LIES of Philips,Lange or especially Vanatter. JUST WORKED OUT THAT WAY.Fuhrman was recalled by the defence,near the end of the trial,but not allowed by Ito,in front of the jury.He took the 5th [self-incrimation] on all guestions.Including the PLANTING of the glove.Fuhrman-"I WISH TO ASSERT MY 5TH AMENDMENT PRIVELEGE'

Here is an interesting link to a post by a policeman on his theory.Which I mostly agree with.Hope it works.
http://memory_lane.tripod.com/oj/ron.html What do you think? Can anyone print it out on the board? jotun



jotun, it sounds like you aren't aware that Fuhrman was told by his attorney that if he took the 5th amendment to any question he was asked he would would have to take it for every question that was asked of him.

The defense knew that and that's why they continued to ask him questions including the one about planting evidence all to deceive naive people like you into thinking that Fuhrman's answer somehow means he did what they asked.

Based on that foolish belief they could have solved every unsolved murder case in history including the Kennedy assassination just by asking Fuhrman if he did it.

The fact is that Vannatter, Lange and Phillips were nerve found to be lying about anything they testified to. Your claims they lied are unsupported and false.

The link you provided is to an article making pure fantasy speculation. Speculation that is contradicted by the reality of the facts in this case.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob
the n word

because some hip hop stars and some kids in our current money making culture have mistakenly adopted the n word as a normal way of speaking DOES NOT negate the negative meaning of the n word. I think you know this or you should know this.imo

at a just completed trial in n.y. of a white guy named "FAT NICK"
was convicted of beating a black kid with a baseball bat while using the n word. His lwayer tried to use your EXACT EXCUSE for him using that word while commiting the crime that you use in your post. It was roundly rejcted by the jury and the judge. The DA ripped this excuse to streads.imo

kids saying the word in the streets to try to sound current and a
r***** cop saying it in his line of work or being interviewed for a play or a retirement pension is a very different thing. m furhman was a adult trained lapd officer he knew better. AND YOU KNOW IT. IMO
MARTIN II

[martin II]

bob

exactly why did furhman take the 5th? or what was the reason why his lawyer advised him to do so?
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by jotun
Bob-Which posters have read the transcripts??? I have read the grand jury,the prelim hearing,and all hearings,plus watched.Watched the entire murder trial 2 times as a I taped it.Read & own 3 newspapers a day. All the news-tabloid &cable shows.Every tabloid any magazine that had a story. Time, Newsweek etc.Even watched your hero, Enron PetroSELLI on Geraldo every night.He would say. 'He's lying and he not even good at it .' The next night."He's lying but he's so good we can't even tell'. The next night 'We know it's true because O.J.said so!'O.J., according to Enron- Selli was the worst the best and the most honest liar.World-glass.Read all the depos availible.[Read them out of there order saved the 2 bestfriends for last.Then the depo angel himself-O.J.]
"Didn't Mr. Simpson do this or that" "NO' they would mostly say. Or 'That was Nicole' You say his depo is full of lies.That is just your opinion. After the money trial Gloria Alred wanted the state attorney to file purjury charges on O.J. I taped his interview. He said he read All of O.J.'s depo & All O.J.'s testimony. That he found NO LIES!!!Read most transcripts of the money trial etc.Plus read & own most of the books pro & con. And you say I"m NOT informed????? Based my O.J. IS INNOCENT opinion on the media.How could that be? Since they told me every day otherwise. Including just tonight.Of course all the evidence points to him. ALL that didn't just so happened to get LOST.The most important being the bloody fingerprint on the back gate,and on the missing lens. Tested . Wrong blood. OOPS
IF IT DOESN'T FIT WE MUST LOSE IT. D.A's. motto. You say Shively saw O.J. She said at first that it was Marcus Allen.She also said on Hard Copy[taped] that she ran with Nicole and was told all about O.J.by her.She looks to be at least 200lbs.Anyone
believe that??Marcia didn't.
She should have been the Star Witness.OOPS.Not believeable.You say he had plenty of time.NOT.Nor the desire.If he was in a rage he would have been YELLING. If O.J.had killed Nicole or even went to the scene.That Big Mac would have been laying there in the form of vomit.As he is very squimish about blood according to his friends.On a B.E.T.talk-show interview.O.J.was talking about the birth of his kids.He attened 4 except for Arnelle.Said he threw-up each time as he has 'a weak stomach'and was cussed out each time also.


