General Case Discussion: OLD THREAD

[Hotwater]

CL Story on OJ Case (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/index_1.html)

Welcome posters to the OJ case discussion thread on CL. I am allowing only one thread at this time bacause 1)we are due for a major software update and 2)there have been no significant new developments on the case. I may revisit this statement at a later time.

For some reason the CTV Rules have vanished (temporarily I hope), but as a reminder please post only one paragraph from a source and then give a link. TV shows you can list name and air date. Snip only the relevant part of a quote to which you are respnding rather than the whole thing, or just the users name if you are making a general reply (this will save band width) and, as always, please refrain from making your moderator crazy with personal attacks on posters and/or the 10,000 PMs that inevitably follow each attack.

Thanks!

--Hotwater

[DiddleySquat]

Thanks! I didn't know to look here for the thread here and I just now found it. Thank you very much, HH2O!

Is it possible to move the other discussion to this forum? The existing OJ thread on the "Current Crimes & Old/Cold Cases" board was started the 23rd of March, just nineteen days ago. Since then, it's accumulated 1,226 posts, or nearly 70 posts per day. The total number of messages on the OJ thread is more than any other on that board except "White House Farm," which has existed since the 4th of January (about 100 days), and averages over its lifetime 25 new posts per day.

We have put a lot of work into our OJ thread, and I'd love to see the messages moved, and soon expanded (hopefully) to a whole board!

Thanks again!

[limakey]

DS,

Thank you for the link because I couldn't find it! Have I missed something, but wasn't Hot H20 Cold H20 for awhile? Same person, just had the heat turned up?

[limakey]

For as long as I have been posting on this case, race has always been a major issue and a subject that no matter how each of us tries, we seem to miss each other's points.

IMO, if we agree on certain facts concerning race and this case, then perhaps that many of the posts that we be made on this issue will lose their sting and prevent any poster from being labeled something he or she isn't.

These are my points about race in this case.

1. The war of the covers of the news magazines really brought the issue of race into this trial. From the moment that happened, it was clear that when it comes to race and our justice system, whites and blacks had very different experiences and opinons.

2. Mark Fuhrman tried to get a disability pension and used race as a major factor on why he could no longer perform his job. That he was afraid he would become violent and whatever else he said.

3. After a two year investigation the shrink reports basically said he was liar, a cry baby and that he wanted the big bust to make his career. However, putting all that aside, he can report back to duty and if he doesn't report back to duty, he is fired.

4. After the prelim hearing, several people saw Fuhrman on TV and remembered their encounters with him and felt the need to contact the DA's office about it. When they got no response from the DA's, they then wrote to Judge Ito and to the defense.

5. Jeff Tobin writes a story for his magazine and clearly says that the defense feels the glove was planted and that Mark Fuhrman, the man who found the glove, tried to get a disabilty discharge and race was an issue.

6. Because of Fuhrman's own words and actions, the private citizens who came forward and the problem of where the glove was found, were issues that no judge could have ignored.

7. The history of the LAPD (and other police departments) have a long history of racial issues that have been going on for years and years - before most of us were even born. While attempts, IMO, were made to clean up the image, it is obvious that this issue is still very much a cancer in our police departments and our nation. Perhaps, many of us thought that all these issues were settled in the 1960's but it appears that laws were enacted years later to ensure that blacks and others were not kept off our juries simply because of their race. I believe Texas, in 2005, was mentioned as a state who was still struggling with this.

IMO, it was not the defense or the DA's who brought race into this case, it was the LAPD when they were more worried about giving a pension to a man, who perhaps really was disabled by what he saw and experienced and never should have been let back on the force.

IMO, I also believe the City of LA bears some of this as well, because once they let him back on the force, there was no way for them to say that they made a mistake and get him off the force. They left a bitter, bitter man on the force who did, time and time again, made other's police officer's lives miserable because there was no way to reprimand him without losing a lot of money and a lot of face.

For as much pain this issue has caused, I don't think I will ever forget the lessons of the trial when it comes to race. I like to think that I learned something very, very valuable and have been able to pass it on to my child.

Again, these are my opinons and I won't debate the issue any longer, there is no point because no one is going to move an inch on this subject. No one is going to change their mind on their subject but perhaps, we can stop with the blame game and realize this issue is far bigger then the Simpson case. That this case brought light to an issue that needed to be out in the open and that no matter how emotional it got and will get, that it at least needs to be out in the open.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


limakey

i agree with your post totally
rayraytwo Would you PLEASE read Hotwater's requests to us for posting here.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey


Again, these are my opinons and I won't debate the issue any longer, there is no point because no one is going to move an inch on this subject. No one is going to change their mind on their subject but perhaps, we can stop with the blame game and realize this issue is far bigger then the Simpson case. That this case brought light to an issue that needed to be out in the open and that no matter how emotional it got and will get, that it at least needs to be out in the open.

limakey,

Unfortunately, your post reads as though you are still playing the blame game.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo

if it is accurate then it explains why most of white american businesses put oj on DO NOT USE to prevent him from making a living at his trade.


Pardon me, but the last time I looked I didn't see Black America lighting up the "We're using OJ" neon sign and offering up any business opportunities to him either.

If you are going to try to tell me that White America holds all of the power in business in this country, please refrain because we all are aware that is not true.

[Wukong]

Thanks so much Hotwater! Although this is currently only one thread I do hope it will eventually be fully opened again at some point after your ne software is installed.

Limakey,
Hotwater is the moderator for the Crime Library board. Coldwater is still the moderator for the main message board.

Thanks again Hh2O!

Wukong

[Wukong]

Diddley,

Here is a link to the last time EDTA was discussed. You need to read this again:

http://boards.courttv.com/showthread.php?threadid=236199&highlight=EDTA

Here is some sample testimony from the link:

MR. MARTZ: It had less sensitivity, but sensitivity was not my problem. What I was asked to do was to determine whether or not the stains were EDTA-preserved or not preserved. I was able to answer that question in the negative ion mode very easily. These stains were not from preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Well, we will talk about that later. When you ran the positive ion mode the next day, the more--the test that will detect the ions more sensitively than the one you did the day before, would you agree with that?
MR. MARTZ: It was more sensitive, but sensitivity was not an issue. Specificity was my issue. I wanted to determine whether or not EDTA was present and if it was I wanted to make sure I could identify it, and as I mentioned, it was not present.
MR. BLASIER: So you weren't concerned with whether it was there or not when you did the negative ion mode?
MR. MARTZ: No. I was asked to determine whether or not EDTA was present and it was very easy to do in the negative ion mode. I was able to determine on the first day that EDTA was not present on those particular stains and those stains did not come from preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Were you able to determine with the negative mode that there wasn't EDTA on those stains?
MR. MARTZ: There was not EDTA present in the amount that you would find in preserved blood.
MR. BLASIER: Agent--
MR. MARTZ: I proved that on the first day.
MR. BLASIER: Agent Martz, please listen to my question. Were you able to determine with the negative ion mode that there was no EDTA on those stains?
MR. MARTZ: I was not able to identify any EDTA on those stains.
MR. BLASIER: Were you able to rule out the possibility that there was EDTA on those stains with your negative ion mode?
MR. MARTZ: Yes. In my opinion EDTA was not present on those stains.

Wukong

[Wukong]

Originally posted by limakey

Again, these are my opinons and I won't debate the issue any longer, there is no point because no one is going to move an inch on this subject.

I agree with this 100%. I purposely stay away from the race issue because it has been discussed adnauseum and nothing but fighting about this issue is ever resolved. The debate on the race issue has run it's course hundreds of times over on this board and it is just exhausting. This dead horse has been beaten way beyond recognition. I for one would not lose sleep if the race issue is never mentioned again.

Everyone here is free to post about whatever they feel is relevant to the case as long as it is not inflamitory. I just pray to all that is holy that the debate about race is over. This discussion was the reason the board was closed in the first place.

Wukong

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by Wukong


I agree with this 100%. I purposely stay away from the race issue because it has been discussed adnauseum and nothing but fighting about this issue is ever resolved. The debate on the race issue has run it's course hundreds of times over on this board and it is just exhausting. This dead horse has been beaten way beyond recognition. I for one would not lose sleep if the race issue is never mentioned again.

Everyone here is free to post about whatever they feel is relevant to the case as long as it is not inflamitory. I just pray to all that is holy that the debate about race is over. This discussion was the reason the board was closed in the first place.

Wukong

Wukong,

The debate regarding race will continue to go on because mostly it seems that the arguments I hear from those who believe OJ to be innocent are based soley on the theory of misconduct by the LAPD due to racial hatred.

Kate

[tazzybaby]

rayraytwo,

You keep talking about not knowing if the blood tested was what was collected. The degradation of the DNA helps us know that. Such as the blood from Nicole on Simpsons sock.

The blood was not switched or planted.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
*snip*
but furhman and all the other people that injected oj and nicoles color into their minds also wanted the black boy to pay for what they think he did.

