General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
well then just pay the money to the court and they will give it to fred. Then fred will some some cash.
don't you think that would be fair? i mean unless brown plans to stiff fred also.
martin II

Not surprisingly, you're missing the point. The Goldmans,
like the Browns, are interested in seeing OJ pay. It's
not about the money, which you obviously can't comprehend.
Their children were brutally murdered by this butcher who
was subsequently set free by a group of complete morons,
out to prove a point. Completely forgetting about the death
of two innocent people.

Not that it is, in any way, of the same magnitude, but a few years
ago a good friend of mine had her little dog poisoned by
a nasty neighbor. She sued the SOB for the cost of
the dog and the vet bills to treat her as well as pain
and suffering. She got a judgement of over $5,000 which
she promptly donated to various animal rescue groups.
IT AIN'T ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I don't know. I think typically that's how those types of gates are, but I don't know specifically about that gate. A second pictue is from behind and above Nicole's body. It shows how close the gate was to where she fell -- about a tile and a half -- maybe 18". When Ron came through that gate, he would have been on top of the assault. Hadn't realized how small the space was. (The pictures are in Fuhrman's book)

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

if it was not about money for fred, then why did he go to court to get the court to issue a order to the browns that any money paid must go to fred.
martin II


TO MAKE SURE THE MURDERER DIDN'T GET IT! DUH.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


It's been years since I read MF's book & I didn't have any idea it was that close either. I don't even remember that photo. When I went there a couple of weeks ago, I was amazed at how close the condo is to the sidewalk & I think all that was changed was the yard & the entry way to the property. I just found where bobaugust has the same pictures on his site......sorry bob.

[martin II]

Originally posted by bandit's mom



TO MAKE SURE THE MURDERER DIDN'T GET IT! DUH.

not true

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by nettathirty
I have simply tried to get some our more closed minded posters to view corruption and how it's plausible! I don't believe I've read any post on this board that has claimed corruption does not happen. As proven, it just simply did not happen in this case.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
this matter was discussed and links to the articles were given many times. so just google it and you can find it.

so what is your nic
fbg or tazzy?
martinII

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Socaldiva,

Bless your heart, your comprehension is by far the worst i've ever seen..

I wasn't expressing an opinion about malicious intent by the officers! My point was, they knew more than they let on when they entered the property at Rockingham! You must have martin on ignore!

They knew there had been a double murder some five hours before. They knew they were told to notify Simpson so he could get his children. They knew someone was to have been at the Rockingham house. They knew no one was answering the bell.

[weezer]

Anyone ever heard if Orenthal talked to Arnelle after he talked to the maid and before he left town? In her statements to the police, she say her dad is suppose to be out of town but never mentions the maid not being there -- hmmm, of course, Orenthal could have told her when he called and had her start the laundry.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


fbgtazzy :D :lol:

[weezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by nettathirty
Socaldiva,

Bless your heart, your comprehension is by far the worst i've ever seen.. No need to get rude. I think socaldiva is by far one of the more astute posters on this board.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
:lol:



so what is your nic
fbg or tazzy?
martinII

[martin II]

Originally posted by bandit's mom


Not surprisingly, you're missing the point. The Goldmans,
like the Browns, are interested in seeing OJ pay. It's
not about the money, which you obviously can't comprehend.
Their children were brutally murdered by this butcher who
was subsequently set free by a group of complete morons,
out to prove a point. Completely forgetting about the death
of two innocent people.

Not that it is, in any way, of the same magnitude, but a few years
ago a good friend of mine had her little dog poisoned by
a nasty neighbor. She sued the SOB for the cost of
the dog and the vet bills to treat her as well as pain
and suffering. She got a judgement of over $5,000 which
she promptly donated to various animal rescue groups.
IT AIN'T ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY.

bandit

over $300,000 was collected from the auction ( see post by tazzy above) of oj items from his home etc. that money went in their pockets. not to any charity.
so don't tell me it is not about the money.
martin II

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by martin II


so what is your nic
fbg or tazzy?
martinII

c'mon, do we have to continue this stuff after hotwater just posted that it's not acceptable????

[martin II]

bandit

in case you missed it.


www.cnn.com/US/9902/17/simpson.auction.01/

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by martin II


bandit

over $300,000 was collected from the auction ( see post by tazzy above) of oj items from his home etc. that money went in their pockets. not to any charity.
so don't tell me it is not about the money.
martin II

how do we know exactly where it went?

[martin II]

i just returned back to the thread and did not see the post from hotwater. but i have read it now.
everyone should pull back i think
martin II

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by nettathirty




fbg,

I'm not so quick to believe everything i'm told. I was told MF was a racist, and yet his actions saved OJ! imo

i think MF's biggest issue was his ego, the desire to be a central figure in a big celebrity case.

[martin II]

Originally posted by Happy Chic


how do we know exactly where it went?

i am finished with that subject
martin II

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by martin II
i just returned back to the thread and did not see the post from hotwater. but i have read it now.
everyone should pull back i think
martin II

Agreed :beer:

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by martin II


i am finished with that subject
martin II

does that mean that you don't know?

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Probably :tongue: He just posted the link to that very topic less than 10 minutes ago & now he's "done with that".

I saw that but didn't see where it said how the Browns or Goldmans were using the money and i don't see how you can say that it went to their pockets if you don't really know where it went???:confused:

[martin II]

Originally posted by Happy Chic


does that mean that you don't know?

it means that hotwater said goldmans was off subject or something close to that. so why are you pouring gas on that subject. if i answer you will be right back with something else.
so i am finished with it. and you should consider doing the same
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



socaldiva,

Why do you attack this jury, not 1 juror said or made a claim of an agenda! Where do you get this from, why do feel this way? Not true -- on the way out of the courtroom after the verdict, one of the male jurors held up his closed fist -- as we all know, that is the black power salute. One of the female jurors said, "We take care of our own."

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Thanks, I had completely forgotten about that. Yep. Toobin, page 341: ". . . From his seat, number six, juror Lon Cryer had the longest walk to the door. He kept his head down most of the way, then turned to the defense table and raised his fist in a black power salute. . . ."

". . .Finally, Carrie Bess said something to no one in particular: "We've got to protect our own."

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
If you were a credible poster, I'd take what you say at face value. But since I know that you cannot and do not grasp/comprehend facts, I'm asking you to provide something (link, court date, etc) that gives more information on this.

this matter was discussed and links to the articles were given many times. so just google it and you can find it.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


this matter was discussed and links to the articles were given many times. so just google it and you can find it.
martin II Does this feel like dejavu all over again to you? Your first brilliant response was posted this morning: 05-25-2006 10:02 AM.

You forgot to take your meds again didn't you?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Does this feel like dejavu all over again to you? Your first brilliant response was posted this morning: 05-25-2006 10:02 AM.

You forgot to take your meds again didn't you?

you have talked about me and some meds many times on this thread. can you explain in detail what you mean.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
Round & round he goes, & where he'll stop...nobody knows :tongue: Ain't that the truth! :lol:

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Yep. Toobin, page 341: ". . . From his seat, number six, juror Lon Cryer had the longest walk to the door. He kept his head down most of the way, then turned to the defense table and raised his fist in a black power salute. . . ."

". . .Finally, Carrie Bess said something to no one in particular: "We've got to protect our own."

weezer

i would not take what j toobin put in his books too seriously. he likes to throw in a lot of titbits for people like you to make you feel good.

however, if a juror did give a fist in the air he was proberbly one that saw straight through the prosecutions bs in the case and was thanking the defense for doing such a good job to keep a innocent man from going to jail.
martinII

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,

Evidence Dismissed - Your quoting Vannatters Book, this is laughable!

Please tell me your not gullible enough to believe what was written in these "self serving" books to explain away these guys incompetence or intent!


:lol:


nettathirty, that's your problem. You can't seem to tell the difference between fact and fiction.

Everything Vannatter and Lange wrote in their book was consistent with their testimony except that the book went into more details surrounding the events they testified to.

The fact is that your suggestion that the police should have called SWAT is based on your ignorance of what the police were faced with so you offered a ridiculous suggestion. You still can't seem to understand the reality of the events that happened that night and how and why the detectives made the decisions they did and how unexpected events influenced those decisions.

Your obvious distrust of the LAPD has evidently blinded you and obliterated any common sense you might have had to think as a reasonable thinking person.

Evidence Dismissed is filled with inside information that never came out in the trials. You should really try reading it if you truly want to understand what happened from the detectives point of view. But again it's obvious you're not interested in those facts, you would rather offer your uninformed opinions, right?

bobaugust

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by martin II


bandit

over $300,000 was collected from the auction ( see post by tazzy above) of oj items from his home etc. that money went in their pockets. not to any charity.
so don't tell me it is not about the money.
martin II

I don't care what they do with the money. I don't believe
that, as parents, either the Goldman's or the Brown's are
interested in the money. I'm sure they'd give every penny
they have, or will ever have, to have their children back with
them. The fact that the only way they have to punish the
murderer is to take his money, does nothing to change
that opinion.

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by nettathirty
Good Grief, those pesky books of reference. Made more money than anything, and added nothing! LOL -- where did you get your information to form your theories of the case? Those 'pesky books of reference' gave us insight and knowledge that we would not have otherwise known.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty




fbg,

I'm not so quick to believe everything i'm told. I was told MF was a racist, and yet his actions saved OJ! imo


nettathirty, Fuhrman's actions didn't save Simpson. Cochran's deceptions and distortions did.

bobaugust

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
i would not take what j toobin put in his books too seriously. he likes to throw in a lot of titbits for people like you to make you feel good. Only thing is -- no one has sued him for not telling the truth. Go figure.

But you take wagner seriously right? There is neither evidence or crediability to support his fantasies but they make you feel good.

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Good Grief, those pesky books of reference. Made more money than anything, and added nothing!

Most of you were pissed by the verdict, to add insult to injury those BOOKS only fueled the flame of what you were thinking.. You learned nothing, of any use...

1. Where's the knife?
2. What time was the murders?
3. Who let the dog out?
4. Who was in the gray Nissan that JShively witnessed?
5. Who was killed first, Nicole or Ron?
6. Why didn't the prosecution prepare MF for the question?
7. Why did Nicole have a knife out on her counter?
8. Who open the gate at Bundy?
9. Why was the spider webs undisturded at Rockingham?
10. Why did NBS neighbor gave differing accounts of barking dogs?
11. Why did the police wait almost 8 hours before calling a coroner..
12. Why was all the lead detectives sent to Rockingham, when only 2 were needed?
13. How did OJ kill 2 people in a 10min bloody rage, not get blood on himself or his vehicle, manage to clean up and get rid of a knife, shoes, and clothing.. Then shower to meet the limo by 11pm!

netta
most of those "he is guilty books" were written by people like toobin and that vincent B fool (caint remember his name) to massage the fellings of people that were bent all out of socket by the not guilty verdict. these authors did nothing but take their money and gave them quotes from the transcripts and a several pages of bs. only to help them feel good.

what they should have been doing was educating the public about how the court system really works. this way the public would have known early in the case that there was not going to be any proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

now you have some people that will never ever be able to understand.

martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
however, if a juror did give a fist in the air he was proberbly one that saw straight through the prosecutions bs in the case and was thanking the defense for doing such a good job to keep a innocent man from going to jail. That's what I figured too. Either that or his verdict was a black power salute.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



socaldiva,

Why do you attack this jury, not 1 juror said or made a claim of an agenda! Where do you get this from, why do feel this way?


nettathirty, except for the juror who after the acquittal said in a television interview, "I knew he was innocent from the beginning."

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



nettathirty, Fuhrman's actions didn't save Simpson. Cochran's deceptions and distortions did.

bobaugust

the deceptions and distortions of the prosecutions case is what did it .
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* That's what I figured too. Either that or his verdict was a black power salute.

he did not have a verdict he had one vote and since you were at home and not in the jury room, you are forced to take "either that"
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


WTH? :confused: LOL -- Forest's mama always said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

[martin II]

when he finished his testimony,d fung walked over to the defense table and shook the defense lawyers hand.
like a little white power salute.
martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by nettathirty
Garbage in, is garbage out! Where did you say you got your information from to form your opinions/theories of the case?

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II
when he finished his testimony,d fung walked over to the defense table and shook the defense lawyers hand.
like a little white power salute. martin II I'm begging you -- please take your meds. :eek:

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Only thing is -- no one has sued him for not telling the truth. Go figure.

But you take wagner seriously right? There is neither evidence or crediability to support his fantasies but they make you feel good.

bla bal bal bal bal all day bal bal bal bal all night bla bal bal all day bal bal bal all night
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


bla bal bal bal bal all day bal bal bal bal all night bla bal bal all day bal bal bal all night martin II :confused:

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Dfung, did just what MartinII said! He walked over to the defense table and shook their hands!

she would have no knowledge of this. now she will ask for a free link. so much bandwidth to say nothing.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Or he should put on a helmet, so he gets fewer bumps on his head :tongue: I think he's up to needing both.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


she would have no knowledge of this. now she will ask for a free link. so much bandwidth to say nothing. LOL -- I thought it was because he was such a lousy witness and just glad to get off the witness stand.

I provide links and support to my statements. It's you that can't back up any of your outrageous comments.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I'm begging you -- please take your meds. :eek:

explain please
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Your fellow posters!
netta you can tell her fung didn't shake hands. HE SHOOK THE DEFENSE LAWYERS HANDS
MARTIN ii

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



FBG,

The trial itself! At what point did you conclude that Orenthal 'visited' the crime scene but didn't commit the murders? When did you conclude that MF and LE were on Orenthal's side?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
LOL -- I thought it was because he was such a lousy witness and just glad to get off the witness stand.

I provide links and support to my statements. It's you that can't back up any of your outrageous comments.


so now you say fung was a lousy witness. i think the jury thought so too.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



1. Where's the knife?
2. What time was the murders?
3. Who let the dog out?
4. Who was in the gray Nissan that JShively witnessed?
5. Who was killed first, Nicole or Ron?
6. Why didn't the prosecution prepare MF for the question?
7. Why did Nicole have a knife out on her counter?
8. Who open the gate at Bundy?
9. Why was the spider webs undisturded at Rockingham?
10. Why did NBS neighbor gave differing accounts of barking dogs?
11. Why did the police wait almost 8 hours before calling a coroner..
12. Why was all the lead detectives sent to Rockingham, when only 2 were needed?
13. How did OJ kill 2 people in a 10min bloody rage, not get blood on himself or his vehicle, manage to clean up and get rid of a knife, shoes, and clothing.. Then shower to meet the limo by 11pm!


nettathirty, evidently you've learned nothing from the postings here.

1. No one knows except Simpson.
2. Shortly after 10:30.
3. Probably Simpson.
4. Only the police know.
5. Ron was killed first.
6. They didn't know that irrelevant question would be asked.
7. Only Nicole knew that answer.
8. Ron Goldman
9. Simpson wasn't near the spider webs when he scaled his fence.
10. All witnesses may give different versions of the same event. That's an inherent problem with eye witnesses. To understand what actually happened you have to listen to all of the witnesses and what they agree on, not what they disagree on.
11. They didn't. The first call to the coroner was made at 6:49 AM.
12. The two Robbery Homicide detectives had never been to Rockingham. They asked the two West LA detectives to lead them there and then stay to help Simpson recover his children being held at their police station.
13. It wasn't difficult. Simpson killed both victims from behind in only a couple of minutes. Simpson did get blood on the front of his clothing and his sock. Both victims blood as well as Simpson's blood was found in his Bronco. Simpson put his bloody sweat suit in his washing machine and it was later washed by Arnelle Simpson. Simpson could have gotten rid of his shoes and the knife any time after the murders maybe even in Chicago. Simpson always rushed last minute when he went out of town. Simpson had packed everything he was taking before he left for Bundy most likely leaving out only the clothing and toiletries he would need when he returned. He was very good at taking fast showers, no long hair to worry about, and dressing fast, no socks. He showered and dressed in about ten minutes and came downstairs about five minutes after 11:00.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II
so now you say fung was a lousy witness. i think the jury thought so too.martin II Never said different. The fact that he was a lousy witness does not mean that he did anything wrong. I think he was a shy guy who was thrown in the water with a bunch of alligators. I felt sorry for him but I never doubted he was telling the truth.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,


This is the first I've heard of this, which reeks of a desperate attempt on your part to try and convince, yourself!


nettathirty, no not any desperate attempt of anything, just a fact.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

The jury explains their verdict:

"In plain English, the glove didn't fit."