jotun


jotun, so you read the transcripts for the grand jury and the preliminary hearing and believed everything you heard in the media. It sounds like you missed reading the transcripts from the criminal trial. And you missed reading the transcripts from the civil trial. You missed reading how Simpson was contradicted and impeached. You just proved my point as to why you're so uninformed.

Simpson lied to the police in his initial interview and and made statements that he later changed and lied about in his civil trial testimony.

The possible finger print in blood on the latch of the rear gate at Bundy was never collected, so we will never know if there was a fingerprint or not. It there was it was most likely Simpson's fingerprint since there is no evidence of anyone else being at Bundy that night except for the two victims and Simpson, and Simpson's blood was found on that gate.

The missing lens from Juditha Brown's eyeglasses is not important at all. Only to someone like you who evidently realizes since there is no evidence of anyone else at Bundy you can fantasize anything you want about something that is missing.

Right Before Our Eyes, Dick Wagner
"When Jill Shively saw the driver of the Bronco she saw that it was a large black man, and her immediate impression was that it was Marcus Allen, whom she had seen around Brentwood. But then the Bronco driver turned his face to her and glared, and she realized it was O.J. Simpson, whom she also knew on sight from that neighborhood. A moment later when the Bronco driver yelled at the Nissan, and she heard the voice, she was positive that the Bronco driver was O. J. Simpson."

Your ridiculous belief that if Simpson was the killer he would have vomited from the Big Mac he had eaten brings your identity to light, o.j.nut

I've quoted you before in this discussion group as a naive and uninformed fanatic who has offered some of the most ridiculous reasons you believe Simpson was innocent. It's worth repeating so that other posters here will know who they're dealing with when responding to you. It's as funny now as when you originally wrote it.

4/08/06 o.j.nut
"Yes, I do believe a man who can't stand the sight of blood COULD NOT slaughter 2 people. Or a man who COULD NOT even put a worm on his fishing hook (Sydney did it for him) COULD NOT butcher the mother of his children. Especially a total Mama's Boy like O.J. I don't think kind-hearted O.J. could kill anyone. Yes, I believe a man afraid of the dark does NOT go into any dark place. O.J. has a very sensitive stomach. That Big Mac would have been in that blood."

bobaugust

[martin II]

jotun

thanks for your post.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II

you cannot make a guess statement and then ask me why
one side of your statement is correct or wrong
get out of here
martin II I didn'tmake a statement -- I substituted 'white' for 'black' and asked why you think it is alright for one segment of society and not the other. :confused:

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



If OJ was such a threat, wouldn't Nicole have suspected OJ when the keys became an issue, instead of Faye? She did. She told family and friends that she was worried that Orenthal and taken them.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Your boss isn't the official spokes person for everyone who has used this salute! Your boss also knows that the 75% of America who felt OJ was guilty aren't really open to any suggestions that says otherwise, considering your bosses race he opted out to appease you!

imo moo jmho

Your ignorant response to this post only advises me that you did not read, or understand, the nature of the debate.

How unfortunate for you that this is all you could come up with.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
maby black americans did not belive oj would have any reason to kill nicole.
maby black americans made up their minds based on that sham of a case that was presented by the prosecution and the reasonable doubt standard that the jury found. after all it was the court system that blacks and whites have been told we must accept as a just system. It was just that this time the system did give most white people the results they thought they should receive. That MAY be why you are here bashing the jury and the system.
martin II I'm not bashing the system. I believe in our justice system. It's the uneducated, biased jury I didn't believe in.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II



Great.. so now you can create your own interpretation of what the juror meant by the fist greeting and that should satisfy you.

so after talking to your boss, do you now believe the fist greeting
is in fact 'A BLACK THING"??

martin II

After I spent sevral minutes chuckling over this response, I figured I'd give it one more shot ...