Does that include the defense? Because they switched the pictures in his home.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
le and the da has been framing people to get cases in the solved section for years. they have not been all black either. i think there was a motive to get a high profile suspect and get him quick. but furhman and all the other people that injected oj and nicoles color into their minds also wanted the black boy to pay for what they think he did. Sorry for the repeat but I'd posted it on the other thread before I realized no one was home. Took this as an excerpt (some snipping and numbering by me ) from http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/transcripts.october/10.23.transcript.html
This evidence includes:
1. Mr. Simpson's blood leaving the scene of the murder at Nicole's condominium;
2. His blood dripping to the ground from the fingers of his left hand;
3. Mr. Simpson's blood on the glove he wore when he killed Ron and Nicole;
4. Mr. Simpson's blood in his car that he used to drive from Bundy to his home at Rockingham, five minutes away;
5. Mr. Simpson's blood on the driveway of his home;
6. Mr. Simpson's blood inside his home;
7. Ron's blood in Mr. Simpson's car;
8. Nicole's blood in Mr. Simpson's car;
9. Ron's blood on Mr. Simpson's glove;
10. Nicole's blood on Mr. Simpson's glove;
11. Nicole's blood on the socks in Mr. Simpson's bedroom;
12. Mr. Simpson's own blood on his socks;
13. Mr. Simpson's size 12 shoe prints in the blood of Nicole, leaving the scene of the murder, exiting towards the back of the condominium;
14. Hair matching Mr. Simpson's hair in the knit cap he left behind at the scene of the murders;
15. Hair matching Mr. Simpson's hair on Ronald Goldman's shirt;
16. Strands of Nicole's hair and Ron's hair on the glove Mr. Simpson dropped on the side of his house, trying to get onto his property so no one would see him;
17. Carpet fibers, rare carpet fibers from Mr. Simpson's Bronco found in the knit cap that he left at the scene of the murders;
18. Matching blue-black cotton fibers found on Ronald Goldman's shirt;
19. The glove at Rockingham and Mr. Simpson's socks in the bedroom, tying all three together.
20. Cuts and bruises to Mr. Simpson's left hand during his brief but violent attacks on Ron and Nicole;
21. Cuts to this day that Mr. Simpson cannot and will not explain.
22. Mr. Simpson has no alibi during the time when the murders were committed. He cannot identify a single person who can account for his whereabouts during the time of the murders. Not one person will take this stand and testify that he or she was with Mr. Simpson or spoke to Mr. Simpson during the time of these murders.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


Does that include the defense? Because they switched the pictures in his home.

This is an excellent point Tazzy.

Why did they remove all of the pictures of OJ's white friends and family and replace them all with pictures of his black friends and family?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by socaldiva


According to Petrocelli's book, when Jason Simpson was deposed he acknowledged that at some point his had "suspicions" about his Dad's guilt. Why would his SON even think that? for even a minute?

I was struck by that as well.

I believe that Jason said that while he would not want to see his father lose the case he had also formed a suspicion that his father was guilty of the crime.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


I was struck by that as well.

I believe that Jason said that while he would not want to see his father lose the case he had also formed a suspicion that his father was guilty of the crime. AC testified that when he first heard of the murders, he also thought that OJ done it. Denise Brown thought OJ had done it.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo



lawyers instructions.

because at this point with most of white america saying he was guilty, oj realized that it was time to be and act like who he was.
take down a few pictures and put up a few others.
but his close white friends (fays ex)etc and others did not cease to be his friends they saw nothing irregular about this. LOL -- okay story telling time is over. How about we discuss the items I listed as why I think OJ is guilty?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo



lawyers instructions.

because at this point with most of white america saying he was guilty, oj realized that it was time to be and act like who he was.
take down a few pictures and put up a few others.
but his close white friends (fays ex)etc and others did not cease to be his friends they saw nothing irregular about this.

But, this was a misrepresentation.

[weezer]

Originally posted by tazzybaby


But, this was a misrepresentation. It was more than a misrepresentation. It reflected OJ -- all lies.

[audpaud]

Hi All!:)

Was an avid viewer of the OJ Simpson Trial and have read several of the "follow-up" books.

Wondering how many of you agree that had Sydney and Justin come outside at the "wrong" time, OJ would have slaughtered his kids just like Nicole & Ron?:eek:

I've often thanked God that the kids slept through the butchery, for they surely would have ended up like Poor Kimberley & Kristen MacDonald!:rose:

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by audpaud
Hi All!

Was an avid viewer of the OJ Simpson Trial and have read several of the "follow-up" books.

Wondering how many of you agree that had Sydney and Justin come outside at the "wrong" time, OJ would have slaughtered his kids just like Nicole & Ron?:eek:

I've often thanked God that the kids slept through the butchery, for they surely would have ended up like Poor Kimberley & Kristen MacDonald!:rose:

Hi audpaud,

Welcome! :seeya:

I have wondered the same thing! I am very glad that they slept thru.

Tazzy

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


would you please follow the instructions of the moderator

Rayray,

Please. We are trying to get another board open. Please don't include the whole post in your reply. Even if you are trying to make a point. It takes up band width. Plus, if we are going to carry on like this then I don't see why they would let us have another board.

:no:

[weezer]

Some more 'what abouts' from the CNN site I posted earlier:
Now, the physical evidence in the
1. The Bronco was found parked on -- on Rockingham when the police arrived in the wee hours of the morning. It was locked and it was parked right near this curb where it said 360. . . Right where Alan Park drove by and did not see a Bronco.
2. It had blood, little stain of blood on the outside of the door near the door handle, driver side door and it also had some stains of blood down at the bottom of the door. And officers will testify, detectives will testify, detective Lange, Detective Phillips, Detective Vannatter, Detective Gonzalez and others that they could see inside the Bronco through the windows and saw blood inside as well.
3. When the Bronco was towed the next day to the LA print shed and then opened the following day, it had to be opened with a slim jim.
4. Blood was found in various places inside on the steering wheel, on the instrument panel, on the seats, on the center console, and on the driver side door panel, in the area where there's a little well, where you open up the door to get out. The handle is as though one a left hand or left finger was bleeding when they tried to open up the handle to get out, right in that area, there was blood found.
5. There was also blood found on the carpet of the driver side in the shape of a shoe print.
6. Now, at Rockingham itself, 360 north Rockingham, there is evidence found both outside the house and inside the house.
7. Outside the house, there were blood drops outside the Bronco on the ground and there were blood drops then up the driveway.
8. There were blood drops found inside the foyer of Mr. Smpson's house. When you open up the front door, there's low a foyer
there were blood drops found on that floor.
9. There were blood drops found in Mr. Simpson's bathroom on the floor.
10. Outside the house, on the side of the house were Kato Kaelin heard the notices, there was a leather glove found for the right hand. The leather glove found at Bundy was for the left hand. This leather glove matched the glove at Bundy, one was right, one was left, both brown leather gloves.
11. It had blood stains on it.
12. It had strands of hair and it had fiber on it.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


would you please follow the instructions of the moderator I apolgize for posting such long posts but there are posters on this board that make up stuff to argue about -- I was hoping to generate some real debate.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


weezer

do you believe oj cut his hand while at bundy killing nicole or ron, IF SO TELL ME EXACTLY HOW THIS HAPPENED. The knife that he used to butcher Nicole and Ron. What's so difficult about that to understand? My understanding from reading crime stories/files is that that is a very, very common injury to the perpetrator during a knifing.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


misrepresentaiton of a what. i have pictures of white people in my house. so sometimes i talk all of them down and put up all art work. LOL -- did you go to the doctor like I suggested?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


misrepresentaiton of a what. i have pictures of white people in my house. so sometimes i talk all of them down and put up all art work.

Okay, that literally made me laugh out loud.

Do you usually do that right before a jury walks through your house while you are on trial for murder? And, do you use other peoples art work?

And, while I'm asking why do you only take the pictures of the white people down and replace it with art?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
I apolgize for posting such long posts but there are posters on this board that make up stuff to argue about -- I was hoping to generate some real debate.

Please don't apologize.

When you are trying to get points across from various different areas of a webpage, simply providing a link is not always that useful and therefore your post ends up having to be lengthy.

Kate

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


much too general

was oj facing ron. behind fron, was ron standing, kneeling was ron sitting. exactly when was the wound inflicted to ojs hand and how. You are asking the impossible -- only OJ knows how he cut his hand that night. Petrocelli's suppostion was, "the physical evidence that I've described so far at Bundy will indicate that the killer had cuts or gouges on his left hand, evidenced by the blood drops that fell to the left of the bloody shoe print. Also, we know the left glove came off, because it was dropped there, and that's probably how the left hand got injured." Want to give us your version?

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
you think oj stabbed nicole and then turned to ron face to face. BUT ron put up a big he man fight with his killer. he was no easy kill. he had defensive wounds on his fingers and hands 0J HAD NONE ON HIS HANDS OR FACE. as did OJ: "Also, Mr. Simpson sustained injuries to his left hand in the nature of cuts and gouges. Dr. Spitz has examined photographs of these injuries and he will testify that these are very likely, gouges caused by the finger nails of either Ron or Nicole digging into Mr. Simpson's hand in order to try to get free."

Also, the theory is that because there was no female screaming, Nicole was unconscious during the attack on Ron. I believe it was Lange who remarked about how very small the area where Ron was murdered was. That he would have been trapped against the fence and a tree.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped as did OJ: "Also, Mr. Simpson sustained injuries to his left hand in the nature of cuts and gouges. Dr. Spitz has examined photographs of these injuries and he will testify that these are very likely, gouges caused by the finger nails of either Ron or Nicole digging into Mr. Simpson's hand in order to try to get free."

Also, the theory is that because there was no female screaming, Nicole was unconscious during the attack on Ron. I believe it was Lange who remarked about how very small the area where Ron was murdered was. That he would have been trapped against the fence and a tree.

In addition, the autopsy shows a large contusion to the back of her head. It also shows that she appeared to have been unconscious at the time her throat was cut.

Based on that, it would be possible to conclude that it's possible that he attacked Nicole and stabbed her several times in her neck (I believe she was stabbed there 7 times) and when Ron approached that he hit her hard enough on the head to render her knocked out and down while he dealt with Ron.