That's how O.J. Simpson juror Brenda Moran explained why the panel of nine blacks, two whites and one Hispanic returned a not guilty verdict in less than four hours Monday after a double murder trial that lasted nearly nine months.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-04/moran/moran_atty1.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-04/moran/&h=109&w=120&sz=13&tbnid=hEKx9haqNS4VMM:&tbnh=75&tbnw=83&hl=en&start=25&prev=/images%3Fq%3Doj%2Bsimpson%2Btrial%2Bjurors%26start %3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

Simpson explains what he will be doing after the trial. I guess things haven't settled down yet. He has been looking on golf courses, South Beach bars, MTV Award parties and memorabilia signing events but no luck so far:

Simpson's eldest son, Jason, read a statement from his father.

"When things have settled a bit, I will pursue as my primary goal in life, the killer or killers who slaughtered Nicole and Mr. Goldman," the statement said.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-04/mcdermott/moran1.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/daily/9510/10-04/mcdermott/&h=140&w=120&sz=16&tbnid=vNui0YqW_6loNM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=75&hl=en&start=43&prev=/images%3Fq%3Doj%2Bsimpson%2Btrial%2Bjurors%26start %3D40%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Never said different. The fact that he was a lousy witness does not mean that he did anything wrong. I think he was a shy guy who was thrown in the water with a bunch of alligators. I felt sorry for him but I never doubted he was telling the truth.

haha

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Never said different. The fact that he was a lousy witness does not mean that he did anything wrong. I think he was a shy guy who was thrown in the water with a bunch of alligators. I felt sorry for him but I never doubted he was telling the truth.

weezer
fung got mixed up in what he was supposed to say and got zapped.
martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped*Originally posted by nettathirty
6. Why didn't the prosecution prepare MF for the "N" word?
Let me ask you: Why was whether or not MF said the "N" word relevant in this trial?

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by nettathirty
1 - 13 except 6- are your opinion supported by, maybe some Jack Daniels! lol Supported by evidence, testimony, facts and some good old common sense! lol

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,

Let me bring you back to question 6:

6. Why didn't the prosecution prepare MF for the "N" word?

bobaugust
6. They didn't know that irrelevant question would be asked.
bobaugust


The question went before the judge first in the company of the prosecution team, and Ito decided to allow it! How do you come up with, they didn't know about the question?

1 - 13 except 6- are your opinion supported by, maybe some Jack Daniels! lol


nettathirty, no I don't drink, but your response is more indicative of some kind of impairment than mine. The following answers I gave you are based on the facts in this case.

2. I agree with Simpson's defense attorneys that the murders were committed after 10:30.
5. The opinion that Ron was killed first was Dr. Spitz's opinion.
6. You asked why didn't the prosecution prepare Fuhrman for the question about saying the "n" word. The prosecution never anticipated that irrelevant question ever being asked.
7. Only Nicole would know why she left her knife on the counter. That's not my opinion. That's a fact.
8. Ron opened the gate at Bundy. We know that from Robert Heidstra's testimony.
9. It's a fact that the place where Simpson scaled his fence was not near the spider webs. It was where the bent wire was later found right over where the glove was found.
10. It's a fact that different people witnessing the same event may give different versions of what they witnessed
11. The police didn't wait 8 hours to call the coroner. The first call was placed at 6:49 AM.
12. It's a fact that Commander Bushey gave the order that the detectives notify Simpson in person of his ex wife's death and help him recover his children. Lange made the decision to have Phillips and Fuhrman to go with them to Rockingham because Fuhrman knew the way there and after notification both West LA detectives could help Simpson recover his children from their station while Vannatter and Lange returned to Bundy.
13. It's a fact that Simpson's Bronco was not at Rockingham at 10:25 PM. Simpson was seen entering his house at 10:55 PM. Simpson had plenty of time to make the five minute drive to Nicole's condo, kill both victims and drive back home all within the minimum time of a half an hour.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty
fbg

MF being a racist cop, meant absolutely nothing except it inflamed NON-BLACKS! Not because he was racist, but because the anticipation of how blacks would react to it! I thought you didn't believe MF was racist. I, for one non-black, was not worried about how blacks would react to it. I thought that his personal views were his own. You kno, like how Orenthal thought he could beat Nicole and it wasn't anyone else's business. MOO

[weezer]

Not sure what I did to post it twice -- sorry.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August,

You are INCORRECT, sir!


nettathirty, you are correct, I was wrong.

Searching Clark's book she wrote that indeed back in January the prosecution argued that allowing the defense to introduce evidence that Mark Fuhrman had ever uttered the word "n****r" would serve no purpose but to antagonize the jury. Ito originally agreed with them but then reversed himself.

Clark wrote, "Once he'd allowed the N word in, he was forced to make a series of bad decision all the way down the line. In the aggregate, they assured a miscarriage of justice."

Clark does talk about her preparation of Fuhrman regarding this. I'll post it later in another response.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Judge Ito's instructions to the jury:

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas62.htm

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



socaldiva,

According to the judges instruction, if any part of a witness testimony was found to be unreliable or the witness wasn't credible, ALL of the testimony was to be considered unreliable! I don't think you are correct on this. It is up to the individual juror to decide if any or all of a witness testimony they consider to be credible.

[Wukong]

I am proud of you Socal!

After reading the instructions myself (it has been a long time since I have read them) I can see how the jury can feel justified in throwing out all the evidence except the glove demonstration (which it seems they did according to the quote I posted earlier). They were given pretty wide latitude in what they could consider.

Wukong

[Wukong]

Socal,

I agree that the DNA was damning but here was their out from the instructions:

"You should carefully review and consider all the circumstances surrounding each item of evidence, including, but not limited to, its discovery, collection, storage and analysis."

The defense just had to show one incident of evidence mis-handling to give them reason to throw it all out.

Wukong

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I don't think you are correct on this. It is up to the individual juror to decide if any or all of a witness testimony they consider to be credible.

he is talking about jurors finding testimnony not credible.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Let me ask you: Why was whether or not MF said the "N" word relevant in this trial?

because he was caught telling a lie to the jury and the court.
if caught in one lie i belive you are telling other lies.
martin II

[martin II]

the oj simpson civil trial plaintiffs lawyer D Petrocelli got his current client, convicted big time.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Wukong
Socal,

I agree that the DNA was damning but here was their out from the instructions:

"You should carefully review and consider all the circumstances surrounding each item of evidence, including, but not limited to, its discovery, collection, storage and analysis."

The defense just had to show one incident of evidence mis-handling to give them reason to throw it all out.

Wukong

wukong
since there were more than one incident, the jurors job was easy.

not many people pay attention to the judges instructions. maby because they can be long and difficult for some to follow. But this is a mistake and causes some to be confused about the outcome of trials. This causes some to blame the jury without having a clue as to judges instructions.

martin II

[Wukong]

Originally posted by martin II

*Snipped*
not many people pay attention to the judges instructions. maby because they can be long and difficult for some to follow. But this is a mistake and causes some to be confused about the outcome of trials. This causes some to blame the jury without having a clue as to judges instructions.
martin II

Martin,

You scare me sometimes. If my life was on the line I would not want you on my jury (unless of course I was guilty, then I would want everyone on my jury to be like you :) ). The judges instructions are the road map jurors use when deliberating. They are given a copy to take to the deliberations. If they don't understand the judge's instructions they have no business sitting on a jury. If they have questions about the instructions they need to ask for clarification.

Wukong

[Wukong]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Any recent victories for Shapiro or Bailey?

I thought Bailey's law license was revoked for embezzling money from a client? I could be wrong though??

Wukong

[2L8 4A D8]

Netta: For me, it's the principle of the matter. Here is a couple of posts from you when you were O4J and Netta30 that come close (as far as I am concerned) that you do consider MF to be a "liar" and "racist." I will keep on searching. I am sure that there are more posts. Unless you have seen enough and want me to stop, of course!

JMO and MOO!!


Suzee10
Senior Member

Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Tenn
Posts: 2471

Originally posted by Out4Justice

This is a false statement, MF took the 5th, and Marcia Clark all but called him,the "N" word in her closing statement.....You may believe MF to be a saint, who was used by OJ and his band of False Prophects, but for people to have seen MF as a liar after he testified, should not even be questioned..

F.Lee Bailey asked about the "N" word, then he said, if someone where to come in this courtroom, and say you used that word, would they be a liar"... MF said yes, they would be lyinig... After that exchange the tapes surface, then MF takes the 5th.... Where at any time does he explain those tapes being for a screen play, while he was in the witness stand....

One other thing, after his denial of the "N" word, and then him taking the 5th, I saw a liar.. (I saw him as a liar)! Now, why would I believe what he wrote in his book? You keep saying you need to read his book, but on the stand IMO was a liar, how is his book going to change that for ME?

You saw him as a liar, but not everyone agrees!

Old Post 11-20-2004 05:34 PM


Icculus
Member

Registered: Jun 2004
Location:
Posts: 282

Originally posted by netta30

D

JMO - Saying Fuhrman isn't a racist, would be the same as saying, Simpson isnt' responsible for the 1989 bruises to Nicole's face!!

p.s. Thnx 4 the beer!

netta, my dear, you continue to evade explanation of your own statements, not to mention backing them up with anything credible. You've also ceased making any sense in your replies to me.

I will thusly listen to those wondering why I still bother with you and give up. You're hopeless. Enjoy your conspiracy-fantasy world, and here's another beer to help you along

JMO of course

Old Post 07-12-2005 09:29 AM

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* No need to get rude. I think socaldiva is by far one of the more astute posters on this board.

I completely agree. She can take it and dish it out too. She's extremely knowledgeable of the OJ case and an asset to the OJ Board. I admire her (among others on this Board) and love reading her posts.

:beer: :rose: :beer:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by socaldiva

Or he should put on a helmet, so he gets fewer bumps on his head :tongue:

:lol: Excellente Socal!!!!

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



MartinII

Was it former CEO of Enron Skillings?

the jury gave both of them the baseball bat on the forhead.
i think Skilling was petros client. but it may have been the other way around

Martin II

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


because he was caught telling a lie to the jury and the court.
if caught in one lie i belive you are telling other lies.
martin II

C'mon Martin. IMO, a lot of people tell lies, but that doesn't mean they lie about everything. IMO, MF did lie about using the "N" word because he knew it was going to cause a huge stir, which it did seem to. It doesn't mean he was going to lie about everything or that he couldn't be trusted to tell the truth about anything else.

However, IMO and from personal experience, pathological liars do tell one lie after another. The reason for that is they tell one lie, than tell another lie to cover the first one and it just goes round and round.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by bobaugust


Clark does talk about her preparation of Fuhrman regarding this. I'll post it later in another response.

bobaugust



nettathirty, here is only a small portion of what Clark wrote about this,

"In preparation for his testimony, Mark showed up for our pretrial interview in the company of one of the most imposing men I'd ever seen in my life. Lieutenant Chuck Higbee, formerly of the LAPD, looked to be in his mid fifties. He wore his hair in a buzz cut and stood about six one. His T shirt strained to cover his enormous shoulders and biceps. Higbee was a legend on the force, owning partly to his toughness but more to his willingness to lend a hand to cops in trouble. The LAPD had attached him to Fuhrman's regular detail in the belief that he might exert a calming influence.

Mark wasn't shy about telling me that he was glad I'd taken over. "Chris and I just couldn't get along, " he told me. "I'd wait around for hours, then he'd come in and ask me some race questions and walk out."

At the mention of "race questions," his tone became hurt and angry.

I took him through the whole case. We worked for two hours straight before taking a break. Once again, I was reminded of why I'd been so impressed with Mark at the outset. This guy was really on top of the facts. I had a copy of his testimony from the preliminary hearing handy in case he needed to refresh his memory. But he never did. He had almost total recall.

Higbee was a champ, Whenever Mark ran on too long with an answer, he'd interrupt with a gentle "Hold on, Mark, just answer the question. If you start volunteering, the defense will object and that will interrupt your testimony." Higbee obviously knew his way around a courtroom.

During a break, Mark went into the hall to stretch. I took the opportunity to broach the race question with Higbee. Particularly Fuhrman's insistence that he had never uttered the N-word in the last decade.

"It would really help if we could soften that denial a little," I told him. "Is there anything we can do about it?"

Higbee thought for a moment. "If you want my advice, just leave it alone." he finally said. "The more you push it, the worse he'll get."

"But don't you agree it would be better to front the issue? Take it on first, and soften it with some kind of admission?"

"All you'll do is alienate him, " Higbee warned. "Then he'll take the stand in a hostile frame of mind. If you guys can just maintain a decent rapport, I'm sure it'll go smoothly."

[martin II]

Originally posted by Wukong


Martin,

You scare me sometimes. If my life was on the line I would not want you on my jury (unless of course I was guilty, then I would want everyone on my jury to be like you :) ). The judges instructions are the road map jurors use when deliberating. They are given a copy to take to the deliberations. If they don't understand the judge's instructions they have no business sitting on a jury. If they have questions about the instructions they need to ask for clarification.

Wukong

wukong

maby i did not make myself clear and you seemed to have intrepeted my comment wrongly.

i was not talking about jury members not reading the judges instructions, i was talking about the general public that may have followed a case.
example

i don't think many on this thread ever read the instructions before you posted it above.
martin II

[Wukong]

Originally posted by martin II


wukong

maby i did not make myself clear and you seemed to have intrepeted my comment wrongly.

i was not talking about jury members not reading the judges instructions, i was talking about the general public that may have followed a case.
example

i don't think many on this thread ever read the instructions before you posted it above.
martin II

You're right, I thought you were making a general statement about jurors not understanding the instructions.

In the immortal words of Rosanne Rosanadanna:

Never mind!

Wukong

[martin II]

bob
your post to netta about furhman/clarke interview.

1. if i remember correctly C Darden on the oprah show said "we did not know anything about the n word until Mark got on the stand." " it caught us by surprise" i belive that clarke did interview mark about this but i am wondering why Darden made this comment on Oprah.

2. I think clarke should have followed her own advise rather than the big guys.
martinII

[martin II]

Originally posted by Wukong


You're right, I thought you were making a general statement about jurors not understanding the instructions.

In the immortal words of Rosanne Rosanadanna:

Never mind!

Wukong

wukong
i think the jury understood the instructions quite well and that they used them as the rules when they discussed the evidence.
i don't think any juror argured a position that conflicted with the jurges instructions as they had a copy in the deliberaitons room.

My point is, some people listen to the testimony from their tv sets
thinking that they have heard and understood everything that went on in the case and come to a conclusion based on gut feeling or from what they think they heard. The issue of what the law/ judges instructions specifically say is in many cases lost on them.

I also think that the media has a larger responsibility when covering the case to do a better job of educating the public on the rules of evidence and how the judges instructions impact
on how the jury evaluates the testimony of the witnesses.

This i think would go a long was towards helping the public to understand how and why certain verdicts are what they turn out to be.
Martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by alien


C'mon Martin. IMO, a lot of people tell lies, but that doesn't mean they lie about everything. IMO, MF did lie about using the "N" word because he knew it was going to cause a huge stir, which it did seem to. It doesn't mean he was going to lie about everything or that he couldn't be trusted to tell the truth about anything else.

However, IMO and from personal experience, pathological liars do tell one lie after another. The reason for that is they tell one lie, than tell another lie to cover the first one and it just goes round and round.

Alien

in many judges instructions the jury is told" if you find that a witness lied about one issue, you can discount all or any part of his other testimony" something close to that.
What do you think is the reason for this statement in these judges instructions?
To me it does not sound like the judge is saying 'If the witness lied about A you should not hold this against him when he testifies about B.C.D.ETC
what do you think?
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by martin II


so what is your nic
fbg or tazzy?
martinII

Hey!

What are you trying to say?



I love you Fbg!

:seeya:

[martin II]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Hey!

What are you trying to say?



I love you Fbg!