It is my opinion that you are so blinded by your need to be "right" and to assume that everyone who is not of the same opinion of you is automatically someone to argue with that you manage to entirely miss the point on most things.

Did you not understand the meaning of my first post? Unlike yourself, I never assume to know what an individual is thinking. Rather, I stop and ask myself and others questions that are meant to initiate intelligent conversation that involves brainstorming and throwing ideas out there to see if some sort of conclusion can be reached.

With that said, point out to me in any of my posts where I said that I knew why he gave the Black Power fist.

You won't be able to find one, because all of my posts contain questions and wonderment over why he chose that form of communication, but none of them stated a conclusive opinion.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey

Your comments about the defense manipulating the crime scene is an absolute scream! You have been very honest about your feelings on this case, you have no problem with the criminal trial jury's verdict. Yet, you constantly want to blame the defense for their manipulations.


What is an absolute scream is that everytime you show up on this forum the only thing you do is regurgitate the same thing that we've heard from you at least one hundred times thus far.

Regardless of my feelings about the verdict, I also have very strong feeling regarding a legal ethical code which was indeed not followed by the defense in the criminal trial.

You are an intelligent enough woman to understand this, limakey.

[martin II]

kate

i took your below post to mean you rejcted my suggesiton
"laughable at best"
martinII

Kate Sachel
Member

Registered: Aug 2005
Location: State of Bewilderment
Posts: 198

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by martin II
kate

the black power fist is no more than a greeting between mostly black men. it can be like hi, right on, etc. some whites seem to add more meaning to it based on their perception.

Martin II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



So, are you telling me that the juror was saying "hi" to OJ after the verdict was read? I'm sorry, but that is laughable at best.

[martin II]

kate

exactly what legal ethical code did the defense not adhere to
that was allowed by the judge and what the defense was required to do by law in the search for reasonable doubt for their client? Their charge by law is to look for holes, conflicts and lies in the prosecutions case.
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II
kate

exactly what legal ethical code did the defense not adhere to
that was allowed by the judge and what the defense was required to do by law in the search for reasonable doubt for their client? Their charge by law is to look for holes, conflicts and lies in the prosecutions case.
martin II

Neither side is allowed to introduce evidence that they are aware is blatanly false and/or misleading.

Example: Photo from a videotape showing "unidentified officer" walking willy nilly through the Bundy crime scene. The defense claimed that this proved that the evidence was tampered with. Turns out that the defense did have in their possession the entire videotape which showed that the officer was walking through the crime scene only after it was torn down and anyone was allowed.

The above example is that of an outright lie on behalf of the defense.

[martin II]

fbg

maby you are ignoring the basic theory of the jury system.

a cross section of average citizens that vote are called for jury duty. it is not based on education or financial sranding.

It is based on allowing average citizens with everyday experience in their community to judge the case.

the jury is not selected based on how complicated the case may be preceived by some to be.imo
martin II

[martin II]

kate
how is it that the defense was allowed to enter into evidence these pictures without the prosecution objection and the judges approval?
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Neither side is allowed to introduce evidence that they are aware is blatanly false and/or misleading.

Example: Photo from a videotape showing "unidentified officer" walking willy nilly through the Bundy crime scene. The defense claimed that this proved that the evidence was tampered with. Turns out that the defense did have in their possession the entire videotape which showed that the officer was walking through the crime scene only after it was torn down and anyone was allowed.

The above example is that of an outright lie on behalf of the defense.

more
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II
fbg

maby you are ignoring the basic theory of the jury system.

a cross section of average citizens that vote are called for jury duty. it is not based on education or financial sranding.