No one will ever be able to say difinitively what transpired.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


no i am asking if you konw what the experts testified to specifically as to how ron got cut and stabbed. you need to see which one you agree with. Petrocelli said PROBABLY. did you make up your mind on PROBABLY?? No, I don't need to decide anything on how ron got cut and stabbed -- because unless you were there, no one can know as a certainty. I agree with Dr. Spitz's testimony that Ron did try to fight valiantly, but he was killed quickly. He was pinned in the small caged area, taken by surprise and he did not have room to maneuver, to defend himself or to fight back. The area was very small. If you try to throw a punch or get your arms up, there's not much you could do except ward off the knife blows that were being delivered one after the other and that is why there were cuts on Ron's hands. One of the early wounds to Ron, severed the aorta in the abdominal area, the abdominal cavity. This caused an instant loss of blood pressure, and an immense internal bleeding to the surrounding tissue. After this wound, Ron was rendered totally defenseless. Dr. Spitz will testified that Ron could have struggled about 60 seconds before collapsing to his death. taken by surprise (This is a different conclusion to the criminal trial where Baden testified that Ron slowly bled to death and continued to fight for 15 - 30 minutes)

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by Wukong
Here is a link to the last time EDTA was discussed. You need to read this again:Wukong, I've read that before. I saw the testimony live. I've seen it replayed. And I've seen it discussed since. It is now known and acknowledged that the human body does not manufacture EDTA. Blood in the bloodstream does not contain EDTA. It is not "naturally" found in anyone's blood.

EDTA could have been in the blood found on the socks only - only! - if the EDTA had come from laundry soap residue left in the socks themselves. But the socks tested negative for EDTA. The chemical preservative was found only in the blood on the sock.

Would you want to stand trial for your life and not challenge evidence like that?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


Did you check out the ctv case of frank jude. the blue wall of silence is in effect.

Hi rayray,

Yes, I checked it out. Did you get my responses??

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by DiddleySquat
Would you want to stand trial for your life and not challenge evidence like that? Not sure what your implying about the EDTA being in blood. The FBI expert testified about the minute EDTA that was recorded in the blood samples as coming from residue in the testing equipment. I'm not sure what you believe the amount of EDTA in the blood was but it has been proven that for the blood to have come from the purple tube, the EDTA would have high concentrations and not the miniscule amount.

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by socaldiva
....It seems to be their reason for LE going after OJ...I can speak only for myself, and not for anyone else with a similar opinion. Race was a factor where Mark Fuhrman was concerned. That, I hope, is not disputed by anyone.

But I do not say it is the whole reason for law enforcement pinning the crimes on OJ. And I have never said that. The rest of the detectives, lab techies, and other LE personnel, regardless of tolerance or prejudice, are not going to want to jump in and point a finger at Fuhrman. They'd rather believe him. Not because he's white, but because he's got his LAPD badge.

But that's not to say it didn't come close. At one point in the Fuhrman/Vannatter book, it's revealed that Vannatter himself had suspicions about the placement of the glove and possibly also about Fuhrman. Now Vannatter didn't know Fuhrman before that night. He'd never met him and hadn't heard of his reputation. But he still found the location of the glove and the timing of its discovery slighly odd, to say the least. I can find that quote in the book if you give me some time.

And there was suspicion also in the office of the DA. That suspicion was such that they asked for officers at the scene to submit hair samples for comparison to a caucasian hair found on evidence taken from either the Bundy or Rockingham crime scene. You can't get DNA from a hair strand - only from the root - so there's no such thing as a "hair match." But Fuhrman was not excluded as having been the source of that hair.

The fact that Fuhrman was "not excluded" means nothing by itself. What's important is that there was enough suspicion in the prosecutor's office to result in a request for those hair samples in the first place.

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
....The FBI expert testified about the minute EDTA that was recorded in the blood samples as coming from residue in the testing equipment....And isn't that an acknowledgement of contamination in the lab?

[weezer]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
And isn't that an acknowledgement of contamination in the lab? There was no contamination in the lab and Dr Lee had to change his testimony to backtrack his statement "sumting wong' -- Posters continue to regurgitate the defense argument about this but there has never been one ounce of proof that any of what the defense alledged had happened. When questioned during the civil trial, Dr Lee made quick time to recant his earlier assertions.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
weezer you seem to be lost so here is a site that can give you the information
http://www.wagnerandson.com/oj/river.htm Oh please -- the day I start turning to wagner for explanations, is the day I come to your house to see if you still have my picture hanging.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
MARTZ LIED PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Martz didn't need to lie. There was no contamination. OJ Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron. Plain and simple.

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
You are asking the impossible -- only OJ knows how he cut his hand that night. Petrocelli's suppostion was, "the physical evidence that I've described so far at Bundy will indicate that the killer had cuts or gouges on his left hand, evidenced by the blood drops that fell to the left of the bloody shoe print. Also, we know the left glove came off, because it was dropped there, and that's probably how the left hand got injured." Want to give us your version? Now that's the kind of debate I like. :seeya:

First, I'll agree that OJ is the only one who knows how his finger was cut. But I do recall seeing a huge photo blow-up of the cut finger at the trial. And a witness explained that it was not consistent with a cut made by a sharp-edged instrument because it wasn't straight and deep, but rather broad, curved or crooked, and indented. Looking at the enlargement, I was impressed. It did seem to be a curved puncture rather than a "slice." The "indented" look could be explained by inflammation that comes with cuts. But the rest of it appeared to my untrained eye consistent with a cut caused by a glass shard and not an injury made by a knife.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by DiddleySquat
The "indented" look could be explained by inflammation that comes with cuts. But the rest of it appeared to my untrained eye consistent with a cut caused by a glass shard and not an injury made by a knife. Here's the problems I have with his finger being cut in Chicago and not in LA: 1. OJ said he saw blood at his home before he went to the airport and took a papertowel/napkin in the kitchen and put it on his finger. 2. The blood in Chicago was on both the top and bottom sheets in the middle of his bed -- as if someone had laid down. 3. There was no blood in the bathroom except a small amount on a washcloth. 4. The wound was way too angry looking to have been such a fresh cut (when I've cut/scratched myself, the wound looks much uglier the second day -- that's usually when the redness and swelling are at their worst) 5. His finger has a scar where the cut was and I simply do not believe you could have that kind of wound and not remember how you did it.

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
There was no contamination in the lab and Dr Lee had to change his testimony to backtrack his statement "sumting wong' -- Posters continue to regurgitate the defense argument about this but there has never been one ounce of proof that any of what the defense alledged had happened. When questioned during the civil trial, Dr Lee made quick time to recant his earlier assertions. Dr. Henry Lee didn't testify at the civil trial. His testimony was presented on videotape by the defense. I presume that means it's a tape of what he testified during the criiminal trial. Dr. Lee did not recant. He has still not recanted.

Aha! Hear it is. I found it. It was a taped (http://simpson.walraven.org/d_wits.html) deposition (http://simpson.walraven.org/d_wits.html) (scroll to near the bottom of the page) in which Dr. Lee (quoting the web page) "make the same assertion as in the criminal trial saying, 'something's wrong' with the physical evidence taken from the trail and from Nicole Brown Simpson."

As for not proving the source of the problems with the evidence in Simpson's trial, the defense doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the state. The fact that the evidence was considered unreliable by top forensics experts is reason for doubt about the whole case.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


OH so you want to come to my house?????????Come on up and you can hang it your self.:) Eeeeewwwww

[weezer]

*snipped Originally posted by DiddleySquat
As for not proving the source of the problems with the evidence in Simpson's trial, the defense doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the state. The fact that the evidence was considered unreliable by top forensics experts is reason for doubt about the whole case. Don't have time to answer you with back up right now but I'll come bearing links tomorrow.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


the cut on ojs finger was zig zag at the skin. not made by a sharp knife with a smooth edge like the cuts on ron and nicole. oj was trying to puch the broken glass pieces down the sink drain with a hand tower in the hotel room, the hand tower was found by the chicago police. that is when he cut his hand. LOL -- ray knows more about than OJ -- OJ only says he thought he cut it cleaning up some glass. Of course, that's AFTER he said it was a reopened cut.

[2L8 4A D8]

Hi Everyone! Glad to see all of the changes after 4 long months.

:seeya: :seeya: :seeya:

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
when paratis was told by the prosecution that the defense was going to challange differance in the blood quantity, the prosecution ran to him and made a video and Parantis changed his testimony about how much blood he drew. That was one of the most amazing things in this case, when you think about it. I often forget that argument entirely. But any time you have a considerable amount of blood that appears to be missing from a reference sample and then the nurse who took the sample has two different versions of how much blood he took, you have a case that even a rookie public defender should be able to shake. And in this case, the reference blood vial in question was carried to the crime scene. That was absolutely inexcusable. Honestly, the missing blood, the technician's evolving memories, and the incredibly stupid mistake of taking the reference blood to the crime scene - those are things that should signal to any sensible prosecutor that the jig was up. The cops botched the case, plain and simple.

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by nettathirty
....Buttom line is the nurse isn't sure what amount of blood was drawn, correct? That's exactly right. And worse still, he changed his story.

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8
Hi Everyone! Glad to see all of the changes after 4 long months.....Welcome back, kiddo! :beer:

The first one's on me. The next two ... :beer: :beer: ... you buy.

[bandit's mom]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by audpaud
[B]Hi All!:)

.

Wondering how many of you agree that had Sydney and Justin come outside at the "wrong" time, OJ would have slaughtered his kids just like Nicole & Ron?:eek:

It's an interesting question. I remember when it first happened,
my husband didn't think OJ could have done it, because any
father would have been afraid that his children would have
been the ones to find their mother like that, and it's really
amazing that they didn't. Of course that was before
the chase and before the mountain of evidence, when
just about everyone I knew was insistent that OJ was
innocent. My husband, like me and everyone else we knew,
soon changed out minds.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo



weezer

the fib expert you are talking about is MR Martz

during or right after thre oj trial The Inspector General of the US
did a evaluation of the fbi lab. they found many problems with lab work and experts testifying.

Mr Martz was demoted from the position he had when he testified in the oj case. So if the IG think he was not qualified
why should I or you.
MARTZ LIED PLAIN AND SIMPLE.


ryaraytwo, more false accusations form the king of mistakes rayraytwo.