:seeya:

tazzy
i made a post addressed to you and fbg stepped in and answered for you. no big deal
martin II

[martin II]

tazzy


fbgweezer
Senior Member

Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Boerne, Texas
Posts: 1598

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

do you know how old nicole was when she married oj.
martin II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this matter was discussed and links to the articles were given many times. so just google it and you can find it

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II
tazzy


fbgweezer
Senior Member

Registered: Jun 2004
Location: Boerne, Texas
Posts: 1598

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

do you know how old nicole was when she married oj.
martin II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this matter was discussed and links to the articles were given many times. so just google it and you can find it You also asked me.

"martin II
Member

Registered: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 635

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Happy Chic


Well, she wasn't 17 when she got married. In fact I think she was 26 or 27.

Judi didn't know who oj was she first met him and she welcomed him as part of her daughters life. Even OJ said that he really appreciated that about Judi.

For sure the money is what made them want Nicole to stay with him though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fbg
do you know how old nicole was when she married oj?
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
You also asked me.

"martin II
Member

Registered: Apr 2006
Location:
Posts: 635

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Happy Chic


Well, she wasn't 17 when she got married. In fact I think she was 26 or 27.

Judi didn't know who oj was she first met him and she welcomed him as part of her daughters life. Even OJ said that he really appreciated that about Judi.

For sure the money is what made them want Nicole to stay with him though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fbg
do you know how old nicole was when she married oj?
martin II

fbg
you gave a response when i asked you and then you gave a response when i asked tazzy the question
martin II

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


Alien

in many judges instructions the jury is told" if you find that a witness lied about one issue, you can discount all or any part of his other testimony" something close to that.
What do you think is the reason for this statement in these judges instructions?
To me it does not sound like the judge is saying 'If the witness lied about A you should not hold this against him when he testifies about B.C.D.ETC
what do you think?
martin II

Let me ponder your question Martin. It was a long busy night at work and my brain isn't working too good right now. I just dropped by before bed time to read posts.

Have a good afternoon and I will be back on board later tonight.

[tazzybaby]

Okay Martin,

I guess I missed all of that. I didn't know what you were getting at.

:seeya:

[weezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby
Okay Martin,

I guess I missed all of that. I didn't know what you were getting at.

:seeya: Does that mean you don't still love me? :(

[martin II]

Originally posted by Wukong


I thought Bailey's law license was revoked for embezzling money from a client? I could be wrong though??

Wukong

wukong

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004143.html

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
I love you fbg :seeya: :seeya: Thanks!

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


wukong

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/004143.html I see where the verdict and punitive damages were overturned but the only info on him regaining his license was in 2005. Anyone know if he was ever able to get his license back?

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Socaldiva,

Yeah, but you also berated the defense team for doing their jobs in defending OJ..

netta
just a quick note.

In this current case, Petrocelli was forced to play on a level playing field in a arena and level that he did not have a lot of experience in ( it was reported) The results was he got HIS lunch eaten and his client some long jail time in the pen.
Martin II

[martin II]

netta
media report

martinII


http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/players/S-Z/index.html

Sathyavagiswaran, Lakshmanan, Dr.

Los Angeles County Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner. Friday, June 2: Admitted that one of his pathologists, Irwin Golden, made mistakes during the autopsies. Tuesday, June 6: Admitted his lab made several mistakes during the autopsies of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Wednesday, June 7: Testified Nicole Simpson was probably still alive while the murderer killed Ron Goldman. Said Nicole Simpson probably died within a minute after her throat was slashed. Said the killer was right handed. Thursday, June 8: Testified he didn't think it was necessary to do a sexual assault test on Nicole Simpson. Said Ron Goldman probaby died within five minutes of his attack. Friday, June 9: Demonstrated again how Ron Goldman was killed. Monday, June 12: Admitted more mistakes by Dr. Irwin Golden, but said again that they did not affect overall testing. Said Ron Goldman didn't punch his attacker. Tuesday, June 13: Testified that his office did a satisfactory job on some portions of the autopsies, and an unsatisfactory job on others. Wednesday, June 14: Said under cross-examination that he could not determine the exact time of death, the number of knives, and the number of assailants involved in the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Thursday, June 15: Testified Ron Goldman did not have a "fighting chance" against his attacker. Said he couldn't be sure if there were one or two killers.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II




My point is, some people listen to the testimony from their tv sets
thinking that they have heard and understood everything that went on in the case and come to a conclusion based on gut feeling or from what they think they heard. The issue of what the law/ judges instructions specifically say is in many cases lost on them.

Martin II


martin II, I agree with your comment. I'm glad you've finally come to this realization. It describes the basis for the majority of your arguments you have tired to make on this discussion group. That's the main reason so many of your arguments have been proven wrong.

And that's why the transcripts are so important. They tell us exactly what the witnesses said, not what you and others think they may have said.

bobaugust

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
In this current case, Petrocelli was forced to play on a level playing field in a arena and level that he did not have a lot of experience in ( it was reported) The results was he got HIS lunch eaten and his client some long jail time in the pen. Had the Simpson defense team been forced to play on a level field Orenthal would be eating cheese sandwiches in prison even as we speak!

Petrocelli's client was found guilty by a jury. I think Skilling would have been found guilty of all charges if not for Petrocelli. Now if I could get some of my money back, I'd be a happy camper.

Thought you didn't have any faith in civil juries. Or was that only the civil jury that tried Orenthal's case?

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, I agree with your comment. I'm glad you've finally come to this realization. It describes the basis for the majority of your arguments you have tired to make on this discussion group. That's the main reason so many of your arguments have been proven wrong.

And that's why the transcripts are so important. They tell us exactly what the witnesses said, not what you and others think they may have said.

bobaugust

bob
that was cute. sneaky but cute.

My post was talking about people that watched tv and thought that they knew all there was to know about the case. I was also talking about people like YOU that started out with a though that oj did it, read testimony while deciding who you wanted to bevieve and who you felt it was necessary to make excuses for.

Then ignored the judges instructions to the jury about how they should deliberate (by law and his instructions) and then yell and scream and make false charges against the jury because the verdict did not conform to their initial wishes. imo

martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
". . .make false charges. . . " :confused:

Bob, do you know of a link to Arnelle's statements to LE when they came to Rockingham trying to locate Simpson?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Had the Simpson defense team been forced to play on a level field Orenthal would be eating cheese sandwiches in prison even as we speak!

Petrocelli's client was found guilty by a jury. I think Skilling would have been found guilty of all charges if not for Petrocelli. Now if I could get some of my money back, I'd be a happy camper.

Thought you didn't have any faith in civil juries. Or was that only the civil jury that tried Orenthal's case?

fbg


the oj dream team was the group that leveled the playing field in the criminal trial.

don;t know what you mean by my faith in civil trials.
correct me if i am wrong. the enron case was a criminal trial.

Skilling got convicted of more than he had hoped for. His defense
was created by petro and it was flawed from the beginning. Bet he is now having second thoughts about that defense statergy.
Skilling will be in jail for a long time and petro will be back home spending his money.imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by martin II
netta
media report

martinII


http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/players/S-Z/index.html

Sathyavagiswaran, Lakshmanan, Dr.

Los Angeles County Chief Medical Examiner-Coroner. Friday, June 2: Admitted that one of his pathologists, Irwin Golden, made mistakes during the autopsies. Tuesday, June 6: Admitted his lab made several mistakes during the autopsies of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Wednesday, June 7: Testified Nicole Simpson was probably still alive while the murderer killed Ron Goldman. Said Nicole Simpson probably died within a minute after her throat was slashed. Said the killer was right handed. Thursday, June 8: Testified he didn't think it was necessary to do a sexual assault test on Nicole Simpson. Said Ron Goldman probaby died within five minutes of his attack. Friday, June 9: Demonstrated again how Ron Goldman was killed. Monday, June 12: Admitted more mistakes by Dr. Irwin Golden, but said again that they did not affect overall testing. Said Ron Goldman didn't punch his attacker. Tuesday, June 13: Testified that his office did a satisfactory job on some portions of the autopsies, and an unsatisfactory job on others. Wednesday, June 14: Said under cross-examination that he could not determine the exact time of death, the number of knives, and the number of assailants involved in the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Thursday, June 15: Testified Ron Goldman did not have a "fighting chance" against his attacker. Said he couldn't be sure if there were one or two killers.

time of murders==I DON'T KNOW
number of knifes= I DON'T KNOW
number of assailants= I DON'T KNOW
one or two killers= I CANNOT BE SURE

DR LAKSMANAN


MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Martin II

I thought Skilling was using Petro for publicity, Petro prior to the Oj Civil trial hadn't won or argued a successful trial ...

MOO IMO JMHO

NETTA
He would not have won the oj trial if it had not been rigged
he is a silly man
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Martin II

Good Points, wonder how the G's will combat this!

netta
these comments are by the good DR LAKAMANAN

MARTIN ii

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Martin II

I thought Skilling was using Petro for publicity, Petro prior to the Oj Civil trial hadn't won or argued a successful trial ...

MOO IMO JMHO

NETTA
Skilling and Petro thought there would be some OJ DID IT fanatics
on the jury and there would be some transfer of good will to Petro.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty

Martin II

I thought Skilling was using Petro for publicity, Petro prior to the Oj Civil trial hadn't won or argued a successful trial ...

MOO IMO JMHO Now you are showing your ignorance.

Netta, you and Martin need to follow Hotwater's request(s) to snip reply posts.

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Martin II

I thought Skilling was using Petro for publicity, Petro prior to the Oj Civil trial hadn't won or argued a successful trial ...

MOO IMO JMHO

NETTA

Petrocelli got his client convicted in 19 out of 29 charges and he is facing 185 years and

FBG said it would have been worse if it had not been for petrocelli. Wonder what it would have been 300 years.

martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II

time of murders==I DON'T KNOW
number of knifes= I DON'T KNOW
number of assailants= I DON'T KNOW
one or two killers= I CANNOT BE SURE

DR LAKSMANAN Can we now assume that you accept his testimony in its entirety?

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


NETTA

Petrocelli got his client convicted in 19 out of 29 charges and he is facing 185 years and

FBG said it would have been worse if it had not been for petrocelli. Wonder what it would have been 300 years.

martin II This is the Simpson board -- you can probably find Enron discussion on another board. Remember, Hotwater asked that we stay on topic.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


time of murders==I DON'T KNOW
number of knifes= I DON'T KNOW
number of assailants= I DON'T KNOW
one or two killers= I CANNOT BE SURE

DR LAKSMANAN


MARTIN ii Dr. Sathyavagiswaran conceded that Dr. Irwin Golden, who performed the autopsies, made as many as 30 errors. The errors included Golden's failure to record an injury on Nicole Simpson's brain; the mislabeling of a sample of Goldman's bile as urine; the failure to document several tears on Goldman's shirt and jeans; and the failure to take a palm print from Nicole Simpson's left hand.

Wow, bad stuff.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Can we now assume that you accept his testimony in its entirety?

only the part that he was telling the truth.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Dr. Sathyavagiswaran conceded that Dr. Irwin Golden, who performed the autopsies, made as many as 30 errors. The errors included Golden's failure to record an injury on Nicole Simpson's brain; the mislabeling of a sample of Goldman's bile as urine; the failure to document several tears on Goldman's shirt and jeans; and the failure to take a palm print from Nicole Simpson's left hand.

Wow, bad stuff.

what about the blood drop on nicoles back?
The last four quesitons he answered are important for me.

martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Dr. Sathyavagiswaran conceded that Dr. Irwin Golden, who performed the autopsies, made as many as 30 errors. The errors included Golden's failure to record an injury on Nicole Simpson's brain; the mislabeling of a sample of Goldman's bile as urine; the failure to document several tears on Goldman's shirt and jeans; and the failure to take a palm print from Nicole Simpson's left hand.

Wow, bad stuff.
you mentioned 30 errors and then listed 3
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Can we now assume that you accept his testimony in its entirety?

fbg
i wonder what the jury thought when they heard his answers to these quesitons.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II

you mentioned 30 errors and then listed 3
martin II Don't be foolish. Dr. L admitted that the autopsies contained many errors. But the autopsies had nothing to do with the cause and manner of death. Had the autopsies been pristine, they would not have explained Orenthal's blood, footprints, hair, cap, glove and fibers being at the murder scene.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


only the part that he was telling the truth.
martin II I thought you said that if a witness lied about anything then you considered everything to be a lie.

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Don't be foolish. Dr. L admitted that the autopsies contained many errors. But the autopsies had nothing to do with the cause and manner of death. Had the autopsies been pristine, they would not have explained Orenthal's blood, footprints, hair, cap, glove and fibers being at the murder scene.
fbg
the autopsies focused on the bodies not the cap,glove and foot prints.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I thought you said that if a witness lied about anything then you considered everything to be a lie.

fbg
those are instructions are for the jury.
martin II

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
i wonder what the jury thought when they heard his answers to these quesitons.
martin II They weren't listening to his direct examination so what difference did any of it make to them. They knew what their verdict was going to be. I think they owe the city/state/count for room and board for the 8 and one half months that they pretended to be a jury.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
the autopsies focused on the bodies not the cap,glove and foot prints.
martin II And? What impact did the autopsy have on the outcome of the trial? It showed that they were both stabbed to death; Nicole had her throat slit and bled to death. The contents of her stomach, the tears in Ron's clothing -- none of that would explain why Orenthal's blood, footprints, hair, cap, glove and bronco fibers were at the murder scene.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg
those are instructions are for the jury.
martin II Ahhh -- Your earlier post:
"because he was caught telling a lie to the jury and the court.
if caught in one lie i belive you are telling other lies.
martin II"

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
that was cute. sneaky but cute.

My post was talking about people that watched tv and thought that they knew all there was to know about the case. I was also talking about people like YOU that started out with a though that oj did it, read testimony while deciding who you wanted to bevieve and who you felt it was necessary to make excuses for.

Then ignored the judges instructions to the jury about how they should deliberate (by law and his instructions) and then yell and scream and make false charges against the jury because the verdict did not conform to their initial wishes. imo

martin II



martin II, thanks for proving my point. That's the same kind of statements you make about what witnesses said in this case when you base your opinions on what you think they said, not what they actually said.

Once again you show you have no idea what my thinking process was or what my beliefs were. I've never said what you imagine I believed or how I came to my beliefs. You're just fantasizing again and of course you got it wrong again.

It seems to me that you're the one having trouble understanding the judges instructions based on your speculation about what you think the criminal trial jurors understood or didn't understand. You're the one making up excuses for some of the truly ignorant remarks some of these jurors publicly made that gives some insight as to what they were really thinking when they acquitted Simpson.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
And? What impact did the autopsy have on the outcome of the trial?

Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, pick me!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


time of murders==I DON'T KNOW
number of knifes= I DON'T KNOW
number of assailants= I DON'T KNOW
one or two killers= I CANNOT BE SURE

DR LAKSMANAN


MARTIN ii


martin II,
Time of murders = The coroner can only establish a time range, not a specific time.
Number of knives = One

June 6, 1995
MR. KELBERG: Did you form an opinion as to whether the same single-edged knife which caused--could have caused all of the sharp force injuries to Nicole Brown Simpson could also have caused all of the sharp force injuries to Ronald Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: What is your opinion in that regard?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same single-edged knife could have caused the injuries on both the decedents.

Number of assailants = All of the evidence tells us there were only there people at Bundy. The two victims and the killer.

Number of killers = Once knife, one killer.

bobaugust

[weezer]

Originally posted by Wukong


Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, pick me! LOL -- don't be so shy.

[weezer]

Okay -- here's my question: If Arnele didn't know that the maid was gone for the night, why would she have taken her key to open the house? Why didn't she tell the police that her dad was gone but the maid should have answered? Wouldn't you think she would show some concern for the maid being in the house?

Anyone heard or seen any statements/testimony as to when she last spoke to her Dad after the maid asked permission to stay away for the night and before the police got there for notification?

[weezer]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Okay -- here's my question: If Arnele didn't know that the maid was gone for the night, why would she have taken her key to open the house? Why didn't she tell the police that her dad was gone but the maid should have answered? Wouldn't you think she would show some concern for the maid being in the house?