It is based on allowing average citizens with everyday experience in their community to judge the case.

the jury is not selected based on how complicated the case may be preceived by some to be.imo
martin II Of course it's not based on education or financial standing. Neither should it be based on ethnicity and hate. MOO

How about we discuss the case and not go in the direction of race relations?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Of course it's not based on education or financial standing. Neither should it be based on ethnicity and hate. MOO

How about we discuss the case and not go in the direction of race relations?
ok but the jury was not selected based on ethnicity or hate.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II

ok but the jury was not selected based on ethnicity or hate.
martin II Which is what was wrong with the criminal trial verdict. The justice system worked like it was designed to -- Orenthal Simpson was afforded a fair trial by his peers. The jury blatantly and willfully abandoned their duties and rendered their verdict not on the facts of the crime but on ethnicity and/or hate.

[martin II]

fbg

there were prosecution witnesses that sounded very believable under direct examination by the prosecution but changed their testimony or had not valid believalbe excuse for the confilcts in their testimony under cross examination by the defense.
these type of instances is what caused the jury to have reasonable doubt.

martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II
fbg

there were prosecution witnesses that sounded very believable under direct examination by the prosecution but changed their testimony or had not valid believalbe excuse for the confilcts in their testimony under cross examination by the defense.
these type of instances is what caused the jury to have reasonable doubt.

martin II There is no reasonable doubt as to who committed the murders. Take away everything that the jury 'found' problems with that still leaves us with: Orenthal's blood, footprints, hair, cap, glove and fibers at the murder scene. It doesn't matter if the dog stopped and started barking, it doesn't matter if Fuhrman said the 'n' word, or any of the other smoke screen scenarios thrown up by the defense. There is no forensic evidence of any other person being at that scene. Orenthal had the motive, means and opportunity to commit the crimes. Orenthal James Simpson murdered two human beings - Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


more
martin II

More? I have listed example after example through the past several months as we have discussed this specific topic.

I touched on the photo, the walk-through, the "hair count", the "ignore the evidence" plea, and more.

Am I to assume that you don't read much of what I post?

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


More? I have listed example after example through the past several months as we have discussed this specific topic.

I touched on the photo, the walk-through, the "hair count", the "ignore the evidence" plea, and more.

Am I to assume that you don't read much of what I post? We've all learned this lesson -- martin does not want to debate/discuss this case. Martin wants to argue and attack the G's. His posts are usually wrong and/or nonsensical. BUT, I enjoy hearing what you have to say. Does that count?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
We've all learned this lesson -- martin does not want to debate/discuss this case. Martin wants to argue and attack the G's. His posts are usually wrong and/or nonsensical. BUT, I enjoy hearing what you have to say. Does that count?

It never ceases to amaze me!

And yes, it does count that you enjoy hearing what I have to say:)

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


:beer: welcome home socal.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


It never ceases to amaze me!

And yes, it does count that you enjoy hearing what I have to say:) It doesn't amaze me as much as it flat-out makes me NUTS! :D

anyone doing any research on finding something in writing about the back gate lock and whether the key found on Orenthal fit it?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

exactly why did furhman take the 5th? or what was the reason why his lawyer advised him to do so?
martin II


martin II, Fuhrman wrote,
"The defense was claiming that I committed a crime, specifically that I allegedly planted evidence to incriminate O. J. Simpson with racism as my supposed motive. Now, abandoned by the prosecution, with no chance to defend myself against the defense lawyers' deviously phrased yes or no questions about my use of the "N" word and no opportunity to provide narrative or explanatory answers, I would be vulnerable to the defense's attempts to maneuver me into self incrimination. Without the prosecution's support, I had no ability to refute the defense's charges. I was innocent, but the prosecution wouldn't help me prove it, no matter how much their failure would hurt their case.

I had to make the toughest decision of my life.

"As much as it kills me," I told Darryl (Mounger, criminal defense attorney) "as much as it goes against everything I believe in, as much as I wish I could fight it, as much as I know how bad it will look, I don't have any choice, I have to take the Fifth."

What many people don't realize is that you cannot pick and choose the questions you will answer when you invoke your Fifth Amendment right. If you answer one question, you open the door to other questions. So if you take the Fifth, you must take it on all questions.

Gerald Uelmen is a smart lawyer, so he played the game and asked me patently absurd questions about planting evidence. I had no choice but to plead the Fifth and refuse to answer. Even Uelmen knew the answer to all of his questions was no, but he also knew that asking the questions made for good drama.