Martz didn't lie. Every time a witnesses testimony contradicts your fantasy beliefs you accuse them of lying. Good tactic ray. Just more exuses from you to avoid reality.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

1) Vannatter took the blood directly from the Parker center to Rockingham (never took it to Bundy as Netta continues to post) in an envelope and handed it directly to Fung upon arrival; all caught on tape. Netta knows this fact very well because it has been pointed out numerous times whenever he makes this false assertion. This shows how strongly NGs want OJ to be innocent. Even when shown their belief about events is wrong, they refuse to accept it; blocking the truth out of their mind because it doesn't fit their theory.

2) Any missing blood would have high levels of EDTA which was not found in any blood evidence. Since no test existed for testing the presence of EDTA at the time, Martz had to make up a procedure. He did a presumptive test for EDTA and found none. He then did a more sensitive negative ion test for EDTA and found none. He could have, and should have stopped right there. These two tests proved absolutely no EDTA was present. When he continued with the positive ion test and found an anomoly he tested his own blood and found the exact same anomoly. He concluded that minute amounts of EDTA are in human blood. When it was later learned that there is no EDTA in human blood the only explaination must be contamination of the test since his own blood showed a false positive. The main point being; the first two tests proved there was no EDTA in the blood samples in question. This also makes the question of how much blood was drawn moot.

3) In the photo of OJs finger showing the cut on the knuckle of his finger was straightened. Now imagine that he receives this cut while his knuckle is bent. Now straighten out the finger and the cut looks jagged. I have done exactly this (not on purpose, just happened to cut my knuckle with a razor knife). When my finger was bent the cut looked straight, when I straightened by finger it looked jagged. You are welcome to try this at home kids.

4) Instead of a jersey I'll bet Weezer would be more comfortable in a shirt with OJs mug shot on it.

Wukong

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
Now that's the kind of debate I like. :seeya:

First, I'll agree that OJ is the only one who knows how his finger was cut. But I do recall seeing a huge photo blow-up of the cut finger at the trial. And a witness explained that it was not consistent with a cut made by a sharp-edged instrument because it wasn't straight and deep, but rather broad, curved or crooked, and indented. Looking at the enlargement, I was impressed. It did seem to be a curved puncture rather than a "slice." The "indented" look could be explained by inflammation that comes with cuts. But the rest of it appeared to my untrained eye consistent with a cut caused by a glass shard and not an injury made by a knife.



DiddleySquat, of course that cut on Simpson's knuckle wasn't a knife cut, Simpson had intentionally recut his knuckle on a piece of broken glass in his Chicago hotel room. Simpson's no dummy. He knew he couldn't explain away the knife cut so he recut his finger so he could give a better explanation.

June 13, 1994
Vannatter: How did you get the injury on your hand?
Simpson: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house I was just running around.
Vannatter: How did you do it in Chicago?
Simpson: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.
Lange: Is that how you cut it?
Simpson: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

2L8,

Welcome back. It seems like old home week. I just returned after a long absence also.

Wukong

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


the cut on ojs finger was zig zag at the skin. not made by a sharp knife with a smooth edge like the cuts on ron and nicole. oj was trying to puch the broken glass pieces down the sink drain with a hand tower in the hotel room, the hand tower was found by the chicago police. that is when he cut his hand.



rayraytwo, that's funny. How about answering the same question you ask everyone else. How do you know that? Where you there? Simpson never said what you are fantasizing.

Your explanation is pure bull crap.

Simpson recut his finger right where it was cut before.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The blood was drawn by the POLICE nurse at LAPD HQ. Vannatter took the blood to Bundy and Rockingham to be logged by the Criminalist..

The nurse who drew the blood wrote on the tube how much blood was drawn.. When the defense recd the tube from the LAB it was document one amount, but the total amount in the SEALED tube was less than what was documented..

How could the defense cook up a little false tidbit?



nettathirty, and just where did you ever read that Peratis wrote on the tube how much blood he drew form Simpson?

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


remember mazzola closed her eyes at the moment the hand off from vanhatter to fung was suppose to have taken place. she did not want to be forced to testify that she saw the transfer.



rayraytwo, what part of TV cameras recorded Vannatter handing over the blood sample to Fung don't you understand?

bobaugust

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
.....I remember when it first happened, my husband didn't think OJ could have done it, because any father would have been afraid that his children would have been the ones to find their mother like that, and it's really amazing that they didn't. Of course that was before the chase and before the mountain of evidence, when
just about everyone I knew was insistent that OJ was innocent. My husband, like me and everyone else we knew, soon changed out minds. I'm one who changed my mind, myself ... a few times.

Initially, I thought it was unlikely that Simpson would even be accused. Then I saw him with the handcuffs on and figured maybe they knew something I didn't. But I thought it over and realized that OJ went voluntarily to the police department to be questioned, and without his attorney, at that. I leaned definitely toward innocence at that point.

In hindsight, I don't think of the Bronco chase as being evidence of guilt. But at the time, I did. So when Larry King interrupted his show, and the whole world stopped to see that white Bronco crusing down the freeway casting a long shadow, I changed my mind again - from not guilty to guilty.

The first time I felt I'd formed an opinion that was based on more than impressions was during the preliminary hearing. It was then that I started to question two things - the timeline and whether one person could do it alone. I was then pretty sure then that OJ wasn't involved, or that if he was, he'd had an accomplice.

Even after the revelations about Mark Fuhrman, when people started raising serious questions about the Rockingham glove, I leaned toward innocence, but did keep an open mind. I had moments when I wondered during the prosecution case. But by the end of the trial, I was convinced not only that the jury was right to find reasonable doubt, but that it would not have been possible for Simpson to have committed that crime, with or without help.

:seeya:

[Wukong]

Bob,

Rayray's post about Mazzola closing her eyes is one of the more bizzarre theories I've seen. I guess Ray figures if he throws enough crap against the wall that something is bound to stick.

Bob, What's up with Dumb-azz?

Mario, If you see this send me an email:

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


when paratis was told by the prosecution that the defense was going to challange differance in the blood quantity, the prosecution ran to him and made a video and Parantis changed his testimony about how much blood he drew.



rayraytwo, no Peratis did not change his testimony. Peratis always said he only estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson. When the defense made the false accusations that there was blood missing from the vial and it was used in planing blood evidence, Peratis was asked more specific questions to clarify exactly what he did.

No EDTA preserved blood was ever found to be in any tested blood sample. The two blood stains the defense claimed were planted was the gate blood and the sock blood. Later additional proof was presented that also proved those accusations false.

A crime scene photograph showed one of the supposed planted blood stains on the rear gate was on the gate the morning after the murders. Nicole's blood on Simpson's sock was found to be richer in DNA than her autopsy sample proving that her blood could not come from her blood sample. This fact additionally proved the defense accusations false.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Maybe the nurse drew less blood than he wrote..
Maybe the nurse drew more blood than he wrote..
Maybe the nurse drew the exact amount of blood he wrote..

Buttom line is the nurse isn't sure what amount of blood was drawn, correct?



nettathirty, the nurse didn't write any amount.

Bottom line there was no EDTA preserved blood found in any tested blood sample.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
That was one of the most amazing things in this case, when you think about it. I often forget that argument entirely. But any time you have a considerable amount of blood that appears to be missing from a reference sample and then the nurse who took the sample has two different versions of how much blood he took, you have a case that even a rookie public defender should be able to shake. And in this case, the reference blood vial in question was carried to the crime scene. That was absolutely inexcusable. Honestly, the missing blood, the technician's evolving memories, and the incredibly stupid mistake of taking the reference blood to the crime scene - those are things that should signal to any sensible prosecutor that the jig was up. The cops botched the case, plain and simple.



DiddleySquat. not true. Both Vannatter and Fung were part of the chain of custody of Simpson's blood sample. TV cameras recorded Vannatter's arrival at Rockingham carrying the blood vial in a gray evidence envelope at 5:17 PM. When TV cameras recorded Vannatter handing the evidence envelope to Dennis Fung at 5:20 PM. the chain of custody of the vial of blood from Vannatter to Fung took place in accordance with standard operating procedure, LAPD regulations and state law.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
I'm one who changed my mind, myself ... a few times.

Initially, I thought it was unlikely that Simpson would even be accused. Then I saw him with the handcuffs on and figured maybe they knew something I didn't. But I thought it over and realized that OJ went voluntarily to the police department to be questioned, and without his attorney, at that. I leaned definitely toward innocence at that point.

In hindsight, I don't think of the Bronco chase as being evidence of guilt. But at the time, I did. So when Larry King interrupted his show, and the whole world stopped to see that white Bronco crusing down the freeway casting a long shadow, I changed my mind again - from not guilty to guilty.

The first time I felt I'd formed an opinion that was based on more than impressions was during the preliminary hearing. It was then that I started to question two things - the timeline and whether one person could do it alone. I was then pretty sure then that OJ wasn't involved, or that if he was, he'd had an accomplice.

Even after the revelations about Mark Fuhrman, when people started raising serious questions about the Rockingham glove, I leaned toward innocence, but did keep an open mind. I had moments when I wondered during the prosecution case. But by the end of the trial, I was convinced not only that the jury was right to find reasonable doubt, but that it would not have been possible for Simpson to have committed that crime, with or without help.

:seeya:



DiddleySquat, it seems your open mind clamped shut at the end of the criminal trial. The fact is that tons of new information about this case became known in the many depositions taken before the civil trial. New evidence was presented in the civil trial and the most important evidence was the testimony of Orenthal James Simpson.