Anyone heard or seen any statements/testimony as to when she last spoke to her Dad after the maid asked permission to stay away for the night and before the police got there for notification? Found some of my own answers in Lange's book, page 23: 1) Lange asked for a key to the house. 2) She thought her dad was in the house. But I find this odd: "After unlocking the door, she steps aside, allowing Lange, Vannatter and Phillips to enter first. Once inside the house, Vannatter asks Arnelle, "Where's the maid's room?"

"Arnelle takes him through the kitchen to a small hallway and opens a door on the left. Sh tells him, "This is where the maid lives."

Sounds like she didn't expect the maid to be there.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Okay -- here's my question: If Arnele didn't know that the maid was gone for the night, why would she have taken her key to open the house? Why didn't she tell the police that her dad was gone but the maid should have answered? Wouldn't you think she would show some concern for the maid being in the house?

Anyone heard or seen any statements/testimony as to when she last spoke to her Dad after the maid asked permission to stay away for the night and before the police got there for notification?



fbgweezer, when the detectives first talked to Arnelle they asked her if she had a key her father's house. The detectives assumed that the house would be locked.

Arnelle got a key and then led the detectives to the rear door. The detectives thought Arnelle unlocked the door to let them in but in fact again they only assumed that the door was locked and they assumed that Arnelle unlocked it. Actually she never did use the key to unlock that door. It couldn't be done. That door could only be locked and unlocked from the inside, not the outside.

That's how we know it was unlocked. Arnelle opened the door and led the detectives into the house. Did Arnelle know that Gigi wasn't home then? Of course, since she had been in the house about an hour earlier when she washed her father's sweat suit.

Arnelle was never told by her father that Gigi wasn't there before that. She left for for the day about noon and never saw her father that evening. Arnelle never got back home until about 12:30 AM well after Simpson had left to fly to Chicago.

bobaugust

[weezer]

*Snipped* [QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust
Arnelle was never told by her father that Gigi wasn't there before that. She left for for the day about noon and never saw her father that evening. Arnelle never got back home until about 12:30 AM well after Simpson had left to fly to Chicago. /QUOTE] I remember reading about the door but I don't remember anything being made over her reaction to the maid not being there or showing any concern when the maid wasn't there.

Also, do you find it odd that when she was told about Nicole's death, the first person she wanted to call was AC? Suppose when dad called to tell her to do the laundry he also told her to call AC if anything happened?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Found some of my own answers in Lange's book, page 23: 1) Lange asked for a key to the house. 2) She thought her dad was in the house. But I find this odd: "After unlocking the door, she steps aside, allowing Lange, Vannatter and Phillips to enter first. Once inside the house, Vannatter asks Arnelle, "Where's the maid's room?"

"Arnelle takes him through the kitchen to a small hallway and opens a door on the left. Sh tells him, "This is where the maid lives."

Sounds like she didn't expect the maid to be there.

fbg

no. it sounds like she let the cops in, steps aside, to allow them to do/go where they want to go or tell her what they want her to do now. Arnell had been gone most of the day. She had arrived home at 12-1 am the cops came to her shortly after.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* [QUOTE]Originally posted by bobaugust
Arnelle was never told by her father that Gigi wasn't there before that. She left for for the day about noon and never saw her father that evening. Arnelle never got back home until about 12:30 AM well after Simpson had left to fly to Chicago. /QUOTE] I remember reading about the door but I don't remember anything being made over her reaction to the maid not being there or showing any concern when the maid wasn't there.

Also, do you find it odd that when she was told about Nicole's death, the first person she wanted to call was AC? Suppose when dad called to tell her to do the laundry he also told her to call AC if anything happened? \

fbg

Arnell finding out that her father was in chicago and that Nicole
had been murdered decided to call AC a close family friend and a friend of nicoles. What sinister do you find about that? I think she was in her early or mid 20s.
MartinII

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II,
Time of murders = The coroner can only establish a time range, not a specific time.
Number of knives = One

June 6, 1995
MR. KELBERG: Did you form an opinion as to whether the same single-edged knife which caused--could have caused all of the sharp force injuries to Nicole Brown Simpson could also have caused all of the sharp force injuries to Ronald Goldman?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: Yes, I have.
MR. KELBERG: What is your opinion in that regard?
DR. LAKSHMANAN: The same single-edged knife could have caused the injuries on both the decedents.

Number of assailants = All of the evidence tells us there were only there people at Bundy. The two victims and the killer.

Number of killers = Once knife, one killer.



bobaugust

bob
here again it is the content of the question and the operative word of the response.

the question assumes that the single edge knife was the SAME and that it "COULD have"---. the operatrive word again is COULD.

However he turns around under cross and says he does not know
if it was one knife,one killer or two killers.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Wukong


Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, pick me!

the me can report on the condition of the bodies at authposy,from this info he can make some ASSUMPTIONS about the condition of the bodies before death , how the kinfe came into contact with the bodies and the type of instrument that was used to make the wounds.
he can use stomach contents to estimate time of death and the kind of food taken and a estimate of when the food was taken.
This me examined rons stomach content but not Nicoles.

in this case if the me had THE murder weapon he could have been more exact about the wounds in both of the victims. but since he did not, he was left with his assumptions.
i may have left out some issues.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
They weren't listening to his direct examination so what difference did any of it make to them. They knew what their verdict was going to be. I think they owe the city/state/count for room and board for the 8 and one half months that they pretended to be a jury.

fbg
then lets make all the prosecutors and judge ito pay back their salaries , since you think they did such a awful job and send the defense a bill for taking up the courts time and space.
if this is how you would make people pay for not doing what you think they should have done.

martin II:)

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
here again it is the content of the question and the operative word of the response.

the question assumes that the single edge knife was the SAME and that it "COULD have"---. the operatrive word again is COULD.

However he turns around under cross and says he does not know
if it was one knife,one killer or two killers.
martin II


martin II, what you can't seem to grasp is that all of the wounds on both victims are consistent with having been made by one single edge knife

True, Dr. Lakshmanan could not say with a reasonable degree of medical certainty that only one single edge knife was used. Based on the injuries it could have been a single edge knife and a double edge knife, or two single edge knives, three single edge knives, or maybe some of the wounds could have been caused by a sharp broken piece of glass, or some of the wounds could have been cause by a razor blade.

You can go and on with imagined possibilities but the simple fact is that one single edge knife could have caused not just some of the wounds, but all of the wounds.

Since all of the other relevant physical evidence points to only Simpson and no one else, then the argument that there might have been two killers, three killers, four killers, or a hundred killers is completely unsupported and just as relevant as the argument that aliens from outer space were the real killers.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II



This me examined rons stomach content but not Nicoles.


martin II


martin II, you have your facts wrong again.

The Autopsy Report of Nicole Brown Simpson
Examination of the gastric contents reveals approximately 500 ml. of chewed semisolid food in the stomach. Recognizable food particles are identified as follows: pieces of pasta appearing to be rigatoni, fragments of apparent spinach leaves; and the remainder, chewed, partially digested non-recognizable food material.

http://www.justicejunction.com/judicial_injustice_oj_autopsy_report_nbs.htm

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, you have your facts wrong again.

The Autopsy Report of Nicole Brown Simpson
Examination of the gastric contents reveals approximately 500 ml. of chewed semisolid food in the stomach. Recognizable food particles are identified as follows: pieces of pasta appearing to be rigatoni, fragments of apparent spinach leaves; and the remainder, chewed, partially digested non-recognizable food material.

http://www.justicejunction.com/judicial_injustice_oj_autopsy_report_nbs.htm

bobaugust

bob

ok

but i do remember reading a list like this for ron and nicole where it gave rons stomach contents and nicoles as NONE.
I will try to find it later.
martin II

[martin II]

netta

Thomas Talerino testified in civil trial 12/17 that when he rollerskated past the west side of bundy on the sidewalk, he saw a man hiding in the bushes in front of nicoles condo and the man was NOT oj. however this was at about 9pm on 6/12
martin II

[martin II]

bob

according to fbg lang said Arnell UNLOCKED the door and they went in. Arnell said she unlocked the front door, you say lang and Arnell are wrong. you say they went in through some back door
that had no outside lock.

Here is Arnels testimony.


MR. COCHRAN: All right. Your Honor, she is leaving, your Honor, the area marked "Arnelle's room" and she walks west to an area with some stairs. She goes up the stairs and proceeds past the pool.

MR. COCHRAN: Is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: Uh-huh.

MR. COCHRAN: She went around the north side of the house to an area marked "Driveway" again on People's 66.

MR. COCHRAN: And you went to an area marked "Entrance." Now, is that the entrance to the Rockingham residence?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And what did you do when you got to that entrance, ma'am?

MS. SIMPSON: I went over here to the kitchen, through the kitchen to the phone here and then walked through here, (Indicating), to get to my car.

MR. COCHRAN: All right. Let's back up for a moment. When you went to--got to the front door of the residence there, did you have to do anything before you got inside that residence?

MS. SIMPSON: I had to turn the alarm off.

MR. COCHRAN: There was an alarm on?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you turned the alarm off; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: When you walked that route that you just described for the Court and the jury, was anyone accompanying you at that point?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Who was?

MS. SIMPSON: The two detectives.

MR. COCHRAN: The two people we described earlier?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Lange and Phillips?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: You walked around and took the alarm off before you went inside?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: Let me ask you specifically did you ever at any time walk from your residence here marked "Arnelle's room" and go through some door here at the back of the house?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: When the alarm is on is that possible?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: Can't go in that way; is that right?

MS. SIMPSON: No.

MR. COCHRAN: The alarm key pad is where?

MS. SIMPSON: In the front of the house.

MR. COCHRAN: So you went around to the front of the house and turned off that alarm and then these two detectives came in behind you; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: And you described for the jury that you went into the kitchen area; is that correct?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MR. COCHRAN: They were still there with you?

MARTIN II

[martin II]

you

"Arnelle takes him through the kitchen to a small hallway and opens a door on the left. Sh tells him, "This is where the maid lives."

Sounds like she didn't expect the maid to be there.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the cops told her they had rang the bell for a while and no one answered, good reason for her to deduct that the maid was not there. she had too much class to walk through the house yelling gigigigi like some people would have.
Martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

according to fbg lang said Arnell UNLOCKED the door and they went in. Arnell said she unlocked the front door, you say lang and Arnell are wrong. you say they went in through some back door
that had no outside lock.



MARTIN II


martin II, all you've done is post Arnelle Simpson's lying testimony.

How do we know she was lying? Because her testimony is contradicted by four detectives and Kato Kaelin.

Why did Arnelle lie?

To hide her involvement in destroying evidence in this case when she went into her father's house before the police arrived and washed her clothing and her father's sweat suit in her father's washing machine. When she left the house she made the mistake of leaving through the rear door near her room. She unlocked that door from the inside and never turned the house alarm back on.

Read the contradicting testimony for yourself and then tell us who you believe and why.

http://www.bobaugust.com/arnelle.htm

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Okay -- here's my question: If Arnele didn't know that the maid was gone for the night, why would she have taken her key to open the house? Why didn't she tell the police that her dad was gone but the maid should have answered? Wouldn't you think she would show some concern for the maid being in the house?

Anyone heard or seen any statements/testimony as to when she last spoke to her Dad after the maid asked permission to stay away for the night and before the police got there for notification?

fbg

How do you know that arnell did not know that gigi was off that night?
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, all you've done is post Arnelle Simpson's lying testimony.

How do we know she was lying? Because her testimony is contradicted by four detectives and Kato Kaelin.

Why did Arnelle lie?

To hide her involvement in destroying evidence in this case when she went into her father's house before the police arrived and washed her clothing and her father's sweat suit in her father's washing machine. When she left the house she made the mistake of leaving through the rear door near her room. She unlocked that door from the inside and never turned the house alarm back on.

Read the contradicting testimony for yourself and then tell us who you believe and why.

http://www.bobaugust.com/arnelle.htm

bobaugust

bob
so did lang lie in his book about Arnell UNLOCKING the door for them to enter??? he had plenty of time to think about what happened before he wrote his book.

you call her a lie because you need her to be lying to make your case about the washing machine and you are also willing to call lang a lie to accomlish this. or you say lang and vanhatter did not know what she did to get into the house.
bs
martin II

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Does that mean you don't still love me? :(


Of course I still love you!! lol

*Big Hug*

:seeya:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

How do you know that arnell did not know that gigi was off that night?
martin II


martin II, of course Arnelle knew that Gigi was off for the weekend.

What Arnelle didn't know when she got home that night was that Gigi had called Simpson at 8:00 the evening of the murders and Simpson gave her permission to stay the night and return on Monday.

There are a couple of ways that Arnelle may have known that Gigi wasn't at her father's house when the police questioned her. Arnelle got home about 12:30 AM. She drove her car through the Ashford gate and parked it behind Simpson's Bentley in her regular parking place. When she drove up to the Ashford gate she could very well have noticed that Gigi's car was not parked near the gate. That's where Gigi regularly parked her car.

Or Simpson told Arnelle that Gigi wasn't there when he called her about an hour before the police arrived Monday morning and instructed her to wash his sweat suit he left in his washing machine.

Either way Arnelle most likely knew Gigi wasn't in the house when the police arrived and asked her if she could let them into the house.

But that's not what she told the police.

February 21, 1995

Q BY MS. CLARK: ALL RIGHT.
WHEN YOU GOT IN THE HOUSE WITH HER, DID YOU ASK A QUESTION OF HER?
A I ASKED IF THERE WAS A HOUSEKEEPER ON THE PREMISES.
Q WHY DID YOU ASK THAT?
A BECAUSE WE HAD INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS IN FACT A HOUSEKEEPER ON THE PREMISES OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN A HOUSEKEEPER ON THE PREMISES AND I WANTED TO KNOW.
Q WERE YOU CONCERNED FOR SOME REASON IN THAT REGARD?
A I WAS CONCERNED THAT THE HOUSEKEEPER MAY BE SOME TYPE OF A VICTIM. I DIDN'T KNOW.
Q WHAT HAPPENED NEXT WHEN YOU ASKED ARNELLE IF THERE WAS A HOUSEKEEPER ON THE PREMISES?
A SHE STATED THAT SHE DIDN'T KNOW, BUT THAT THERE WAS A HOUSEKEEPER.
Q DID SHE SAY SHE DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A HOUSEKEEPER?
A SHE DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ONE ON THE PREMISES. I ASKED HER WHERE THE HOUSEKEEPER'S ROOM WOULD BE. SHE POINTED OUT A LOCATION TO THE REAR OF THE KITCHEN, AND AT SOME POINT, I PROCEEDED OVER THERE AND WALKED INTO THAT ROOM, THE ROOM THAT SHE STATED BELONGED TO THE HOUSEKEEPER.
Q DID YOU ASK TO SEE THE ROOM?
A I ASKED -- YES. I ASKED WHERE IT WAS.
Q AND WAS THAT THE FIRST ROOM THAT YOU WENT TO LOOK INTO IN THE HOUSE?
A NO. I WALKED THROUGH THE REAR AREA, THE I GUESS THE REAR DEN AREA AND THROUGH A FORMAL DINING ROOM AND THROUGH THE KITCHEN, OUT A SHORT HALLWAY, AND TO THE LEFT OF THAT WAS THE HOUSEMAID'S ROOM.
Q NOW, WAS ARNELLE LEADING YOU THROUGH THE HOUSE?
A SHE WAS WITH ME MORE OR LESS IN THE FRONT. INITIALLY WHEN I ASKED THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSEMAID ROOM, SHE MORE OR LESS WALKED IN FRONT OF ME AND POINTED OUT THE WAY.
Q DID YOU THEN IMMEDIATELY GO AND LOOK IN THE ROOM?
A YES.
Q WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A THE BED WAS MADE. NOTHING LOOKED DISTURBED. NOTHING LOOKED OUT OF PLACE AND NO HOUSEMAID.
Q NO HOUSEMAID?
A THAT'S CORRECT.
Q WHILE YOU LOOKED INTO THE MAID'S BEDROOM, WHERE WAS ARNELLE?
A ARNELLE WAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE KITCHEN.
Q AND WAS THERE SOMEONE WITH HER?
A DETECTIVE PHILLIPS WAS THERE AND I BELIEVE VANNATTER.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
so did lang lie in his book about Arnell UNLOCKING the door for them to enter??? he had plenty of time to think about what happened before he wrote his book.

you call her a lie because you need her to be lying to make your case about the washing machine and you are also willing to call lang a lie to accomlish this. or you say lang and vanhatter did not know what she did to get into the house.
bs
martin II


martin II, no Lange didn't lie about this, he was mistaken. The detectives assumed that Simpson's house was locked when they asked Arnelle if she had a key to open it. Arnelle got her keys and led the detectives to the rear door and let them in. They all assumed she unlocked it.