I took the Fifth because I had no choice. The prosecution had abandoned me, and I was left twisting in the wind. When I took the Fifth, I was seen as a demon. When Simpson took the Fifth and refused to testify about his whereabouts the night of the murders, his relationship with Nicole, and the man pieces of damning evidence, he was constitutionally protected and issued a self serving statement that allowed him to profess his innocence without subjecting himself to examination by the prosecution."

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
It doesn't amaze me as much as it flat-out makes me NUTS! :D

anyone doing any research on finding something in writing about the back gate lock and whether the key found on Orenthal fit it?

fbg

The problem with those keys, the whole story about the locks being made from the keys by vanhatter, was never tested in court testimony. it was what vanhatter wrote in his book.

without any proof bob says he assumes it fit the back gate.
matin II

[martin II]

bob
furhman could have just told the truth. if he was disposed to do so. these excuses in his book are for reading and enjoyment by people like you that have a need to believe him. imo
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

The problem with those keys, the whole story about the locks being made from the keys by vanhatter, was never tested in court testimony. it was what vanhatter wrote in his book.

without any proof bob says he assumes it fit the back gate.
matin II I would think the problem with the keys and the removed locks would be establishing that those were the locks from Nicole's condo. I can see it now, "LE planted that lock to make Orenthal look guilty." Oy-vay!

Here we are back to common sense again! My house keys open my front AND back doors. Not a very far stretch for bobaugust to make the same assumption.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
furhman could have just told the truth. if he was disposed to do so. these excuses in his book are for reading and enjoyment by people like you that have a need to believe him. imo
martin II I believe Fuhrman told the truth. I don't think he equated his talks with the screenwriter as something that happened in his real life. MOO

Ito allowing it into the trial was a different issue. I believe if Ito's wife hadn't been talked about ugly -- he would have said it was irrelevant and kept it out of the trial.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
furhman could have just told the truth. if he was disposed to do so. these excuses in his book are for reading and enjoyment by people like you that have a need to believe him. imo
martin II

OJ could have just told the truth as well, other than the fact that he didn't want the world to know that he had killed two people.

Not only did OJ write a book of his own, he also released a video made available for $29.95 which was an account of why he was supposedly innocent.

I forgot that you believe there is only one reason why someone would read a book.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Mine is the same way. I think it's pretty standard practice to have the same key fit both.

For me, one key opens the front, back, and garage door to my home.

[martin II]

bob

If Furhman felt that the prosecution had abandoned him, it was of his own making since he had with full knowledge deceived them
about his past. imo
Martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


For me, one key opens the front, back, and garage door to my home.

That may be true, but we are talking about the locks to the doors and gates at Bundy. imo
Martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


For me, one key opens the front, back, and garage door to my home. Hey, I just had a thought -- I wonder if maybe he didn't realize that one key would open both. Suppose that's why he had two sets of the same key on him?

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


That may be true, but we are talking about the locks to the doors and gates at Bundy. imo
Martin II actually we were talking about keys and locks and your statements: "The problem with those keys, the whole story about the locks being made from the keys by vanhatter, was never tested in court testimony. it was what vanhatter wrote in his book. without any proof bob says he assumes it fit the back gate. matin II"

Again, common sense is lost on you.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I didn't know he had two sets of keys..... I remembered it but could never make a connect as to why he would have two sets on him. Nicole reported one set missing but nothing was said about where the second set could have come from. Wouldn't that be interesting to find out?

[weezer]

Interesting page: http://pages.infinit.net/reparvit/nicole12.html

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Thanks for the link. I didn't recall hearing that before. Why steal the 2nd set, unless like you say, he didn't know what keys were required to open the various locks? Now I'm starting to wonder about other things -- LOL

Nicole knew that one set of keys were missing SOOOO wouldn't it stand to reason that the second set belonged to someone that she had given them to? We know she didn't give keys to Faye or Orenthal and we know that Cora had her keys because LE used her key to compare the keys found on Orenthal. Wonder who else was missing their keys?