Maybe you should pry open your mind a crack to learn about this, at the very least read about Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and lies. Simpson did have an accomplice after the murders. His daughter Arnelle destroyed evidence when she washed his murder clothing in Simpson's washing machine before the police arrived at Rockingham. She than lied to cover up her involvement.

bobaugust

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by nettathirty
The nurse collected 8cc's of Simpsons blood, but only 6cc's were accounted for, correct? Yes, Netta. Actually, he wrote that he had 8 cc in the vial, but only 6.5 cc could be accounted for.

SOURCE (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/serve_4.html) :seeya:

[Wukong]

Originally posted by nettathirty


The nurse collected 8cc's of Simpsons blood, but only 6cc's were accounted for, correct?

No blood from this drawn sample could have been planted so what is your point?

Wukong

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by Wukong
Bob,

Rayray's post about Mazzola closing her eyes is one of the more bizzarre theories I've seen. I guess Ray figures if he throws enough crap against the wall that something is bound to stick.

Bob, What's up with Dumb-azz?

Mario, If you see this send me an email:



Brian, ray not only closes his eyes, he continually states false and misinformation. When ever he's corrected he simply ignores the fact that he's wrong and continues making the same false statements. When he finally realizes he's wrong he simply continues on like it never happened without ever owning up and admitting to his mistake. That's just the way he is. It's funny.

I just tried to go to dumb azz and saw the server notice that the site was unavailable. This has happened before. I'm not sure why but wait a while and it should be back soon.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


The nurse collected 8cc's of Simpsons blood, but only 6cc's were accounted for, correct?



nettathirty, Peratis only estimated the amount of blood he drew from Simpson. He never wrote an amount on the sample like you claimed.

Besides the fact your entire argument is irrelevant. There was no EDTA preserved blood found in any tested blood sample. No blood was ever found to be tampered with or planted in this case. Every claim the defense made that blood was planted was proved to be false.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Bob,

I agree about Ray. Seems he's not the only one with this problem. Just look at the EDTA and missing blood issues and you can see that even when proven these points are moot, seemingly inteligent posters get a sudden case of amnesia.

Thanks, I'll check Dumb azz later. Gotta drive up to Taipei, I'll check back later.

Wukong

[Wukong]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Brian,

My point:
The nurse could have drawn more blood ..

A purple top tube with high concentrates of EDTA. This is standard for drawing blood samples. My Ex was a phlebotomist during the trial and she confirmed this. Since then I knew all this EDTA BS was meaningless, but just the thing needed to keep the converted in the choir.

Wukong

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
Yes, Netta. Actually, he wrote that he had 8 cc in the vial, but only 6.5 cc could be accounted for.

SOURCE (http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/simpson/serve_4.html) :seeya:



DiddleySquat, wrong.

Peratis never wrote any amount. He only estimated the amount of blood he drew. Read your source again.

Peratis realized his first estimate was incorrect when the defense used it to claim there was blood missing. He explained in detail how he made his first incorrect estimate and how he arrived at a new estimation that was closer to the amount he actually drew.

Besides the fact the entire argument is irrelevant. There was no EDTA preserved blood found in any tested blood sample. No blood was ever found to be tampered with or planted in this case. Every claim the defense made that blood was planted was proved to be false.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Netta,

Now my response probably makes no sense because you changed your post while I was answering. Your original post asked what was the blood drawn into.

Wukong

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



IIRC, the police took apart the drains and washing machine to have analyzed for blood.. Their findings were, there was no blood in the washing machine or drain pipes at Rockingham...

Speculation about Arnelle's involvement is not FACT, besides the Prosecution cross examined her and never mentioned this assumption... The civil trial she was never asked about washing her clothing or OJ's (phantom) jogging suit...



nettathirty, you're wrong.

Dennis Fung November 5, 1996

Q. What does this photograph depict, Mr. Fung?
A. That photograph depicts me holding a cotton applicator in the drain of
the master shower.
Q. And what are you doing with the cotton applicator?
A. I'm doing a presumptive test for blood.
Q. Okay. Let's see the next photograph, please. There it is. This doesn't
show-up too well on the screen, but what color is at the end of your cotton
swab there?
A. That is a pink color indicating the presence of blood.
Q. Okay. This would be 2139. And this is in the shower in the master
bathroom; is that correct?
A. That's correct.

It's not speculation that Arnelle Simpson lied about what door she opened to let the police into her father's house.
It's not speculation that no alarm when off when that door was opened.
It's not speculation that Arnelle's laundry basket was found in Simpson's laundry room.
It's not speculation that Arnelle's clothing was found in Simpson washing machine along with a dark colored sweat suit.
It's not speculation that the dark colored sweat suit was video taped.
It's not speculation that Simpson was wearing a dark colored sweat suit the night of the murders.

Those are facts.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Bob, doesn't this put OJ's blood at the crime scene before any of the blood evidence is tested, identified and analyzed?


nettathirty, it puts Simpson's blood sample into the hands of Dennis Fung after all of the blood from both crime scenes was already collected.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Brian,

My point:
The nurse could have drawn more blood ..



nettathirty, maybe in your fantasy dreams.

The Prosecution Responds,
"Here I am being cross examined by Robert Shapiro. I mean. I thought he's a modern day Clarence Darrow. And it was just a stupid answer. Eight milliliters is what we assume we normally draw. But we never measure it. There's no reason to. In all my years, no one has ever told me that I didn't draw enough blood."

Peratis continued, "A vacutainer is suppose to draw eight milliliters." He explained that a vacutainer is a device that utilizes a blood vial with a vacuum seal that, when injected into a person's arm sucks the blood into the vial.

Goldberg asked, "Did you use a vacutainer?"
"No. With big people, like O.J. - who has big arms - I have found that it's easier to use a syringe. I used a syringe on O.J. and at a certain point the needle hit the wall of the vein and the blood stopped. I could have turned the syringe to get the blood to continue to flow, but if I did that, there would be the slightest danger that I could damage the wall. So I looked at the syringe, and it looked like enough,. So I stopped."

"When you looked at the syringe, did you look at the calibrations.?"

"No. They were on the other side. I just looked at the syringe, and it looked like enough. And that was it. Bing, bang, boom."

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



EDTA, should have been found in Simpson's blood sample regardless because it was collected and stored in a vial, before Vannatter took it to Rockingham via Bundy drive?



Nettathirty, that's funny. Of course Simpson's reference sample contained EDTA preserved blood. It was his, Nicole's and Martz's preserved blood samples that were compared to the gate blood, the sock blood, and Martz's own blood that proved no EDTA preserved blood was in any of those tested samples.

bobaugust

[2L8 4A D8]

Thanks for all of the "welcome backs". It is good to be back. I am having trouble typing though. Got to start reading to catch up on what's been going on!

:read: :read: :read:

[limakey]

Kate,

I meant blaming one side or the other for bring racing into this case.

When it comes to race and our justice system, I just wish people would stop considering this a game, that the only time it is played is when their is face off in the courtroom. I think it goes much, much deeper and I think it is unfair to blame one man, his lawyers and it is also unfair to soley blame one race challenged detective.

I also think that by blaming one side or the other, people stop asking the important question that needs to be answered, why did the LAPD allow Fuhrman back on the force when he himself told them what he was and why he felt the way he did.

I'm pretty sure that if we went to our supervisors and said the same things he did, we wouldn't even have been given an investigation, we would have been fired so fast, our heads would still be spinning.

It appears to me that in order for a policeman or woman to be fired from the force, it almost takes an act of God. Remember those two cops in the Jeffrey Dalmer case, well they were fired, but the city had to rehire them. IMO, they sent that boy back into be murdered, because they knew he was gay and Jeff Dalhmer was gay. Did it have anything to do with the fact that the boy was Asian?

If a teacher sent a student back into a dangerous situation, would they still have their job?

[limakey]

DS,

I have to correct one part of your post. Vanatter and Lange said they had never met Fuhrman before that night but they were aware of who he was and why they knew of him. But like everything else, they tweaked it.

It was on one of the shows they were on and the reason why they changed their story is because it came out that it would have been impossible for them not have known about him because of the incident with Joe Britton.

Their story goes they knew that he had tried to transfer into their elite unit, at least twice and MF was angry that he kept getting denied the transfer.

[limakey]

You know, the nurse's video tape testimony was the most disheartening thing about this whole case and IMO, proof of just how desperate the DA's were to win this case. Or at least proof of why they ensured they had all their scapegoats lined up to take the blame.

Who in this country, who was paying any attention at all to the case didn't know the defense was going to suggest that blood was planted?

Who in this country, who was paying any attention at all to the case didn't know what the defense was going to be?

To even suggest that the nurse never realized that he wasn't sure about how much blood he drew from Simpson until he heard Johnnie Cochran's opening statement would be laughable if it was just so darn sad!

[limakey]

Taz,

The biggest difference between you me really are two words. I have never posted that OJ Simpson wouldn't have killed Nicole, I just have posted my reasons why, he, IMO, couldn't have committed the murders or if he did do it, why I believe that one person couldn't have done this.

IMO, we all have a crime of passion in us--I consider, in some cases, self defense to be an absolute crime of passion.

While you do acknowledge that police misconduct has happened in the past, for some reason, you simply deny that any police misconduct took place in this case and I truly don't understand it.

You posted that there is no evidence to even suggest that second glove was left at Bundy, yet there is a ton of evidence to suggest that there was a second glove at Bundy.

Again, you are a cop at the scene, you see one glove, well what is your first thought, besides that he missing one glove? Where is the other one? If one glove came off in a struggle, couldn't two gloves have come off in a struggle?

The footprints going back into the killing cage, why did the killer go back, to look for his one glove or two gloves? His hat? The evidence suggests that the killer(s) used both the front and back exits, a car or another mode of exit transportation has to be someone where, so why would it have been impossible for the killer, who already "lost" one glove, wouldn't have lost the second glove much closer to the scene?