This whole thing was an embarrassment for the police and in their book Lange and Vannatter never went into any of the specifics about what Arnelle did or the washing of the sweat suit. It didn't really come to light until the civil trial when Petrocelli figured it out based on the detailed information he learned from the depositions.

Even Petrocelli never jumped on this in court probably because the police had screwed it up and there was no evidence except the video tape, so he avoided it again not to embarrass the LAPD.

You have things backwards. I don't call Arnelle a liar because I made up this story about the washing machine. I call Arnelle a liar because her version was contradicted by four detectives and Kato Kaelin. All who had no reason to lie about this. Arnelle had every reason to lie, to hide her involvement in destroying evidence.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, no Lange didn't lie about this, he was mistaken. The detectives assumed that Simpson's house was locked when they asked Arnelle if she had a key to open it. Arnelle got her keys and led the detectives to the rear door and let them in. They all assumed she unlocked it.

This whole thing was an embarrassment for the police and in their book Lange and Vannatter never went into any of the specifics about what Arnelle did or the washing of the sweat suit. It didn't really come to light until the civil trial when Petrocelli figured it out based on the detailed information he learned from the depositions.

Even Petrocelli never jumped on this in court probably because the police had screwed it up and there was no evidence except the video tape, so he avoided it again not to embarrass the LAPD.

You have things backwards. I don't call Arnelle a liar because I made up this story about the washing machine. I call Arnelle a liar because her version was contradicted by four detectives and Kato Kaelin. All who had no reason to lie about this. Arnelle had every reason to lie, to hide her involvement in destroying evidence.

bobaugust

bob

so lang and vanhattrer and phillips were standing next to Arnell
and they saw her unlock the door to gain entrance and you say they don't know what they saw.

Not believalbe at all regardless of what that web site of yours say.
martinII

[martin II]

BOB

Petrocelli did not figure anything out.

1. three cops said arnel went back inside her room and got some keys. they walked next to her to a door and she UNLOCKED the door with the keys in her hand.

they say it was a back door. you say it was a back door, but the back door you say they entered CANNOT be opened with a key and it was closed.


Arnell said they entered by the front door when she punched in the key pad and used the keys to unlock the door.

so you belive they went in the back door but you don;t belive the cops when they say they saw her use keys to unlock the door.

the other problem is on the back side of the house there were a set of french doors with locks inside but the locks were at the top of the doors. the other doors 3-4 doors on the back of the house had been nailed shut by oj after his kid had use them to get to the pool where it drowned.
so exactly what back door are you talking about.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, no Lange didn't lie about this, he was mistaken. The detectives assumed that Simpson's house was locked when they asked Arnelle if she had a key to open it. Arnelle got her keys and led the detectives to the rear door and let them in. They all assumed she unlocked it.

This whole thing was an embarrassment for the police and in their book Lange and Vannatter never went into any of the specifics about what Arnelle did or the washing of the sweat suit. It didn't really come to light until the civil trial when Petrocelli figured it out based on the detailed information he learned from the depositions.

Even Petrocelli never jumped on this in court probably because the police had screwed it up and there was no evidence except the video tape, so he avoided it again not to embarrass the LAPD.

You have things backwards. I don't call Arnelle a liar because I made up this story about the washing machine. I call Arnelle a liar because her version was contradicted by four detectives and Kato Kaelin. All who had no reason to lie about this. Arnelle had every reason to lie, to hide her involvement in destroying evidence.

bobaugust

bob
it seems in your world the police NEVER LIE for any reason at any time to anyone and they especially DO NOT lie on the witness stand.
MARTIN II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

so lang and vanhattrer and phillips were standing next to Arnell
and they saw her unlock the door to gain entrance and you say they don't know what they saw.

Not believalbe at all regardless of what that web site of yours say.
martinII


martin II, you're comments only show the excuses you continue to use to plead ignorance.

Arnelle opened the door for the detectives while they were most likely standing behind her. They would not have seen what she did to open it, only that she had gotten a key and then opened the door. They all assumed she unlocked the door. At that time none of them realized that the rear door could only be locked and unlocked from the inside.

The reality of testimony from four detectives and Kato Kaelin tell us what happened no matter how much you want to ignore it.

None of the detectives had any reason to lie about this supposedly insignificant fact since no one accused Arnelle of washing Simpson's sweat suit in the criminal trial. And if you think that the four detectives for some unknown reason conspired to lie, what about Kato Kaelin? Kaelin was a Simpson supported in the criminal trial, a prosecution hostile witness. Kaelin would have no reason to lie when he testified that he saw Arnelle let the three detectives into Simpson's house through the rear door.

My web site that I directed you to read is simply a copy of the six witnesses testimony from the transcripts. Your comment that it's not believable is just another lame excuse from you to avoid the reality of what these witnesses tell us happened.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob

you say gig usually parked her car near the ashford gate.
Arnel testified that gig usually perked her car next to the garage.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
BOB

Petrocelli did not figure anything out.

1. three cops said arnel went back inside her room and got some keys. they walked next to her to a door and she UNLOCKED the door with the keys in her hand.

they say it was a back door. you say it was a back door, but the back door you say they entered CANNOT be opened with a key and it was closed.


Arnell said they entered by the front door when she punched in the key pad and used the keys to unlock the door.

so you belive they went in the back door but you don;t belive the cops when they say they saw her use keys to unlock the door.

the other problem is on the back side of the house there were a set of french doors with locks inside but the locks were at the top of the doors. the other doors 3-4 doors on the back of the house had been nailed shut by oj after his kid had use them to get to the pool where it drowned.
so exactly what back door are you talking about.
martin II



martin II, you are either purposely playing dumb or you are very confused.

There is only one rear door that is being discussed. The door just outside Simpson's laundry room.

The police did not lie, they were mistaken. Once again they assumed that the house was locked. Since Arnelle got the keys to the house and went to the rear door and entered, they assumed she had unlocked it.

All three detectives testified that Arnelle opened the rear door and they all walked in the house through that door. They even testified what rooms they walked into to get to the housekeepers room and the kitchen.

Fuhrman testified that he and Kaelin followed the detectives into the open rear door and Fuhrman then tells what room he went into.

Kaelin testified that he saw Arnelle let the three detectives into the rear door and he and Fuhrman followed them in.

Arnelle Simpson was impeached by these five witnesses and the fact that no alarm went off when they entered that door. There was no key pad near that door for Arnelle to have turned the alarm off or on. The fact that door can only be locked or unlocked from inside is more proof that Arnelle was in the house before the police arrived. The fact that Arnelle never even told the detectives that Gigi was not home is more proof of her incriminating involvement.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

you say gig usually parked her car near the ashford gate.
Arnel testified that gig usually perked her car next to the garage.
martin II


martin II,

July 20, 1995

MR. DARDEN: When you left that Friday night, did you leave by walking down the Rockingham driveway?
MS. GUARIN: No.
MR. DARDEN: Where was your car parked that night?
MS. GUARIN: At Ashford.
MR. DARDEN: On Ashford on the street?
MS. GUARIN: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: It wasn't parked up against the garage door?
MS. GUARIN: Against the garage, no.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And Ashford, that's where the Defendant usually parked the Bronco; is that correct?
MS. GUARIN: It's a big--yeah, he usually park it by there.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
it seems in your world the police NEVER LIE for any reason at any time to anyone and they especially DO NOT lie on the witness stand.
MARTIN II



martin II, everybody lies. But if you lie on the witness stand under oath you are subject to the penalties of law.

How do we know when someone lies under oath. When what they testified to is contradicted by other witnesses or by the known evidence.

The detectives in this case never lied under oath. Nothing they testified to was ever contradicted by other witnesses or by the known evidence. Just because you are suspicious of what they said is not proof that they lied, only proof that you continue to make lame excuses to avoid the reality of what was said.

The only witnesses who were found to be lying in this case was Mark Fuhrman when he told an irrelevant lie about never saying the "n" word in the last ten years. Arnelle Simpson who lied to cover up her involvement in destroying evidence. Her testimony was contradicted by five other witnesses and the evidence that they testified to.

And the biggest liar of them all, Orenthal James Simpson who was contradicted by many witnesses, including defense witnesses. Impeached by telephone records, authenticated photographs, and a defense doctor's notes.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob

well look at this

lang, phillip and i think vanhatter testified that they observed Arnell go to her room and come out with keys in her hand.
they all said she and them walked up to a back door. ( that was their lie) but at any rate they said to a back door and she UNLOCKED the door. since this is in their testimony you cannot change this. so what do you say. oh, all three THOUGHT she unlocked the door even though they said they were standing next to her at the door. you ignore that the french doors were locked from inside and the other 3-4 doors had been nailed closed by oj long before.
so their testimony about going into the back door is contridicted by Arnells testiony that they all went into the house by the front door. so you just call Arnell a lie. you them fall into the theory of petrocelli to try and say A rnell had gone into the house before the cops arrived to try to find a way to say she used the washing machine.
the cops did not go in through the french doors, they did not go in through the doors that were nailed closed. so what back door did they go in.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II,

July 20, 1995

MR. DARDEN: When you left that Friday night, did you leave by walking down the Rockingham driveway?
MS. GUARIN: No.
MR. DARDEN: Where was your car parked that night?
MS. GUARIN: At Ashford.
MR. DARDEN: On Ashford on the street?
MS. GUARIN: Yes.
MR. DARDEN: It wasn't parked up against the garage door?
MS. GUARIN: Against the garage, no.
MR. DARDEN: Okay. And Ashford, that's where the Defendant usually parked the Bronco; is that correct?
MS. GUARIN: It's a big--yeah, he usually park it by there.

bobaugust

bob
look at arnells criminal testimony under direct by cochran and see if she says ggi usually parks her car in front of the garage
martinII

[martin II]

bob
darden asked gig where she parked her car THAT FRIDAY . not where she usually parks it.


MS. CLARK: Okay. What--do you have any way of knowing when Gigi is on or off the premises other than seeing her there?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MS. CLARK: And what is that?

MS. SIMPSON: Her car.

MS. CLARK: Okay. Does she always bring her car to the house?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Does she always park it in the same place?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Where is that?

MS. SIMPSON: In the driveway right kind of where the garage is, right in front of the garage.

MS. CLARK: So she parks it inside the gate when she's there?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

well look at this

lang, phillip and i think vanhatter testified that they observed Arnell go to her room and come out with keys in her hand.
they all said she and them walked up to a back door. ( that was their lie) but at any rate they said to a back door and she UNLOCKED the door. since this is in their testimony you cannot change this. so what do you say. oh, all three THOUGHT she unlocked the door even though they said they were standing next to her at the door. you ignore that the french doors were locked from inside and the other 3-4 doors had been nailed closed by oj long before.
so their testimony about going into the back door is contridicted by Arnells testiony that they all went into the house by the front door. so you just call Arnell a lie. you them fall into the theory of petrocelli to try and say A rnell had gone into the house before the cops arrived to try to find a way to say she used the washing machine.
the cops did not go in through the french doors, they did not go in through the doors that were nailed closed. so what back door did they go in.
martin II



martin II, did you even read the testimony by the five witnesses who contradict Arnelle's story? I suggest you do so before making unsupported false accusations.

http://www.bobaugust.com/arnelle.htm

Three detectives accompanied Arnelle when she let them in the house through the rear door, Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter. None of these detectives said they saw Arnelle unlock the rear door, they just testified that's what they believed she did.

Mark Fuhrman testified that he and Kaelin followed the detectives into Simpson's house through the open rear door.

Kato Kaelin testified that he actually saw Arnelle leading the detectives with a key and he said he saw Arnelle go into the house through the rear door. Kaelin said he and Fuhrman followed them into the house.

Your claim that the detectives lied is false. The only liar here was Arnelle Simpson. The four detectives had no reason to lie over this minor detail, it didn't help their case against Simpson to say they went in the back door. Kato Kaelin had no reason to lie about this. At the time of his testimony Kaelin was a Simpson supporter who was declared a hostile witness by the prosecution.

There is no question that Arnelle let the detectives into her father's house through the back door. The proven liar here is Arnelle Simpson who lied to cover up her involvement in destroying evidence when she washed her father's sweat suit and the mistake she made when she left the house by unlocking the rear door and never turning the house alarm back on. Arnelle's fabrication is contradicted by five witnesses and the evidence that was found in Simpson's laundry room.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob
darden asked gig where she parked her car THAT FRIDAY . not where she usually parks it.


MS. CLARK: Does she always park it in the same place?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.

MS. CLARK: Where is that?

MS. SIMPSON: In the driveway right kind of where the garage is, right in front of the garage.

MS. CLARK: So she parks it inside the gate when she's there?

MS. SIMPSON: Yes.



martin II, you're missing the point as usual.

The fact is that when Arnelle Simpson returned to Rockingham early Sunday morning she would have noticed that Gigi's car was not parked on Ashford when she entered the Ashford gate. She would have noticed that Gigi's car was not parked on the driveway when she parked her car behind the Bentley.

Simpson would also have told Arnelle that Gigi wasn't due back until later in the day when he most likely called her about an hour before the police arrived and instructed her to wash his clothing in his washing machine.

When the police arrived and asked Arnelle about the housekeeper, she told the police she didn't know if Gigi was in the house. Just additional evidence that supports the claim that Arnelle lied to cover up her involvement in destroying incriminating evidence.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, did you even read the testimony by the five witnesses who contradict Arnelle's story? I suggest you do so before making unsupported false accusations.

http://www.bobaugust.com/arnelle.htm

Three detectives accompanied Arnelle when she let them in the house through the rear door, Phillips, Lange, and Vannatter. None of these detectives said they saw Arnelle unlock the rear door, they just testified that's what they believed she did.

Mark Fuhrman testified that he and Kaelin followed the detectives into Simpson's house through the open rear door.

Kato Kaelin testified that he actually saw Arnelle leading the detectives with a key and he said he saw Arnelle go into the house through the rear door. Kaelin said he and Fuhrman followed them into the house.

Your claim that the detectives lied is false. The only liar here was Arnelle Simpson. The four detectives had no reason to lie over this minor detail, it didn't help their case against Simpson to say they went in the back door. Kato Kaelin had no reason to lie about this. At the time of his testimony Kaelin was a Simpson supporter who was declared a hostile witness by the prosecution.

There is no question that Arnelle let the detectives into her father's house through the back door. The proven liar here is Arnelle Simpson who lied to cover up her involvement in destroying evidence when she washed her father's sweat suit and the mistake she made when she left the house by unlocking the rear door and never turning the house alarm back on. Arnelle's fabrication is contradicted by five witnesses and the evidence that was found in Simpson's laundry room.

bobaugust

bob
we have been over the swear suite before. i think fung took a picture of a suite he found in a washer. tossed the suite back into the washer and ignored it. he came back a few days/weeks looking for it and there was no sweat suite. so no sweat suite means no sweat suite. no sweatr suite means no sweat suite to compare those blue fibers to.would you agree?
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
we have been over the swear suite before. i think fung took a picture of a suite he found in a washer. tossed the suite back into the washer and ignored it. he came back a few days/weeks looking for it and there was no sweat suite. so no sweat suite means no sweat suite. no sweatr suite means no sweat suite to compare those blue fibers to.would you agree?
martin II


martin II, what does that have to do with Arnelle and what she did?

That's the subject begin discussed here. The fact is that it was Arnelle's clothing in the washing machine along with the dark colored sweat suit. It was Arnelle's laundry basket found in the laundry room. That's what Gigi testified to.

The fact is that Kato Kaelin turned on the house alarm at about 11:40 PM the previous night when Simpson called him from the airport, gave him the alarm code, and instructed him how to turn it on.

The fact is that when Arnelle let the detectives in the house through the rear door the next morning, no alarm went off and there was no way Arnelle could have turned the alarm off at that door. That tells us someone had to have been in the house before the police arrived. Someone who had a key to the house. Someone who knew the alarm code.