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Good question! I'm sure that Nicole would have had Kato return his keys.

Makes me sick to think that Orenthal was over there under the pretense of taking care of her while she was sick, and probably was only there in order to steal the keys & carry out her murder. :flamemad: I doubt Kato ever had keys to Bundy since he moved to Orenthal's when Nicole moved from Gretna Green. That was when their friendship ended and everyone agrees (including Kato) that Nicole disliked and distrusted him.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Good question! I'm sure that Nicole would have had Kato return his keys.

Makes me sick to think that Orenthal was over there under the pretense of taking care of her while she was sick, and probably was only there in order to steal the keys & carry out her murder. :flamemad: You know, I've never quite bought into his Florence Nightingale story --

In fact, I think I'm going to reread his and others' testimony about what was going on during that time.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Now I'm starting to wonder about other things -- LOL

Nicole knew that one set of keys were missing SOOOO wouldn't it stand to reason that the second set belonged to someone that she had given them to? We know she didn't give keys to Faye or Orenthal and we know that Cora had her keys because LE used her key to compare the keys found on Orenthal. Wonder who else was missing their keys?

if as you say oj had two sets, cora had one, nicile had one and maby her parents had one so that is FIVE sets.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


if as you say oj had two sets, cora had one, nicile had one and maby her parents had one so that is FIVE sets.
martin II Wonder who else had keys? Orenthal wasn't suppose to have any keys to her home -- If one of the sets was the missing keys (and it was proven to be by the key chain), then where did the other set come from?

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
furhman could have just told the truth. if he was disposed to do so. these excuses in his book are for reading and enjoyment by people like you that have a need to believe him. imo
martin II what is your opinion of AC taking the 5th? What do you think he had to hide?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
what is your opinion of AC taking the 5th? What do you think he had to hide?

fbg

ac was being investigated for possible criminal prosecution so i guess he had a reason to keep his mouth closed on some of the issues.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Wonder who else had keys? Orenthal wasn't suppose to have any keys to her home -- If one of the sets was the missing keys (and it was proven to be by the key chain), then where did the other set come from?

who could prove this??

If one of the sets was the missing keys (and it was proven to be by the key chain),

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

ac was being investigated for possible criminal prosecution so i guess he had a reason to keep his mouth closed on some of the issues.
martin II So was Fuhrman. Why do you think Fuhrman should have talked but not AC?

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


who could prove this??

If one of the sets was the missing keys (and it was proven to be by the key chain), Not sure what you are asking. Who could prove "what"?

[weezer]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Not sure what you are asking. Who could prove "what"? This? "Petrocelli's description (p. 537) is slightly different, the police recovered "[the key, singular] on its Smokey the Bear key ring, in his bag.)"

[weezer]

From Wagner:

"On the "possession" end of the story, Simpson was found in one version with "a set of two keys to her house." Is this not odd? One would seem to be enough. And I also get from this wording the idea that these two keys ("set of two") were separate and apart from the keys that Simpson regularly used (his house and car keys.) (I myself have several key rings, containing keys that I use under different circumstances, and they are not all in my pocket at the same time, as a rule.) In the alternate version, there is "a key on a Smokey the Bear key ring." Either way, I believe that although the key or keys were in Simpson's constellation of possessions on the night of the 12th, there is good reason to wonder whether they were actually in his pocket. (There is no indication that the police had or had not examined Simpson's keys before the 17th, but one would have expected that they might have, and this key was not seen then.)"

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
From Wagner:

"On the "possession" end of the story, Simpson was found in one version with "a set of two keys to her house." Is this not odd? One would seem to be enough. And I also get from this wording the idea that these two keys ("set of two") were separate and apart from the keys that Simpson regularly used (his house and car keys.) (I myself have several key rings, containing keys that I use under different circumstances, and they are not all in my pocket at the same time, as a rule.) In the alternate version, there is "a key on a Smokey the Bear key ring." Either way, I believe that although the key or keys were in Simpson's constellation of possessions on the night of the 12th, there is good reason to wonder whether they were actually in his pocket. (There is no indication that the police had or had not examined Simpson's keys before the 17th, but one would have expected that they might have, and this key was not seen then.)"

fbg
wagner believes that oj came to the bundy murder scene AFTER the murders and that he jumped over the rear gate at her condo, cut his finger on the gate in the proecess, to gain entrance to the front of her condo.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
wagner believes that oj came to the bundy murder scene AFTER the murders and that he jumped over the rear gate at her condo, cut his finger on the gate in the proecess, to gain entrance to the front of her condo.
martin II You are wrong -- Again.