I still can't figure out how the glove came off in a struggle, but if it did, that cage wasn't that big, if it was Simpson he sure as hell would have knew what he was looking for and where to look for his "lost" items.

And I don't remember any cop being asked if he or she did look for a second glove, it was one of the questions the DA's wanted nothing to do with.

When you consider the facts surrounding the glove found at Rockingham and not a single trace of trace evidence to suggest that the killer was back there and lost the glove, how can you not think about the possibililty that the glove was left there on purpose?

[DiddleySquat]

Originally posted by limakey
I have to correct one part of your post. Vanatter and Lange said they had never met Fuhrman before that night but they were aware of who he was and why they knew of him. But like everything else, they tweaked it.

It was on one of the shows they were on and the reason why they changed their story is because it came out that it would have been impossible for them not have known about him because of the incident with Joe Britton.

Their story goes they knew that he had tried to transfer into their elite unit, at least twice and MF was angry that he kept getting denied the transfer. Thanks, Limie! I guess our inventive detective had a worse reputation than I thought. I knew they knew something was wrong with him at the DA's office. But I didn't know either Vannatter or Lange was aware of him.

:read: I guess I'll have to re-read that Vannatter/Lange book.

:seeya:

[limakey]

DS,

One of the things about Vanatter and Lange's book that always puzzled me, that was their focus on the glove and not on the socks found in the bedroom.

IMO, I think the socks are the most important piece of evidence in this case, yet the LAPD, DA's and even the lab techs didn't pay attention to them----until how many weeks later? Does that make sense to you?

And I laughed out loud at Vanatter's "Potential Suspect" explaination. First off, he doesn't realize that when he made that statement, he proved what all us NG's have been saying, that OJ Simpson was a suspect in the murder case, they knew where he was and they knew when he left. Yet, we have the diehards who refuse to even consider this information.

I know that on occassion I can be a "tad" stubborn, but I got to give many of these G's points in this area. I truly would want them on my side if I ever got in trouble!

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
You know, the nurse's video tape testimony was the most disheartening thing about this whole case and IMO, proof of just how desperate the DA's were to win this case. Or at least proof of why they ensured they had all their scapegoats lined up to take the blame.

Who in this country, who was paying any attention at all to the case didn't know the defense was going to suggest that blood was planted?

Who in this country, who was paying any attention at all to the case didn't know what the defense was going to be?

To even suggest that the nurse never realized that he wasn't sure about how much blood he drew from Simpson until he heard Johnnie Cochran's opening statement would be laughable if it was just so darn sad!


Limakey, Peratis first testified in the Grand Jury when he estimated how much blood he drew from Simpson. He then testified in the preliminary hearing, again estimating how much blood he drew. At that time he had no idea that his estimation would be taken as an exact amount by the defense to make accusations that blood was planted from Simpson's reference sample.

The only thing sad thing here were the false accusations by the defense. Besides the fact that there was never any EDTA preserved blood found in any tested collected blood sample, every accusation of planing blood was proved false.

bobaugust,

[limakey]

Mr. August,

I remember watching the nurse testify in the prelim hearing, I remember watching the expression on his face when he was asked by the defense it he was sure about the amount he drew. He gave a positive answer with a little leeway on both sides. However, even with the amount of leeway he gave, it still does not account for the missing blood.

This man has been drawing blood for how many years? This man has testified in how many trials during his career? This man had absolutely no idea the defense, any defense team would ask this question and he had no idea how to answer it?

Your excuses for the DA's and their expert witnesses are beyond appalling, they actually border on galling.

Oh, it was only when Johnnie Cochran said that blood was missing is what triggered his memory? So what is his excuse for not going to the DA's right away? What excuse do you have for the DA's for not clearing this up in their case in chief? And what is your excuse for that unbelieveable video the DA's tried to get away with?

Sorry Mr. August, their was blood missing and it is a fact, the defense was able to show the jurors where the missing blood was. Too bad the DA's had to claim that he never drew that much blood. Either way, they were screwed and they knew it. IMO.

[limakey]

Wukong,

Why couldn't any of the blood from the samples been planted? Isn't it fair to say that the DA's expert, Martz, did a horrible job and that when it came to the civil trial, Petrocelli's own witness said that he was not even allowed to talk to Martz about the tests?

And isn't also fair to say that these tests were so new that even Rock Harmon said that if any trace was found in the samples, this case never should have been filed? But if no traces were found, then the defense had to change their plea to guilty?

When the ETDA issue came back to bite the DA's in the butt, it was then when the real singing and dancing began.

I believe the defense matched expert witness for expert witness and that the state's case was destroyed by their own witnesses. What was Martz thinking when he said, "well, I decided I was going to tell the truth, be more aggressive in my answers". What the hell was the jury suppose to think with statement?

And, how come the DA's never put him on in their case? Did they just become aware of the missing blood theory in Johnnie's open statements?

Any way you look at, IMO, the state loses and coming back months later, years later or whatever to say that it was the Big Mac that OJ ate is why EDTA was found is simply wrong.

I find it difficult to understand that when statements are made like this, that the whole picture isn't being looked at. How many times was blood found later in the case? How many times were the state's witnesses tore up and down by the defense? How many times did the state's witnesses suddenly remember something on the stand?

Have you ever done any research on other cases where EDTA was an issue? Are you positive that the police never would have planted the blood because they knew about EDTA?

It appears to me that who ever sweetened the blood evidence, either didn't know about EDTA or knew the subject very well and realized that again, it would be a song and dance routine by the DA's, one the majority of the media only glading started to sing the same song and do the same dance. IMO.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

I remember watching the nurse testify in the prelim hearing, I remember watching the expression on his face when he was asked by the defense it he was sure about the amount he drew. He gave a positive answer with a little leeway on both sides. However, even with the amount of leeway he gave, it still does not account for the missing blood.

This man has been drawing blood for how many years? This man has testified in how many trials during his career? This man had absolutely no idea the defense, any defense team would ask this question and he had no idea how to answer it?

Your excuses for the DA's and their expert witnesses are beyond appalling, they actually border on galling.

Oh, it was only when Johnnie Cochran said that blood was missing is what triggered his memory? So what is his excuse for not going to the DA's right away? What excuse do you have for the DA's for not clearing this up in their case in chief? And what is your excuse for that unbelieveable video the DA's tried to get away with?

Sorry Mr. August, their was blood missing and it is a fact, the defense was able to show the jurors where the missing blood was. Too bad the DA's had to claim that he never drew that much blood. Either way, they were screwed and they knew it. IMO.



Limakey, lets put a little reality into this. I know it's tough for you since you can't seem to get past the criminal trial.

The only problem with Peratis' testimony was it opened the door for the defense to make more unfounded, unsupported false claims. Claims that were all eventually proved wrong.

The fact is there was no missing blood. Period.
There was no blood ever planted in this case. Period. Every single claim of evidence planting was proved false.

Unfortunately the criminal defense strategy worked on anyone who was looking for an excuse, any excuse to avoid the truth of these murders. People evidently like you who try to justify the shameful tactics of the defense. I do understand why the defense had no choice but to use false accusations of evidence planting trying and conspiracy since there wasn't one single piece of evidence in this entire case that eliminated Simpson. Everything. Everything pointed to him. The reality is they were defending a guilty man and they believed anything goes. That's why they got the big bucks..

Their tactics and the prosecution errors may have set Simpson free, but it certainty doesn't change the truth. And the truth is that Simpson and only Simpson killed both Ron and Nicole. That's reality and the truth of these murders regardless if you're capable or not capable of understanding it or accepting it.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Mr. August,

It is very sad that even after all this time your real contempt is the fact that Mr. Simpson could and did hire his own team of experts who chewed up the DA's experts.

I find it laughable during the criminal trial how the cut on Simpson's hand had to have been with the knife, yet in the civil trial, they were fingernail scratches. Now, which one do we believe, the criminal trial expert or the civil trial expert?

The timeline, the DA's timeline was a joke, yet the civil trial lawyers, when confronted with the facts and the evidence, just changed the timeline and presto, everything works out then.

Mr. August, the civil trial was a joke. The verdict was determined
within seconds after the criminal trial verdict was announced. You and I both know that the TH's were not shy on saying how different it would be in Santa Monica and why it would be different.

Yet, they already based their civil trial verdict on the evidence that was presented in the criminal trial. That is why I didn't follow the civil trial closely, because I already knew how it was going to turn out and I was dealing with a very private situation during that time as well.

I'm very surprised that posters insist on saying the civil trial was a search for the truth when according to G's, you already knew the truth and didn't need any more evidence. Sad, very sad, IMO.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by limakey
Mr. August,

It is very sad that even after all this time your real contempt is the fact that Mr. Simpson could and did hire his own team of experts who chewed up the DA's experts.

I find it laughable during the criminal trial how the cut on Simpson's hand had to have been with the knife, yet in the civil trial, they were fingernail scratches. Now, which one do we believe, the criminal trial expert or the civil trial expert?

The timeline, the DA's timeline was a joke, yet the civil trial lawyers, when confronted with the facts and the evidence, just changed the timeline and presto, everything works out then.

Mr. August, the civil trial was a joke. The verdict was determined
within seconds after the criminal trial verdict was announced. You and I both know that the TH's were not shy on saying how different it would be in Santa Monica and why it would be different.

Yet, they already based their civil trial verdict on the evidence that was presented in the criminal trial. That is why I didn't follow the civil trial closely, because I already knew how it was going to turn out and I was dealing with a very private situation during that time as well.

I'm very surprised that posters insist on saying the civil trial was a search for the truth when according to G's, you already knew the truth and didn't need any more evidence. Sad, very sad, IMO.



Limakey, you have things backwards.

It was the criminal trial jury that came back with a verdict after deliberating about three hours. In the civil trial the jury took I believe about five days.