The fact that Arnelle lied saying that the reason she supposedly led the detectives around the house to the front door was so that she could turn the house alarm off before they entered.

The fact that later it was found that rear door could only be locked and unlocked from the inside tells us that when Arnelle was in the house before the police arrived to wash the clothing, she had turned the house alarm off but left the house through the rear door across from her room. She never turned the house alarm back on. That was the mistake she made that tells us she was the one who washed her clothing and Simpson's sweat suit. Arnelle lied to cover that up.

You either believe the four detectives and Kato Kaelin or you believe Arnelle. The four detectives had no reason to lie about this. Kato Kaelin had no reason to lie about this. Arnelle had plenty of reasons to lie.

No, Fung did not take a picture of the sweat suit. The police found the clothing in Simpson's washing machine when they conducted a search of the house Monday afternoon. Dennis Fung was shown the clothing and he examined it and the washing machine for blood but found none. The police didn't know at that time that Simpson had been wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders, they only knew what clothing Simpson told them he had been wearing and he lied to them. So the sweat suit was never collected but all of the clothing was video taped when the laundry room was video taped.

That video taping was done by Willie Ford who video taped Simpson's house for insurance purposes.

I agree that because the sweat suit was never collected it couldn't have been examined for fibers. But the fact is that the sweat suit was cotton and dark colored.. The fibers from the killer's clothing found all over Goldman's shirt, on Simpson's right hand glove, and on Simpson's socks were blue black cotton fibers that came from clothing that would look black. The fibers themselves tie Simpson to the murders.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob

how did Kato know that the sweart suite he remembers oj wearing was in fact all cotton. did he examine it.
martin II

[martin II]

netta
sweat suites can come in

cotton
50 poly 50 cotton
65/35
70/30
poly/rayon
poly/nylon
silk
acetate/nylon
etc
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

how did Kato know that the sweart suite he remembers oj wearing was in fact all cotton. did he examine it.
martin II


martin II, Kaelin testified at the grand jury that to his best recollection the dark sweat suit was cotton. Did he know for sure? No. But again Kaelin wasn't trying to intentionally say anything that was damaging to Simpson, he was only telling the truth of what he remembered.

No one knew at that time what fibers would later be found.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, Kaelin testified at the grand jury that to his best recollection the dark sweat suit was cotton. Did he know for sure? No. But again Kaelin wasn't trying to intentionally say anything that was damaging to Simpson, he was only telling the truth of what he remembered.

No one knew at that time what fibers would later be found.

bobaugust
bob

Kato was making a guess about the fiber content of the clothing he thinks he remembers oj wearing.
kato is not a fabric expert and did not testify as one.
if one wants to know the origin of the fibers one needs to have the item of clothing in hand to prove that the clothing was the source. otherwise one would be just guessing or making stuff up.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

bob

Kato was making a guess about the fiber content of the clothing he thinks he remembers oj wearing.
kato is not a fabric expert and did not testify as one.
if one wants to know the origin of the fibers one needs to have the item of clothing in hand to prove that the clothing was the source. otherwise one would be just guessing or making stuff up.
martin II


martin II, no one has to be an expert in clothing to recognized a cotton sweat suit.

Kaelin didn't have to know if the sweat suit Simpson was wearing was 100% cotton or a cotton blend. To him it looked like a cotton sweat suit. I would think that even you would be able to do that.

Whether or not the sweat suit Simpson was wearing was 100% cotton or a cotton blend is irrelevant to the fact that the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's sock. That fact ties Simpson to the murders.

The fact that Kaelin saw Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders and a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders is only additional evidence that incriminates Simpson. The fact that Simpson would not even admit he was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders is also just additional evidence that incriminates Simpson.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, no one has to be an expert in clothing to recognized a cotton sweat suit.

Kaelin didn't have to know if the sweat suit Simpson was wearing was 100% cotton or a cotton blend. To him it looked like a cotton sweat suit. I would think that even you would be able to do that.

Whether or not the sweat suit Simpson was wearing was 100% cotton or a cotton blend is irrelevant to the fact that the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's sock. That fact ties Simpson to the murders.

The fact that Kaelin saw Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders and a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the day after the murders is only additional evidence that incriminates Simpson. The fact that Simpson would not even admit he was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders is also just additional evidence that incriminates Simpson.

bobaugust

bob
what i think is that without the sweat suite we have rely on Katos memory of what he thinks he saw and what he guessed the suite fibers were made of.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
what i think is that without the sweat suite we have rely on Katos memory of what he thinks he saw and what he guessed the suite fibers were made of.
martin II



martin II, what I think is that you're just posting excuses again to avoid the reality that the same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove, were also found on Simpson's socks.

That tells us the that the killer was wearing dark colored cotton clothing.

There was nothing wrong with Kaelin's memory. He testified on June 17, 1994 five days after the murders that when he and Simpson went to McDonalds the night of the murders Simpson was wearing a dark outfit, like a sweat outfit, a sweat suit type outfit with long sleeves and long pants. To the best of his recollection it was like cotton, like a sweat shirt.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, what I think is that you're just posting excuses again to avoid the reality that the same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove, were also found on Simpson's socks.

That tells us the that the killer was wearing dark colored cotton clothing.

There was nothing wrong with Kaelin's memory. He testified on June 17, 1994 five days after the murders that when he and Simpson went to McDonalds the night of the murders Simpson was wearing a dark outfit, like a sweat outfit, a sweat suit type outfit with long sleeves and long pants. To the best of his recollection it was like cotton, like a sweat shirt.

bobaugust

bob
i doubt that Kato sitting in the Bently with oj, looked at him and thought, oj has on a cotton sweat suite.

i think his statement about his ASSUMPTION or GUESS of what the fiber content "cotton" was , is just a assumption he made about atheletic ware.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
i doubt that Kato sitting in the Bently with oj, looked at him and thought, oj has on a cotton sweat suite.

i think his statement about his ASSUMPTION or GUESS of what the fiber content "cotton" was , is just a assumption he made about atheletic ware.
martin II


martin II, your doubts are only excuses you use to ignore the reality of the evidence.

Simpson came to Kaelin's room and asked him if he had change for the skycap and then Kaelin invited himself to dinner with Simpson. They walked to his Bentley, drove to McDonalds shortly after 9:00 returning after 9:30.

Kaelin spent over a half an hour with Simpson when he was wearing that sweat suit. Enough time for it leave an impression in Kaelin's mind as to what it looked like and what kind of material he thought it was made of.

I have no idea why this is so important to you since the fibers themselves are the physical evidence that ties Simpson to the murders. The fact that Kaelin remembered Simpson wearing clothing that is consistent with those fibers only adds to the credibility of what the fiber evidence proves. The fact that the dark colored sweat suit was found freshly washed in Simpson's washing machine the afternoon after the murders supports Kaelin's memory.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, your doubts are only excuses you use to ignore the reality of the evidence.

Simpson came to Kaelin's room and asked him if he had change for the skycap and then Kaelin invited himself to dinner with Simpson. They walked to his Bentley, drove to McDonalds shortly after 9:00 returning after 9:30.

Kaelin spent over a half an hour with Simpson when he was wearing that sweat suit. Enough time for it leave an impression in Kaelin's mind as to what it looked like and what kind of material he thought it was made of.

I have no idea why this is so important to you since the fibers themselves are the physical evidence that ties Simpson to the murders. The fact that Kaelin remembered Simpson wearing clothing that is consistent with those fibers only adds to the credibility of what the fiber evidence proves. The fact that the dark colored sweat suit was found freshly washed in Simpson's washing machine the afternoon after the murders supports Kaelin's memory.

bobaugust

bob
in his testimony Kato had difficulty remembering which Mc Donalds he and oj went to.

no sweat suite no proof. no proof no cookie for you.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob
in his testimony Kato had difficulty remembering which Mc Donalds he and oj went to.

no sweat suite no proof. no proof no cookie for you.
martin II


martin II, your comments are irrelevant.

The proof is the fiber evidence. The fact that Kaelin testified Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders, the fact that a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found in Simpson's washing machine the afternoon after the murders, and the fact that Simpson and Arnelle lied to hide these facts confirm what the physical evidence tells us.

Evidently you understand what the reasonable inferences from the facts in this case tell us so you make up excuses to ignore the facts by making irrelevant comments. Good job of deceiving yourself martin.

bobaugust

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by martin II


it means that hotwater said goldmans was off subject or something close to that. so why are you pouring gas on that subject. if i answer you will be right back with something else.
so i am finished with it. and you should consider doing the same
martin II

She didn't say we couldn't discuss them, she was referring to the types of some of the comments made.

But yes we can finish the subject, and I'll continue to take your response as that you don't know.

I asked you an innocent question and your nothing but defensive and i don't get how come. but oh well.

[martin II]

Originally posted by Happy Chic


She didn't say we couldn't discuss them, she was referring to the types of some of the comments made.

But yes we can finish the subject, and I'll continue to take your response as that you don't know.

I asked you an innocent question and your nothing but defensive and i don't get how come. but oh well.

Happy chic
If you think it is ok to ignore the moderators warning, then just continue posting about it.
i have dropped the subject.
martin II

[Happy Chic]

Originally posted by martin II


Happy chic
If you think it is ok to ignore the moderators warning, then just continue posting about it.
i have dropped the subject.
martin II

And again, YOU DON"T KNOW.

You ignore all the time. just look how you still quote all of a persons post and that's a big no-no. so you mind yours alright.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by Happy Chic


And again, YOU DON"T KNOW.

You ignore all the time. just look how you still quote all of a persons post and that's a big no-no. so you mind yours alright.

Happy Chic,

The best thing to do when it comes to Martin/RR2 is to pay no mind. He will forever tell you that a subject is closed with him when he realizes that he doesn't have the pertinent information to back up one of his statements, and if you probe further he will accuse you of always wanting to spar with him.

Everyone here on this forum knows who he is and how he interacts. His futile attemps to sound remotely intelligent and mature are very much scoffed at by the majority here. However, you may enjoy posing questions to Netta. He is a "not guilty" and debates very well.

Continue to ask the questions that you seek, you may even do so in a PM to one of us so that you do not have to deal with his continued hostility on the forum. Let me know if you need any help with anything.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Why didn't he use the Bronco for the trip to McDonalds?

He told Police, it was his preferred vehicle.. When he returned from the Recital about 7pm in his Bentley. He said, he got in his Bronco and went to Paulas.. He returned home set with Kato and talked to some people on the phone!


nettathirty, Simpson's lies and explanations are confusing you. Why didn't Simpson use his Bronco to go to McDonalds at about 9:00 that night? Only Simpson knows, but maybe he didn't want to use it because he may have already put his hat, glove and knife in it.

January 26, 1996
Q: The first call that you made on your cell phone after the recital was at 10:03. Is that true?
A: That's correct.
Q: And your testimony during this deposition was that you had begun walking out to your car, and before you even reached your car you decided that you were not going to drive down to Paula Barbieri's. Is that true?
A: That's correct.
Q: When you say, lines 18, 19, 20, Then -- then I came home, and then I called Paula as I was going to her house and Paula wasn't home," that's inaccurate?
A: Well, it depends how you interpret it. At the time I was running two days together, but I did call her as I was going to her house. I tried her on my phone at home. I gather there was -- her machine was on. And at that point if she wasn't home, I didn't -- I couldn't--I didn't know where to go find Paula. I've never found Paula anywhere except at her house, so I decided not to go.
Q: Well if taken literally and you called her after the recital on your cell phone as you were going to her house, that would have been at 10:03. True?
A: No, that's inaccurate.
Q: Well the first call you made to her on your cell phone after the recital was at 10:03. Is that true?
A: Well, as I told you, I was putting a few things together, a few nights were running together, Saturday night, Sunday night was running together, and if you look at my cell phone records, you will see at roughly this time on Saturday, as I was going to Paula's house, I called her.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Bob,

The 3rd paragraph contradicts your entire claim. The laundry was never collected nor tested to see if the fibers matched those found on (Goldmans shirt or the questionable sock)..




nettathirty, I think you're confused again. I have no idea what you think I said here that contradicts anything else I've said.

Yes the dark colored sweat suit was not collected so that the fibers could not be compared to it but that has nothing to do with the fact that Kaelin saw Simpson wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders.

It has nothing to with the fact that a dark colored sweat suit was found freshly washed in Simpson's washing machine the afternoon after the murders.

It has nothing to do with the fact that the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove were also found on Simpson's socks.

So what's your point?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Bob,

I thought he claimed he went to Paula's after the recital, and then called her at 10:03p from his driveway!


nettathirty, this is just another example of the lies and fabrications Simpson told to trying to hide what he did.

Read Simpson's testimony again that I just posted. That's exactly the point Petrocelli was making when he referred to Simpson's previous testimony that he got in his car and called Paula after the recital. Petrocelli was pointing out that the only call to Paula made on Simpson's car phone after the recital was at 10:03 PM.

Simpson's answer was that he was running different days together.

Simpson told many lies under oath.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Originally posted by bobaugust

*SNIPPED*

Simpson wearing clothing that is consistent with those fibers only adds to the credibility of what the fiber evidence proves.


This is misleading and you know it!


nettathirty, no it's not misleading. It's called reasonable inferences based on the facts.

The fact is that Kaelin testified that Simpson was wearing a dark colored (black) cotton sweat suit the night of the murders and a freshly washed dark colored sweat suit was found the next afternoon in Simpson's washing machine. It's not unreasonable to understand that the dark colored sweat suit found in Simpson's washing machine was what Simpson was wearing when he went to Bundy the night before.

The fact is that the same blue black cotton fibers found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove were found on Simpson's sock. That evidence ties Simpson to the murders.

The fact is that the appearance of those blue black cotton fibers in a piece of fabric would be black.

The fact is that the clothing Kaelin saw Simpson wearing the night of the murders is consistent with the fibers that were found that ties Simpson to the murders.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty




Bob,

The empty swiss army knife box in OJs bathroom?
The Dark Colored Sweat Suit in the washing machine?

Items LE left at Rockingham during there investigation into the murders. How does "reasonable inferences" apply to this?



nettathirty, I already explained the reasonable inferences regarding the dark colored sweat suit.

When the police searched Simpson's house the afternoon after the murders they didn't know that Simpson had been wearing that sweat suit the night of the murders. Dennis Fung examined the freshly washed sweat suit and the washing machine for blood but none was found. So the sweat suit wasn't collected. But it was video taped.

A couple of weeks later the police realized the significance of that clothing and a second search warrant was issued to go back to Rockingham and get it. But it was gone.

A reasonable inference would be that Simpson was wearing that dark colored sweat suit when he killed both Ron and Nicole.

The empty Swiss Army Knife box was found on the edge of Simpson's bathtub in his master bathroom during the search of his house the afternoon after the murders. At the time of the murders Simpson was a board member of the Forschner Group and had attended a board meeting on June 9, 1994. Simpson left that meeting with a bag full of free items, several of which were knives.

Mark Fuhrman did an investigation into the different kinds of Swiss Army knives that the Forschner Group imported. Fuhrman found that one of the top of the line Swiss Army Knives Forschner imported was a lockback knife with a single edge 3 1/2 inch locking blade. Based on the length and the thickness of the blade it was consistent with making every wound on both victims. The same size knife that would have fit into the empty Swiss Army Knife box found in Simpson's bathroom.

No one seems to know what happened to that empty Swiss Army Knife box. It evidently wasn't collected but it was photographed when crime scene photographs were taken of Simpson's bathroom.

As to reasonable inferences, only possibilities. That empty Swiss Army Knife box may have once contained the murder weapon that Simpson used when he killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[martin II]

netta

since no blood was found on the sweat suite when fung examined it the day after the murder, one could conclude that there was no blood on it. Since the sweat suite was never found
so that it could be compared to fibers found at bundy we only have fibers found at bundy that could have come from a piece of clothing worn by the killer/s that could have been owned by anyone.imo
martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
". . .we only have fibers found at bundy that could have come from a piece of clothing worn by the killer/s. . . .' Let's go over this one more time: The matching fibers were found on Ron's shirt, the Rockingham glove, Orenthal's discarded socks. *Drum roll, please* That makes Orenthal the murderer!