"I have believed for a considerable time that Simpson entered Nicole's property by clambering over the back gate, and in the process injured his finger, creating the wound that later left the five drop trial and other indications. When I expressed that idea here, a poster claimed that Simpson had in his possession a key to Nicole's back gate, and thus it was unlikely that he would have scaled the gate when he could have simply opened it and walked through. This, of course, was unwelcome news, and my initial instinct was to disbelieve it. (Is that not the typical way in this newsgroup -- to simply fight against any indication that is contrary to one's preconception?) But, the poster cited Petrocelli's book as a source for believing this, and I could not, with any spirit of objectivity, ignore that. So, I looked into it, my understanding has changed, and below I lay out the details I discovered as well as my understanding of its significance.
"

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
So was Fuhrman. Why do you think Fuhrman should have talked but not AC?

fbg
when furhman testified he was being investigated for possible criminal charges by WHO ????
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
what is your opinion of AC taking the 5th? What do you think he had to hide?

I think he didn't want to be in a position to admit that he knew that OJ killed two people.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
You are wrong -- Again.

"I have believed for a considerable time that Simpson entered Nicole's property by clambering over the back gate, and in the process injured his finger, creating the wound that later left the five drop trial and other indications. When I expressed that idea here, a poster claimed that Simpson had in his possession a key to Nicole's back gate, and thus it was unlikely that he would have scaled the gate when he could have simply opened it and walked through. This, of course, was unwelcome news, and my initial instinct was to disbelieve it. (Is that not the typical way in this newsgroup -- to simply fight against any indication that is contrary to one's preconception?) But, the poster cited Petrocelli's book as a source for believing this, and I could not, with any spirit of objectivity, ignore that. So, I looked into it, my understanding has changed, and below I lay out the details I discovered as well as my understanding of its significance.
"

fbg
i read this partial quote before. if you give me a link now i can look at the complete statement.
martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Wonder who else had keys? Orenthal wasn't suppose to have any keys to her home -- If one of the sets was the missing keys (and it was proven to be by the key chain), then where did the other set come from?

The maid also had a set.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
i read this partial quote before. if you give me a link now i can look at the complete statement.
martin II http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/keys.htm

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


The maid also had a set. I wish there was a way for us to know how many sets there were and who had them. Also, after reading more on the keys, I'm not sure if Orenthal had two sets of keys or not -- depending on who is making the statement -- it could be two sets of keys or a set of two keys. Guess I better do some research.

[martin II]

fbg

this is the latter part of wagners report

wagner
(I also note that there was a news report -- but no court testimony -- that a person who lived in a place along that alley heard a crashing noise at some time after 10:00 as "a person trying to break into one of the (metal) garage doors on the alley." I think that the sound of a man trying to get over Nicole's gate could be mistaken for this.)

However, if Simpson climbed over the gate as he entered, and scuffed his shoe across the left hand that was at that moment holding the top rail, this north side of the gate is where the resulting wound would begin bleeding. Since a wound bleeds most, and is richest in DNA, when it first is sustained, this explanation answers Sheck's accurate observation in support of a foolish explanation as to why this blood stain had those characteristics. I take the stain at #117 as a good indication that Simpson came in over the back gate. And now that we know he had access to a key, we have to wonder why he would have entered Nicole's property over the back gate if he set out for Bundy to kill her. He surely would have taken the time to find and later use that key. At the end, I believe that the fact that Simpson had the key among his possessions more supports my version than a guilty version.