What you can't seem to comprehend is all of the new information that we learned from the many depositions taken before the civil trial as well as the new evidence that was presented in the civil trial. And the most important difference between the criminal trial and the civil trial, Simpson's testimony. Simpson's story changes, fabrications, and outright lies confirmed his guilt. But according to you I guess you already knew that Simpson would lie his butt off, right? And evidently to your way of thinking that doesn't mean very much to you. Is that because Simpson is black? Or is that because he was a celebrity? Or do you just think that when a defendant accused of murder lies under oath about almost everything related to the murders it just isn't that important. Right?

The cut on Simpson's knuckle isn't really hard to understand. The knife cut he sustained dripped blood everywhere he went after the murders. Simpson most likely never even knew he was cut and bleeding until he got back to his house and took a quick shower and dressed to leave for the airport. After he was aware of the cut and tended to it, it wasn't that noticeable. Simpson had no problems keeping it out of sight.

When he was in his hotel room in Chicago and received the call from the police he agreed to come back to LA as quickly as possible. But he knew the cut was incriminating so he broke a glass and intentionally recut his knuckle making it very noticeable and he made sure everyone saw it. Simpson is no dummy.

In his initial statement to the police he didn't really know what they had on him so he lied whenever he believed his answer would be incriminating but he screwed up a couple of times. When Simpson was asked about how he cut himself he told the police he had been cut before.


June 13, 1994
Vannatter: How did you get the injury on your hand?
Simpson: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but at the house
I was just running around.
Vannatter: How did you do it in Chicago?
Simpson: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in the
bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.
Lange: Is that how you cut it?
Simpson: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm not sure.

bobaugust

[limakey]

Taz,

I'm answering your post from other thread here.

IMO, you are wrong about why the jurors had such a negative of the detectives in this case. While I do believe you are sincere that you never suspected OJ Simpson of the murders, it is impossible to believe that four detectives, with over a 100 years of experience between them, did not consider him a prime suspect.

Vanatter's absolutely insane reply to this question really helped seal the fate on this case. And I asked you before, what the purpose of a lie? Is it to cover up? Is it to protect? Why are lies told?

Vanatter was a billion percent impeached on this very important issue, by two mob wannabee mob guys, one who was dating Nicole's sister.

Do you truly believe that the jury did not hear Judge Ito's ruling regarding "reckless disregard of the truth"? While Judges often admit evidence and accept warrants when they don't believe the cops, it doesn't mean the jurors have to accept the Judge's ruling.
Judge Ito is perhaps one of the first judges that I know of who actually made reference about his issues with the warrant.

Now, if the judge doesn't even believe the cops, the DA's don't even believe the cops, why are surprised that the jury doesn't believe them?

If any jury has a negative image of the cops, it isn't their fault. They have based their opinons on the facts that were presented to them. They are the trier of facts. And how many times have you read about the older white juror, to this day she feels OJ did it but she still insists her verdict was correct and she feels that not only Fuhrman forced her to vote for aquittal but Vanatter wasn't being "square" with the jury either.

And lets be fair, Rodeny King's jury never, ever faced the wrath of the public like these jurors did. The jurors in that case said, look, we based our verdict on what we saw and heard in the testimony.

They felt they had no choice either in their verdict.

If you must rage against a jury, shouldn't the Rodney King jurors be the object of the rage?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat

The fact that the evidence was considered unreliable by top forensics experts is reason for doubt about the whole case.

Diddley,

The problem with this statement however is that Dr. Werner Spitz who is as renowned and respected as Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Michael Baden did find the evidence to be reliable.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Anything is possible..

However, factor in some of the collected blood was missing and all of a sudden another picture starts to emerge... The experts testified that any 'planted' blood would contain high concentrations of EDTA -- there was NONE.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Why else would Vannatter take OJ's blood back to Rockingham and Bundy? He didn't take it to Rockingham AND Bundy.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
weezer

look at the wagner link. read his narrative and look at the pictures, then think about it and then give me you honest opinion.
don't pay any attention to socal check it for your yourself.
i don't think you will loose anything. As I've said in the past, I don't put much stock in wagner's theories -- most of them are too farfetched for me. I do, however, believe the prosecution's (criminal and civil), LE's and experts' opinions on how the attacks took place. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i will find one for weezer and she can wear it to PTA meetings. No thanks. When I dress for Halloween, I buy my ghoul costumes at the store.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



The blood was drawn by the POLICE nurse at LAPD HQ. Vannatter took the blood to Bundy and Rockingham to be logged by the Criminalist..

The nurse who drew the blood wrote on the tube how much blood was drawn.. When the defense recd the tube from the LAB it was document one amount, but the total amount in the SEALED tube was less than what was documented..

How could the defense cook up a little false tidbit? Vannattr did NOT take the blood to Rockingham AND Bundy. Please give a link to the nurse writing the amount of blood drawn on the tube. The defense was all about smoke and mirrors. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty
That makes alot of sense, so when people say " How did they get OJ's blood while he was in Chicago? They didn't know who's blood belong to whom, until after it was processed at the LAB.. By that time Vannatter had taking OJ's blood back to Rockingham and Bundy to give the appearance the blood was collected by the Criminalist... Had it not been for the camera catching him in the act he would have gotten away with it...

Man, that something to think about... LOL -- wasn't it OJ's bad luck to have a cut on his left hand AND to say that he had seen blood on his hand (wiped some up from the kitchen counter and put a paper towel/napkin on his hand) at Rockingham BEFORE he left for Chicago. And wasn't it just his bad luck that his blood on the ground at the murder didn't have EDTA in it? Poor guy just couldn't catch a break could he?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*

And lets be fair, Rodeny King's jury never, ever faced the wrath of the public like these jurors did. The jurors in that case said, look, we based our verdict on what we saw and heard in the testimony.

They felt they had no choice either in their verdict.

If you must rage against a jury, shouldn't the Rodney King jurors be the object of the rage?

WHAT?!

There were riots. There were innocent people hurt. There were 54 people killed. There was more rage at the Rodney King jurors than any other jury ever.

[Wukong]

Limakey,

I said that blood from the purple top tube with high levels of EDTA could not have been used for planting. This is also why I said the amount of blood drawn is a moot issue.

Martz did a good job in designing a test for EDTA. He used the right equipment and actually went above and beyond what was needed. This is why he got in trouble. If he would have stopped after the first two tests proved conclusive we would not even be talking about OJ except to discuss how he is surviving behind bars. No expert witness ever said Martz did a horrible job.

As you know, I have read all of the EDTA testimony. There are hundreds of pages and many, many hours of reading and re-reading in order to understand the testing performed. There was testimony from defense and prosecution witnesses. I was very thorough in my reading of testimony and conducted research when I did not fully understand something. I read technical documents on how a liquid chromatograph tandem mass spectrometer works. I approached this study with no bias as to the outcome. I wish I could boil all the information down to a nice neat post, in laymans terms, that would make you understand why none of the blood samples tested could have come from OJs drawn sample. Unfortunately I can't do this. I have started threads and posted testimony along with my own explainations to try and simplify the technical jargon. Apparantly most people were lost because there was little to no response to my posts.

I have a feeling that people who are of the belief that OJ is innocent don't want to study the EDTA issue (a complete study, not just a search of testimony to find one or two sentences taken completely out of context, which are the only responses I ever got) because they know deep down it would prove the fact that OJ's blood could not have been planted. What fun would that be and where would that leave the their argument?? I have read all the facts and if you do this it would be absolutely clear that OJ's blood could not have been planted. I would post all the relevant facts that show this but I already know Not Guilties would not try to comprehend it, probably won't even read it. I may do it anyway just to make myself feel better.

Wukong

[weezer]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
That was one of the most amazing things in this case, when you think about it. I often forget that argument entirely. But any time you have a considerable amount of blood that appears to be missing from a reference sample and then the nurse who took the sample has two different versions of how much blood he took, you have a case that even a rookie public defender should be able to shake. And in this case, the reference blood vial in question was carried to the crime scene. That was absolutely inexcusable. Honestly, the missing blood, the technician's evolving memories, and the incredibly stupid mistake of taking the reference blood to the crime scene - those are things that should signal to any sensible prosecutor that the jig was up. The cops botched the case, plain and simple. Diddley, even with all the botching, there is NO evidence that blood was planted. If you have links to the contrary, please post.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by Wukong
4) Instead of a jersey I'll bet Weezer would be more comfortable in a shirt with OJs mug shot on it.Wukong :beer:

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


The nurse collected 8cc's of Simpsons blood, but only 6cc's were accounted for, correct? Not true.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*

While you do acknowledge that police misconduct has happened in the past, for some reason, you simply deny that any police misconduct took place in this case and I truly don't understand it.

You posted that there is no evidence to even suggest that second glove was left at Bundy, yet there is a ton of evidence to suggest that there was a second glove at Bundy.

When you consider the facts surrounding the glove found at Rockingham and not a single trace of trace evidence to suggest that the killer was back there and lost the glove, how can you not think about the possibililty that the glove was left there on purpose?

Let me explain to you why I say that the misconduct didn't happen in certain aspects of this case. OJ lied. That means I do not trust what he said. Fuhrman lied. I do not trust what he said. So, I then have to look at the evidence and decide what is possible/plausible and what isn't. There were several officers who did not see a glove at the scene. I have to believe them because they weren't impeached. There was no reason to dismiss their testimony. Then, the noises behind Kato's wall, where the glove was found, the presumptive test on the wire for blood, the fibers consistent with the bronco carpet and OJ being spotted for the first time not long after that is all evidence of the glove being back there and not by Fuhrman. There is blood on the glove. Blood from OJ, Ron and Nicole. You dismiss everything regarding what Fuhrman saw because of PAST MISCONDUCT. I don't dismiss it. That's the difference between me and you. I am talking about here and now. I am talking about what the real evidence is. I am not talking about the judges instructions or the innocent until proven guilty. I wanted to know the real truth. The real truth is that OJ killed two people.