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
I saw this on OC today & thought I'd post it for our poster Alien :seeya:

http://www.youtube.com/w/singing-alien?v=mumGALE9hHw&feature=Recent&page=7&t=t&f=b Love it

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Let's go over this one more time: The matching fibers were found on Ron's shirt, the Rockingham glove, Orenthal's discarded socks. *Drum roll, please* That makes Orenthal the murderer!

fbg

MATCHING FIBERS
these matching fibers you talk about were MATCHED to what.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

MATCHING FIBERS
these matching fibers you talk about were MATCHED to what.
martin II


martin II, the fibers were matched to each other.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, the fibers were matched to each other.

bobaugust
bob
i was hoping you would allow fbg to answer my post to her.

However,

The fibers were matched to each other and it appeared ( from prosecution experts) that they came from the same source/ piece of clothing. The problem still is that no one knows for a FACT, WHAT piece of clothing was the source since no clothing was ever entered into evidence verifying this. so the assumption was just that, nothing more.imo
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
i was hoping you would allow fbg to answer my post to her.

However,

The fibers were matched to each other and it appeared ( from prosecution experts) that they came from the same source/ piece of clothing. The problem still is that no one knows for a FACT, WHAT piece of clothing was the source since no clothing was ever entered into evidence verifying this. so the assumption was just that, nothing more.imo
martin II



martin II, it seems you still keep avoiding the reality of the fiber evidence. As Socaldiva explained to you, the possession of the source of the fibers is not necessary. Where these fibers were found is the relevant evidence.

The fact is that the same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove were found on Simpson's socks. You don't have to be a forensic genius to understand what that means. The relevant fact is that they were all the same fibers. The reasonable inference is based on where they were found they most likely came from the killer's clothing and ties Simpson to the murders.

I have no doubt that you too understand this only you just can't admit it so you keep talking about the irrelevant fact that the fibers were never matched to Simpson's clothing. Just another lame excuse by you to avoid the reality of the incriminating fiber evidence.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, it seems you still keep avoiding the reality of the fiber evidence. As Socaldiva explained to you, the possession of the source of the fibers is not necessary. Where these fibers were found is the relevant evidence.

The fact is that the same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt and on the killer's right hand glove were found on Simpson's socks. You don't have to be a forensic genius to understand what that means. The relevant fact is that they were all the same fibers. The reasonable inference is based on where they were found they most likely came from the killer's clothing and ties Simpson to the murders.

I have no doubt that you too understand this only you just can't admit it so you keep talking about the irrelevant fact that the fibers were never matched to Simpson's clothing. Just another lame excuse by you to avoid the reality of the incriminating fiber evidence.

bobaugust

your reasonable inferances, and most likely came from ------and proberbly,
was not believed by the great jury of 12 LA citizens. this is just your way of tring to make non facts into truth.
martinII

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


your reasonable inferances, and most likely came from ------and proberbly,
was not believed by the great jury of 12 LA citizens. this is just your way of tring to make non facts into truth.
martinII



martin II, that's not correct, but funny.

There is no evidence that the criminal trail jury ever considered or even understood the fiber evidence.

These facts were not made up, the fibers were legitimate incriminating evidence. Your opinion of why and what the criminal trial jury believed is irrelevant. Just more lame excuses from you to avoid the truth.

bobaugust

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust




martin II, that's not correct, but funny.

There is no evidence that the criminal trail jury ever considered or even understood the fiber evidence.

These facts were not made up, the fibers were legitimate incriminating evidence. Your opinion of why and what the criminal trial jury believed is irrelevant. Just more lame excuses from you to avoid the truth.

bobaugust

bob

the jury heard more evidence and saw more witness testimony in person than you did.
Their decision is forever cast in the court record. the jury forperson explained in detail how they came to their decision. i think it was posted a few pages back by wukong or another poster. her statements said it all. you should read it again.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II


bob

the jury heard more evidence and saw more witness testimony in person than you did.
Their decision is forever cast in the court record. the jury forperson explained in detail how they came to their decision. i think it was posted a few pages back by wukong or another poster. her statements said it all. you should read it again.
martin II



martin II, I don't have to read it again to understand how the criminal trial jurors came to their decision. I'm not really concerned with their decision. It was irrelevant Simpson's guilt or innocence. I'm concerned with the truth of these murders not the criminal trial jurors interpretation and ignorance of the evidence.

The civil trial jury understood the evidence that proved Simpson was the killer and they had the advantage in watching and listening to Simpson tell all his lies and fabrications, confirming his guilt.

The evidence is the evidence It does not change. Most people understand it, some people do not. Reasonable people understand the truth of these murders, Simpson apologists with other agendas other than the truth use excuses to deny the truth of these murders.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob

Considering the level of vengence required by a great deal of americans to make that sob pay using any means possible, it was not unusual to see the civil trial judge set the paramaters of what evidence would be allowed so as to stack the deck against the defendant. Put that with some twisted testimony from plaintiff witnesses and one would not be surprised to see that THAT jury would find oj liable.

There was absolutely no way that THAT jury would have been able to leave their emotions at home and come to a different verdict. imo
martin II:)

[weepy willa]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
IIRC, Kato died back in 2004. I don't remember any of the particulars about where he'd lived up to that point, just remember something about him dying.

If only that dog could talk.I think O.J.banished Kato to Nicole's parents house . I also believe that the only reason someone did'nt go into Emergency at a hospital,with a dog attached to their behind that night ,is because Kato knew the killer.

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

how did Kato know that the sweart suite he remembers oj wearing was in fact all cotton. did he examine it.
martin II

What does this got to do with anything regarding the murders of Nicole and Ron? I cannot believe the amount of bandwidth you waste everyday with your assinine questions, of which this is one. Also, how many times do you have to be told about Hotwater's request of NOT posting the WHOLE post? What part of "snipped" don't you understand?

JMO and MOO!!

:no:

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by weepy willa

If only that dog could talk.I think O.J.banished Kato to Nicole's parents house . I also believe that the only reason someone did'nt go into Emergency at a hospital,with a dog attached to their behind that night ,is because Kato knew the killer.

BINGO!! This is how I have felt all along. Kato knew the killer and that is why OJ walked out of there without so much as a scratch or bite from Kato. Anyone else would have been at the ER nursing their wounds (no pun intended).

JMO and MOO!!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

Considering the level of vengence required by a great deal of americans to make that sob pay using any means possible, it was not unusual to see the civil trial judge set the paramaters of what evidence would be allowed so as to stack the deck against the defendant. Put that with some twisted testimony from plaintiff witnesses and one would not be surprised to see that THAT jury would find oj liable.

There was absolutely no way that THAT jury would have been able to leave their emotions at home and come to a different verdict. imo
martin II:)


martin II, more excuses from you. In the civil trial the judge only allowed legitimate evidence and supported arguments. He disallowed all of the unsupported, fantasy excuses the defense got away with in the criminal trial. If Simpson's attorneys had any evidence to back up their claims they could have presented it. They didn't.

If the deck was stacked Simpson it's because the truth was stacked against the liar Simpson. All of the relevant physical evidence pointed to Simpson and only Simpson. Nothing pointed to anyone else, nothing eliminated Simpson.

Simpson tried lying his way through the civil trial and he was contradicted and impeached. The truth is that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. That's what the evidence proved and that's what Simpson lied about to hide. The civil trial jury deliberated the evidence in this case for eight days and came to the unanimous decision that Simpson was proved to have killed both Ron and Nicole.

I agree, knowing what the civil trial jury knew and what we all know now there was no way that jury could have come up with any other verdict. A killer was exposed for all to see.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Martin II

I agree the Civil Trial, was the real "Travesty of Justice" it should never have been!

imo jmo jmho


nettathirty, that's funny coming from someone like you who at the very least believes Simpson was a despicable criminal.

You too use only excuses to avoid the truth that Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty




Mr August

I have never make any such claim, sir!



nettathirty, sure you have.

You keep telling us how you believe Simpson went to Bundy, saw the dead bodies, never called the police or notified anyone, and left his two small children sleeping in their room to awake and find their slaughtered mom, while he ran off to the airport to fly to Chicago to play in a golf tournament.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob

If oj went to bundy after the fact.
you are appealing to peoples emotions with your post and you know it. it is just another opportunity for you to try to demonize oj.

If he reveived a call that his items had been left at bundy,(wagner) he had no alternative but to go there and try to retreive them and get back home and he would only have a few minutes to do it. going
up stairs to get the kids was not a option.

If he did go there after the fact, it is reasonable to expect him be be in a state of shock viewing Nicole on the ground and having a one mind purpose of getting the item/s that he could find and get the hell out of there especially if he had been told he would only have a few minutes to collect them.

It may be easy for you to try to judge how another person SHOULD react in a certain situation but we know that is just your opinion. imo
martin II

[Caje]

Simpson's Daughter Gets Community Service

"...She was arrested in January 2005 when Miami police said she repeatedly yelled profanities at officers called to Ransom Everglades School to stop a fight after a boys' basketball game against Gulliver Prep. Then 19, Simpson had already graduated from Gulliver at the time.

While being taken into custody, she slapped an officer's hand, a police report said..."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SIMPSON_DAUGHTER?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

[martin II]

netta

i was reading on another board a record of previous post. a poster offered this quesiton.

Nicole baught two or three sets of gloves from bloomingdales one or two years before the murders. i am not sure how many as i remember a person,friend, saying she gave him TWO pair for christmas. but how do we know if the other pair of these specific gloves were given to oj? forget about the football game pictures.
imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by Caje
Simpson's Daughter Gets Community Service

"...She was arrested in January 2005 when Miami police said she repeatedly yelled profanities at officers called to Ransom Everglades School to stop a fight after a boys' basketball game against Gulliver Prep. Then 19, Simpson had already graduated from Gulliver at the time.

While being taken into custody, she slapped an officer's hand, a police report said..."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SIMPSON_DAUGHTER?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

And?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Are you joking? If that had happened Orenthal would have had grounds to appeal the verdict. He didn't because what you claim happened, didn't.

The defense had an opportunity at every turn, to counter anything presented. They tried to, and failed. The truth won out.

As a matter of fact OJ did indeed appeal the verdict. He lost.

Why? He was proven to be a killer, and all of the claims that he and his attorneys made that the trial was unfair were found to be unfounded and ridiculous claims.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by weepy willa


If only that dog could talk.I think O.J.banished Kato to Nicole's parents house . I also believe that the only reason someone did'nt go into Emergency at a hospital,with a dog attached to their behind that night ,is because Kato knew the killer.


Having had dogs all my life, I've always felt that Kato was
an outstanding "silent witness". Although I understand it
wouldn't hold up in court, I've believed since day one that
the fact that Kato was left alive and that there weren't huge
amounts of blood stains from the killer, is just one more
commone sense item that points to OJ. That dog would
have torn apart anyone else that attacked Nicole. But OJ
was his master. Very confusing for a dog. It also explains
the frantic type of barking. The doggie version of
"what are you doing to her?, you must stop", but still
attacking his own master was just something he couldn't do.

The other common sense issue, is how many professional
killers would leave an Akita alive and risk attack by one.
Akita's are very big, very strong and I'm sure if you're in the process of attacking someone they love, very scary.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob

If oj went to bundy after the fact.
you are appealing to peoples emotions with your post and you know it. it is just another opportunity for you to try to demonize oj.

If he reveived a call that his items had been left at bundy,(wagner) he had no alternative but to go there and try to retreive them and get back home and he would only have a few minutes to do it. going
up stairs to get the kids was not a option.

If he did go there after the fact, it is reasonable to expect him be be in a state of shock viewing Nicole on the ground and having a one mind purpose of getting the item/s that he could find and get the hell out of there especially if he had been told he would only have a few minutes to collect them.

It may be easy for you to try to judge how another person SHOULD react in a certain situation but we know that is just your opinion. imo
martin II



martin II, no, it only shows how unrealistic and ridiculous Wagner's fantasy is.

Nothing about this dumb scenario is reasonable. This whole thing is stupid and so is your response tying to defend this garbage. It shows how just how hypocritical you are and that you make arguments on this discussion group only to argue. It's evident you now understand the reality that Simpson was at Bundy that night and now you're again looking for any excuse, no matter how dumb, to continue to argue that Simpson wasn't the killer.

This is not about how someone should react in some stupid fantasy, it's about how Simpson did react after he killed both Ron and Nicole.

bobaugust

[alien]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by socaldiva
[B]
Hey, Friend. Check your pm. I feeling kind of ignored. :lol:

[SirRalston]

Does anybody know anything about the video being released in Europe about Nicole and Ron's murder? Supposidly, Glen Rogers is the main suspect. I would like to get that video if possible, if anybody knows anything, I'd appreciate the info.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Bob,

How can you be this critical of someone, when you say stuff like. Witnesses who were ear shot of Bundy and heard the dog at 10:15 or 10:20 were mistaken. How the HECK is that, you weren't there, were you?

Talking about Fantasy!



nettathirty, if you bothered to read all of the testimony from all of the witnesses who told us about this event you would be able to understand some witnesses were mistaken about their estimated times.

The fact is that an inherent problem about eye witnesses is that many people can witness the same event at the same time and all of them may give conflicting information as to what they heard and saw.

There were eight witnesses called to testify about when the dog started to bark. Five of those witnesses contradicted what the other three said about estimated times. The way to know what actually happened is to learn what all of the witnesses agreed on not what they disagreed on. And then make a judgment, based on the circumstances as to where the witnesses were in relationship to the event, as to what witnesses testimony was more reliable.

Fenjves, Storfer, and Stein were in their houses. They all testified that the barking they heard was loud, unusual, persistent, and continuous. Once it started it didn't stop.

Mandel, Aaronson, Pilnak, Telander, and Heidstra were all outside. They all testified they never heard any barking at the estimated times Fenjves and Storfer gave when they though they heard a dog barking. Stein had no idea of what time she heard barking. Her time estimates were based on other time estimates.

Robert Heidstra was the most reliable witness to this event. He was outside and closest to the dog when it first stated it's loud, unusual, persistent, and non stop barking.

The problem here is that Clark locked herself into the wrong time of the murders based on the testimony from Fenjves. She was so stubborn about it that she even past over the most credible witness who witnessed events that night, Robert Heidstra. It's ironic that the defense was forced to argue the real time of the murders, using Heidstra as their witness, to contradict Clark. Heidstra was a devastating witness for the defense, testifying to events that incriminated Simpson. Petrocelli understood that and used Heidstra as a plaintiff witness in the civil trial.

Heidstra's testimony also contradicts and destroys Wagner's fantasies.

Despite Clark's insistence on using her plaintiff wailing theory, she always said that the prosecution believed the window of opportunity for the time of death was between 10:15 and 10:40.

No I wasn't there but five witnesses were there outside Nicole's condo before the murders, during the murders, and after the murders. They tell us what happened. If you don't listen to what they said then you'll continue to remain confused and wrong.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Originally posted by SirRalston
Does anybody know anything about the video being released in Europe about Nicole and Ron's murder? Supposidly, Glen Rogers is the main suspect. I would like to get that video if possible, if anybody knows anything, I'd appreciate the info.

SirRalston,

Sorry, I have not heard about this. Glen Rogers is one of the favorites of some conspiracy theorists. I wouldn't mind seeing this. Let me know if you track it down.

Wukong

[Wukong]

What the heck happened to the archived OJ board??? I just went there to find a link and it's gone! I use that archive quite often and am a little dismayed that it has been deleted:(

Hotwater Help! Answers? Reasons? Possible link to the archive? Anything!

Wukong

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by Wukong
What the heck happened to the archived OJ board??? I just went there to find a link and it's gone! I use that archive quite often and am a little dismayed that it has been deleted:(

Hotwater Help! Answers? Reasons? Possible link to the archive? Anything!

Wukong

OMG Wukong! I also used the archived board for reference and links. I am so sick and tired of having no notice; no explanation; no nothing; it's just gone! I am sorry, but I think that it is a slap in the face to all of us OJ Posters, G's and NG's alike! I am sure that this Thread is next. Want to place any bets?

:flamemad: :flamemad:

JMO and MOO!!