[martin II]

fbg
wagner

So, on June 17th Simpson had a key that would open Nicole's gates and one presumes that he also had that key on the 12th, since one can only think of the most bizarre ways in which he would have acquired it between the 12th and the 17th. (According to Petrocelli, Simpson himself (sort of) claimed that he got it from Cowlings, who had helped Lou Brown clean out the condo after the murders. That is, I think an example of a bizarre explanation.) If he executed a deliberate plan to murder Nicole on the night of the 12th, I can not imagine that he would not have used the key, and entered her property by unlocking and walking through the back gate.

On the other hand, if as I believe, Simpson was lured to the Bundy location by an unexpected but urgent phone call at 10:20 on the night of the 12th, he would have gone without any pre-planning. He would have grabbed what he thought he needed and flown. If the key was already in his pocket when he arrived at Bundy -- and if he realized he had it -- he would
have used it.

But, the details of the missing key story are weird. The tale on pps 210 and 211 of Lange and Vannatter's book and footnote #106 say: According to her housekeeper, Nicole kept her keys -- house keys and car keys -- on a peg in the kitchen, and found them missing from there on the 4th or 5th. (Simpson's last visit that we know of, and at which time he did not enter the house, was on the 5th. Resnick started living there on the 3rd, although this is misstated in L&V.) Those keys were apparently still missing on the night of the 8th when Nicole searched Faye's purse at the intervention session on Mulholland. Juditha Brown (according to L&V) says that Nicole told her "an extra set of two keys" was missing. This is somewhat different than the set of all of Nicole's personal keys. Then Vannatter and Lange tell us that what they found in the recovered items from the Bronco after the low speed chase was "a second set of two keys," which is similar to the description given by Juditha Brown, and different from the description given by Nicole's housekeeper ("keys on a peg in the kitchen.") Petrocelli's description (p. 537) is slightly different, the police recovered "[the key, singular] on its Smokey the Bear key ring, in his bag.) Finally, in her book, Resnick tells a somewhat different story yet (from a drug hazed recollection, I am sure) that there were four keys to the condo; she accounts for three of them, and says that the spare was kept in the drawer of a front hall table, and that was missing when Nicole wanted to give it to her during her stay.

I do not go through all of this detail to claim that anybody is lying or there is any doubt that Simpson had the key, but only to show that I have an understandable reason for being confused on just what key disappeared, and when. I know this does not matter to most people, ("He had the key, who cares where it came from?")
hope this helps
martin II

[weepy willa]

To the "REAL KILLER",
I wonder if you could erase the horrific murders that occured on the night of June 12,1994,would you? . :rose: for Nicole & Ron.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II

I do not go through all of this detail to claim that anybody is lying or there is any doubt that Simpson had the key, but only to show that I have an understandable reason for being confused on just what key disappeared, and when. I know this does not matter to most people, ("He had the key, who cares where it came from?")
hope this helps
martin II

I don't think it makes a difference where the keys came from that were in OJ's possession. I think the main point would be that the fact that he had the keys proves that he had access to her residence.

The bottom line is that only Nicole and OJ are able to really tell us how he obtained a set, or sets, of keys. Obviously Nicole cannot speak, and based on his track record I doubt that OJ would tell us the truth.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I wish there was a way for us to know how many sets there were and who had them. Also, after reading more on the keys, I'm not sure if Orenthal had two sets of keys or not -- depending on who is making the statement -- it could be two sets of keys or a set of two keys. Guess I better do some research.

or ONE key on a ring.

This confusion happens when people use books by people with agendas to try to understand what the truth is.

martin II

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by martin II


or ONE key on a ring.

This confusion happens when people use books by people with agendas to try to understand what the truth is.

martin II

Not a logical argument. The exact same type of confusion happens when people with agendas who don't want the truth to be known testify in depositions under oath with no regard for the law, but rather only self serving ideals.

[weezer]

*Snip*Originally posted by martin II
hope this helps martin II You crack me up -- you ask me for a link to something I quoted and then print the article and say to me, "hope this helps."

[martin II]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


The maid also had a set.

so that makes six.

what about Denise, You think she had one?

i wonder if the painter that painted her house had one?
martin II