[starling]

Originally posted by socaldiva


And....it sounds to me like Orenthal has passed on his anger & rage onto his daughter, Sydney.


apple------------------>tree

very sad IMO

[martin II]

netta


if the dog was barking LOUD from bundy,and storfer lived on the corner of Bundy and Dorothy, what differenac does it make if Storfer was inside the house? none what so ever. storfer was no more than about 40-50 feet from nicioles condo front walkway.planka was 75 feet away and bob believes her.

the other witness that on her terrace was outside for only 2-3 minutes and heard nothing, went back inside and was in her bathroom doing personal care, blow drying her hair etc when she heard the dog barking. so if she was inside and heard the dog why is it impossible that storfer was inside and did not hear the dog at 10:20pm.

Heidstras time checking was limited to when he left home, he says at 10:15, and when he arrived back at about 11:00pm

martin II

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva
I saw this on OC today & thought I'd post it for our poster Alien :seeya:

http://www.youtube.com/w/singing-alien?v=mumGALE9hHw&feature=Recent&page=7&t=t&f=b

OMG!!!! I laughed so hard.

So much for surviving, huh? She did have my hand gestures down pretty good. :lol:

Thanks for thinking of me.

[martin II]

Originally posted by starling



apple------------------>tree

very sad IMO

the cnn story did not give any info on what the argument at the sports activity was about. Teenagers having confrontations at a game does not seem unsual to me.
was she the only person stopped by the cops as a result of this teenage argument? It is hard to tell what this was all about from the cnn story. teenagers do talk back to cops if they grab them or not.
martin II

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Hey girl. Don't feel ignored, didn't you see the SONG I posted to you on this thread the other day?

Every time I go to pm you, your box is full :( I guess you are popular :D I'll go check for this pm now.

Oppsy and sawwy!!

:o

I will clear it out now.

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I just hope our sweet Alien doesn't take the ending personal :tongue:

Definitely not personally other than to be flattered. :D

[alien]

Originally posted by socaldiva


The fibers from Bundy matched the fibers on the socks. What can't you follow? You don't need to have possession of the source of the fibers. Maybe this guy can help you:

http://www.blisterdirect.com/products/official/images/big/367-1big.jpg

OMG, woman. Where do you find these things. :D

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Mr August, lets talk confused

Mandel and Aaronson never heard any barking. Yet you use their testimony to support, Heidstras testimony! How is that? Your theory is the dog barked at 10:30p. Mandel and Aaronson passed NBS condo just or near 10:30p and NEVER HEARD THE DOG BARK!

Heidstra's testimony is very questionable at best. He was in the alley across the street from NBS condo. This has been said numerous times, and until it sinks into your (THICK SKULL) RHeidstra was not in a position to know:
a) Where the barking dog was
b) Who and were the "hey hey hey" came from or where!
c) The gate slam shut!
You seem to thank this guys estimations of time was the most accurate. Everybody elses clocks were off and his was right on time. GOOD GRIEF!

I'm not saying this guy was lying, or in on this mass conspiracy but his testimony was WRONG! From were he was in that alley across the street he could not have been sure of the origin of the sounds he said came from NBS.. Yes his testimony gives your theory credibility, but that's it! Another thang unless he was on hill that looked directly over NBS condo, his elevation gives no more advantage than mine in the LONE STAR STATE on the 12June94!


netta30



nettathirty, you're confused and wrong again.

Mandel and Aaronson tell us the murders had not been committed when they walked by the front of Nicole's condo shortly before 10:30. They never heard any dog barking during the time they were approaching Nicole's condo, or when they were in front of Nicole's condo, or when they were past Nicole's condo. They never heard or saw anything out of the ordinary. The dog started barking about five minutes later.

Maybe you should try getting it through your thick skull that Heidstra wasn't in the alley when he heard the Akita first start to bark. He was turning onto Bundy from Gorham. Heidstra said it sounded like the dog was very close, outside the gate in the street. That's why Heidstra turned around and went to the alley.

The alley Heidstra walked through was a higher elevation than Nicole's condo. Heidstra stopped opposite Nicole's condo and was looking at the red tiles of her condo's roof. Heidstra believed the two male voices he heard came from Nicole's condo and he believed he heard the front gate of Nicole's condo slamming.

No I don't believe Heidstra's time estimates were exact times, I believe that his time estimates were a few minutes earlier than the actual time. And yes the higher elevation did allow Heidstra to look down on Nicole's condo. Add the fact that the night was extremely still and quiet, as other witnesses also testified to, made it very likely that Heidstra knew exactly where the voices he heard were coming from.

Heidstra walked that street every day, he knew Nicole's condo, he knew Nicole's dog.

More bad luck for Simpson. Heidstra heard what could only have been the voice of Ron Goldman when he arrived at Bundy and yelled at Simpson. Heidstra heard what could have only been the voice of Simpson yell back. About five minutes later Heidstra saw Simpson's Bronco speed away from the murder scene. Jill Shively saw the Bronco a few minutes later and recognized Simpson.

Unless you can produce any evidence that contradicts what Heidstra testified to then your beliefs are unsupported and irrelevant. No witnesses ever came forward or was found who contradicted what Heidstra said he heard and saw that night. Heidstra was an ear and eye witness to these murders.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
netta


if the dog was barking LOUD from bundy,and storfer lived on the corner of Bundy and Dorothy, what differenac does it make if Storfer was inside the house? none what so ever. storfer was no more than about 40-50 feet from nicioles condo front walkway.planka was 75 feet away and bob believes her.

the other witness that on her terrace was outside for only 2-3 minutes and heard nothing, went back inside and was in her bathroom doing personal care, blow drying her hair etc when she heard the dog barking. so if she was inside and heard the dog why is it impossible that storfer was inside and did not hear the dog at 10:20pm.

Heidstras time checking was limited to when he left home, he says at 10:15, and when he arrived back at about 11:00pm

martin II



martin II, you're more confused then netta.

Storfer was in his house as you say 50 feet from Nicole's condo and Pilnak (not planka) was 75 feet away outside her house. If the dog was barking loud enough that Storfer thought it would wake his son at 10:20 in his house then Pilnak and Telander who were outside near the street only a little further down the block would have heard it. They never heard any dog barking. The testimony from different witnesses is that night was exceptionally still and quiet. Yet they heard nothing.

Telander got in her car and drove to the intersection of Dorothy and Bundy to turn around. She had the drivers door window open. She never heard any dog barking.

Heidstra was outside coming from the opposite direction, he never heard any dog barking at that time nor evidently did his two dogs. Mandel and Aaronson were walking towards Nicole's condo. They never heard any dog barking.

You're confused. There was no other witness who was blowing her hair. Pilnak was the witness who said that after she watched Telander drive away she went back into her house and called her mother. Her telephone records show that call was made at 10:25. That confirms that she and Telander were outside at the time Storfer estimated he heard the barking. After that telephone call Pilnak said she went into her bathroom to dry her hands and that's when she heard barking. She said it was between 10:33 and 10:35.

Heidstra's time estimates were most likely a few minutes off making it just after 10:30 when he first heard the Akita start to bark.

bobaugust

[martin II]

bob


you are on quicksand here.

you are using the idea that the dog was barking constantly when different people heard him. nothing wrong with that. BUT

dog barking CONSTANTLY only means CONSTANTLY when one person heard him. if the dog moved down the street or to dorothy where his prints were found. he could very well have stopped barking for a few minutes ( to sort of catch his brerath)
while he moved down to another spot and started barking again
so that the person in the second spot heard him barking CONSTANTLY while he was in their range and not when he was 50 feet or more in another spot.

Heidstra thinks he arived at gorham and bundy at about 10;30 up to about 10:35 and he HEARD, never saw, the dog barking and thought the sound was comming from bundy. before this he was walking down that LONG block of Gorham from Westgate.(look at the map to see how long that block is)
it is very possible that the dog could have been barking before 10:35 when Heidstra was at Gorham and Westgate and Heidstra was just too far away to hear him. imo
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by alien


OMG, woman. Where do you find these things. :D

wonder where this picture of bob august come from. hahaha
martin II

[alien]

Originally posted by martin II


wonder where this picture of bob august come from. hahaha
martin II

I think it would be a good picture of bobaugust showing his investigative skills.

[martin II]

Originally posted by alien


I think it would be a good picture of bobaugust showing his investigative skills.

like the pink panther?

[martin II]

there was on incident wiere some kids made some bad comments about nicole
martin II

[martin II]

simpson


http://www.alldeaf.com/archive/index.php/t-13680.html

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II


fbg

MATCHING FIBERS
these matching fibers you talk about were MATCHED to what.
martin II To each other -- just like the blood from Nicole, Ron and Orenthal from different locations was matched. What do you not understand about this?

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II

bob
i was hoping you would allow fbg to answer my post to her.

However,

The fibers were matched to each other and it appeared ( from prosecution experts) that they came from the same source/ piece of clothing. The problem still is that no one knows for a FACT, WHAT piece of clothing was the source since no clothing was ever entered into evidence verifying this. so the assumption was just that, nothing more.imo
martin II It's not an 'assumption' -- it's an inference. It can be inferred that fibers found on articles/persons/etc that are not in the same location have generated from the same origin -- it does not matter whether or not the original donor can be located -- the fibers still match. The fibers found at Bundy matched the fibers found at Rockingham.

[martin II]

FBG
I hope you are not talking about that sock that no one saw and then later appeared in the middle of the bedroom floor in plain sight.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
It's not an 'assumption' -- it's an inference. It can be inferred that fibers found on articles/persons/etc that are not in the same location have generated from the same origin -- it does not matter whether or not the original donor can be located -- the fibers still match. The fibers found at Bundy matched the fibers found at Rockingham.
fbg
that would be true if there had been only ONE BLUE BLACK SWEAT SUITE MADE IN THE WORLD.
martin II

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
bob


you are on quicksand here.

you are using the idea that the dog was barking constantly when different people heard him. nothing wrong with that. BUT

dog barking CONSTANTLY only means CONSTANTLY when one person heard him. if the dog moved down the street or to dorothy where his prints were found. he could very well have stopped barking for a few minutes ( to sort of catch his brerath)
while he moved down to another spot and started barking again
so that the person in the second spot heard him barking CONSTANTLY while he was in their range and not when he was 50 feet or more in another spot.

Heidstra thinks he arived at gorham and bundy at about 10;30 up to about 10:35 and he HEARD, never saw, the dog barking and thought the sound was comming from bundy. before this he was walking down that LONG block of Gorham from Westgate.(look at the map to see how long that block is)
it is very possible that the dog could have been barking before 10:35 when Heidstra was at Gorham and Westgate and Heidstra was just too far away to hear him. imo
martin II



martin II, and you're having a problem not understanding that their were five witnesses who contradict Storfer's estimated time of 10:20.

You also can't seem to grasp the simple fact that night was extremely still and quiet. Sounds carried a long distance.

You can't seem to grasp the simple fact if the dog barking outside seemed so loud to Storfer who was in his house, so loud he was concerned that it would wake his son up, then people who were even a couple of blocks away from Bundy and outside would have had no problem hearing the barking. Yet no one outside at that time heard any barking..

Heidstra said the dog was barking non stop. The dog did not have to stop a few minutes to catch it's breath. That's funny. Evidently you aren't very familiar with dog barking. Maybe you would have to stop for a few minutes and catch your breath if you were consistently yelling but a dog is not a human and doesn't have that problem.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II
FBG
I hope you are not talking about that sock that no one saw and then later appeared in the middle of the bedroom floor in plain sight.
martin II


martin II, that's funny.

What evidence tells you that happened other than your apparent ignorance of Willie Ford's testimony.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by martin II

fbg
that would be true if there had been only ONE BLUE BLACK SWEAT SUITE MADE IN THE WORLD.
martin II


martin II, let me get this straight.

So you think that the same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt, on the killer's right hand glove, and on Simpson's socks may have come from different dark colored cotton sweat suits?

Is that what you're trying to say?

bobaugust

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by socaldiva
Wow, based on Martin II's post, he seems to think this is normal behavior for a teenager. Not me. I bet most parents don't have teens that would slap the hand of a police officer & yell profanities at them.

The two girls that Sydney slapped probably declined to press charges because they were afraid Orenthal might pay them an angry visit ~shudder~.

I would agree it's most definitely NOT normal behavior, but
I can't help but for sorry for her. On some level, this girl
probably knows that her father butchered her mother.
Then the courts, in their infinite wisdom, decided that
the poor kid had to go live with the murderer. Where she
had no doubt had to listen to his lies for all these years. I can only
begin to imagine how screwed up this poor girl is. I'm not
usually big on excuses, but I still see the bewildered little
girl in so many photos a decade ago. There were definitely
more than 2 victims in this crime, IMO.

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I agree with you. I typically don't make excuses for people either, but I understand completely why she would be angry. I don't blame her, I blame her "Father". I do take issue with Martin II trying to pass it off as typical teen behavior.

Agreed. I have absolutely no sympathy for the murderer.

[weezer]

Originally posted by martin II
there was on incident wiere some kids made some bad comments about nicole. martin II Sure hope they get counseling for her -- we know what happened when her dad's violence went unchecked.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I agree with you. I typically don't make excuses for people either, but I understand completely why she would be angry. I don't blame her, I blame her "Father". I do take issue with Martin II trying to pass it off as typical teen behavior. I felt/feel badly for the children also but have no understanding of her behavior. You would think since her mom died violently, that's the last emotion she'd show. Nope, sounds like she needs counseling.

[martin II]

sydne simpson

From the article it seems that this was a litttle "cat fight' amost
some girls after a basketball game. They decided to let it go before the police came. The two girls told the cops they did not want to press charges as the situation had been resolved.

evidently the cops did not accept this and decided to charge sydne when she did not calm down quick enough. understanding that she was being arrested and no one was pressing charges,
would make most people angry. however she should not have hit the cop.

i in no way see this incident causing one to say Sydne is some out of control angry young woman because her mother was murdered and she blames it on her father unless my hatred for oj was so great that i would look to find any excuse to blame him.
especially if i had never in life met sdyne

most kids will react when another yougster says something negative about their parents. imo

martin II

[weezer]

*Snipped* Originally posted by martin II
most kids will react when another yougster says something negative about their parents. imo Oh my goodness -- she's not a kid! She's a young adult.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Mr August (unbelievable)

If the dog was outside while Nicole was being attacked, and knew the killer. Wouldn't that same dog have followed the killer out to the back gate or aleast to the gate? (geesh this is not that difficult!) What makes you think he didn't?

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The accountable lies on the parents and the teachers, kids of that age are not familiar with the Simpson Case. This nonsense is coming from some irresponsible parents, whos discussing the case in front of their children without regard to consequences. Would you please stop referring to her as if she's in grade school. For goodness sake, she's old enough to drive and vote! Most young adults by the age of 18 have learned control and especially toward authority figures.

[martin II]

Originally posted by nettathirty


The blood he tracked went out the front gate!
netta
she is confused about a basic fact in the case. She thought she knew about the gate closing, not locked ,slammed, dog opened it by himself, etc etc
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Would you please stop referring to her as if she's in grade school. For goodness sake, she's old enough to drive and vote! Most young adults by the age of 18 have learned control and especially toward authority figures.


so why do the cops have so much trouble out of teenagers?

[martin II]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped* Oh my goodness -- she's not a kid! She's a young adult.

first year collage. this happened last year.
martin II

[martin II]

Originally posted by bobaugust



martin II, let me get this straight.

So you think that the same blue black cotton fibers that were found on Ron Goldman's shirt, on the killer's right hand glove, and on Simpson's socks may have come from different dark colored cotton sweat suits?

Is that what you're trying to say?

bobaugust
bob
they came from some piece of clothing, what piece of clothing and exactly what type no one knows. you are guessing and saying proberbly and most likely. as you ofteh do.
martin II

[bandit's mom]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Mr August (unbelievable)

If the dog was outside while Nicole was being attacked, and knew the killer. Wouldn't that same dog have followed the killer out to the back gate or aleast to the gate? (geesh this is not that difficult!)

Not if he was frightened of the behavior he'd just witnessed,
i.e. his master butchering his mistress. Or perhaps he DID
follow OJ to the back gate. My dog always tries to follow
me out of the gate. But I don't always let him come out.