What is the evidence that there was a second glove at Bundy? You said tons....please post.

You are making up scenarios. If I am a cop at the scene my first thought is definately not about a second glove. It is completely rediculous to think that Fuhrman would grab that glove so soon in the investigation since no one knew anything about OJ yet.

What evidence suggests that the killer used both front and back to escape? You question regarding "WHAT IF's" is just that. What if. The simple answer is that the glove was not seen at Bundy. You can't "make up" what could have happened without evidence.

If Simpson was looking for his lost items he couldn't find them. It was dark and there were plants. As a matter of fact, the hat was found under the plant. We don't know the specifics because Simpson won't explain. We can only speculate.

Yes, the cops were asked if they saw a second glove. The DA's weren't trying to hide from this question.

There was evidence that someone was back there. I don't understand why you insist on saying that there wasn't. I have told you several times what the evidence is and you dismiss it. You dismiss it for a "possibility" of framing. Yet you say that there wasn't a trace of evidence. I have thought about the possibility that it was left there. There is enough evidence that it was dropped back there by Simpson to convince me that any other scenerio is not plausible.

Sometimes I think that your prejudice towards LE makes you unable to look at the evidence in a open minded way. I am talking about the evidence not the trial.

[Wukong]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


wukong

maby you can help me with this .

under normal everyday blood draws a vacutainer type vile is used
to draw and store blood.

even happens everytime i give blood at the doctors office.
it was also the procedure at lapd lab.

why did Paratis on this ocassion NOT USE A VACUTAINER to draw ojs blood?

ray

Ray,

The decision to use a vacutainer or syringe is up to the phlebotomist who makes that determination based on numerous factors. There is no set procedure at LAPD that says you must use a vacutainer. I don't know where you got that from? Many phlebotomists prefer to use a syringe over a vacutainer (My Ex preferred syringe) because they have more control. If a patient has large veins close to the skin a syringe is preferable. A vacutainer sucks the blood out automatically so the phlebotomist has no control over flow and is unable to stop the flow.

Wukong

[limakey]

Wukong,

I have no doubt about your passion to understand EDTA. The problem I have is when a few tibets are thrown in that instead of putting a close to the issue, it really does raise more questions.

For example, the color of the test tube stopper is the proof that the blood was not planted. Well what if the color of the stopper was green, does that then mean the blood could have planted if it was stored in a test tube with green stopper?

I hope you understand this example and I mean no offense to anyone, but I remember the battle about a woman's right to an abortion. Instead of people just coming out and saying that it is a woman's choice, period and it is none of the government's, doctor's or even the public's business how and why a woman has made this choice.

People just had to keep throwing out truly insane points on when abortion was okay to have. Again, I mean no offense to anyone on the boards, but the big point, when and where I was growing up, always focused on a white woman being raped by a black man. I remember thinking, even then, what what if a white man rapes a white woman, does that mean she has to keep the baby?
And what happens if the rapist is an Asian, he really isn't black but he isn't white, does the child who is conceived just get put up for adoption? IMO, abortion is either all right or its all wrong and it is the stipulations that still cause such a great debate on this issue.

IMO, either there was EDTA in the blood samples or it wasn't. And if EDTA was in any of the samples, why didn't all the samples have it? How could the Big Mac Attack account for EDTA to be found in some samples and not in others?

And I do believe that Martz was not fair or honest witness. He was called out and reprimanded about his testimony on the Simpson case. Granted, the reprimand never came out and said he lied or whatever but there was just enough jargon in it to clearly dilute the true reasoning behind him being investigated in the first place and why he was reprimanded.

[Wukong]

Ray,

During the criminal trial it was not known that EDTA does not occur naturally in human blood. When someone found out that Big Mac special sauce has EDTA in it they surmised that since OJ ate one this is how EDTA showed up. This was later proven not to be the case.

Dr. Reiders (defense expert) did say he approved of the procedures but could not explain the results. He was quite a pompous man and said "You have to ask Martz". He never offered an explaination of how this could happen. So they did ask Martz and he explained for hours. It was a very thorough explaination that left no doubt as to what happened.

Wukong

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by limakey
Who in this country, who was paying any attention at all to the case didn't know the defense was going to suggest that blood was planted?

Who in this country, who was paying any attention at all to the case didn't know what the defense was going to be? Some of us thought it was a murder case -- I'm sure Paratis did too. BTW, if LE was framing OJ, why not say they had only collected 6.5 cc's?

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by limakey
When you consider the facts surrounding the glove found at Rockingham and not a single trace of trace evidence to suggest that the killer was back there and lost the glove, how can you not think about the possibililty that the glove was left there on purpose? Where did the glove come from to start with?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by limakey
*snip*
IMO, you are wrong about why the jurors had such a negative of the detectives in this case. While I do believe you are sincere that you never suspected OJ Simpson of the murders, it is impossible to believe that four detectives, with over a 100 years of experience between them, did not consider him a prime suspect.

Vanatter was a billion percent impeached on this very important issue, by two mob wannabee mob guys, one who was dating Nicole's sister.




I do not believe that they considered him a PRIME suspect when they went over there. I also believe that the blood alone warrants a cause to go on the property.

There was more than enough evidence to get a search warrant. I wish Vannatter would have listed it all. I also wish he would have worded it better. Vannatter says that OJ wasn't a prime suspect when he went over there. If the judge didn't believe him then he wouldn't have kept the search in. Also, don't forget that the search was ruled on twice. That is also almost NEVER done. They get one chance. Period. And, both times the search was ruled admissable. Ito's remarks were reckless in themselves. He shouldn't have made that remark if he ruled to admit the search.

Vannatter didn't lie. He was not impeached. You should re-read the "mob" guys testimony and cross.

And, I answered you regarding why a lie is told. And, you still haven't responded regarding OJ's lies. Why would he lie Limakey? What does HE have to cover up? Fuhrman lied to cover up his bigotry. Simpson lied to cover up what? Why did he lie about so much? Why didn't he take the stand in his defense in the criminal trial? Why did he lie in the civil trial?

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by limakey
Their story goes they knew that he had tried to transfer into their elite unit, at least twice and MF was angry that he kept getting denied the transfer. This is not true -- please post a link to Lange and Vannatter knowing this. Also, please post link to MF being denied twice and being angry about it.

[weezer]

Originally posted by DiddleySquat
Thanks, Limie! I guess our inventive detective had a worse reputation than I thought. I knew they knew something was wrong with him at the DA's office. But I didn't know either Vannatter or Lange was aware of him.

:read: I guess I'll have to re-read that Vannatter/Lange book.

:seeya: Try reading Toobin's book -- might be a real eye opener for you.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by limakey
It appears to me that who ever sweetened the blood evidence, either didn't know about EDTA or knew the subject very well and realized that again, it would be a song and dance routine by the DA's, one the majority of the media only glading started to sing the same song and do the same dance. IMO. You just destroyed your whole argument about EDTA and planted blood. Had LE known about EDTA, they would not have planted blood because they would have known it would be identified in the testing. Since there was NO EDTA in OJ's blood at the murder scene, it obviously was not planted. Your argument makes no sense. IMO

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by limakey
Sorry Mr. August, their was blood missing and it is a fact, the defense was able to show the jurors where the missing blood was. Too bad the DA's had to claim that he never drew that much blood. Either way, they were screwed and they knew it. IMO. The defense didn't show the jurors squat -- IIRC, the jurors said they didn't understand the DNA testimony so they didn't consider it.

How many times do you need to be told that there was NO EDTA in OJ's blood found at the murder scene? Not a far jump to draw the conclusion that it could not have been planted.

[Wukong]

Originally posted by limakey
Wukong,

IMO, either there was EDTA in the blood samples or it wasn't. And if EDTA was in any of the samples, why didn't all the samples have it? How could the Big Mac Attack account for EDTA to be found in some samples and not in others?

And I do believe that Martz was not fair or honest witness. He was called out and reprimanded about his testimony on the Simpson case. Granted, the reprimand never came out and said he lied or whatever but there was just enough jargon in it to clearly dilute the true reasoning behind him being investigated in the first place and why he was reprimanded.

Limakey,

Your response above about EDTA being in blood samples or not being there is exactly what I am talking about. This is the common simplistic response due to ignorance of not reading and understanding the testimony.

The reason EDTA wasn't in other samples is because Martz was not asked to test any other samples. He only tested the blood from the gate and the sock because it was found later and the prosecution asserted it was because it was planted using OJ's sample.

I posted earlier that the Big Mac story was just that, a story. It was later found not to be true.

The reason Martz was investigated stems from charges made by Fredrick Whitehurst, disgruntled lab employee:

"In September 1995, the Department of Justice announced that the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was investigating allegations made by Frederic Whitehurst about the FBI Laboratory. Whitehurst is an FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) with a doctorate in chemistry who has worked in the FBI Laboratory since 1986. During most of his career in the Laboratory, Whitehurst performed chemical analyses of explosives and explosives residue, and his criticisms relate primarily to bombings and explosives cases."

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9704a/01new2b.htm

After the investigation Martz was reprimanded. There was no "jargon or dilution" of the investigation. It was all documented very clearly:

"As discussed in Part Three, Section F, we also conclude that Martz did not perjure himself, give misleading testimony, or improperly erase digital data in the Simpson case. Martz undermined his credibility by his poor choice of words in stating that he had decided to be more truthful in his testimony and by agreeing with defense counsel that he had destroyed certain data. By his lack of adequate preparation, his deficient record-keeping and note-taking practices, and certain aspects of his demeanor at trial, Martz did not serve the Laboratory well in that case."

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9704a/23new5a.htm

Wukong

[Wukong]

I just saw a post on Iago that the Dumb-azz site was shut down by the FBI. Not sure if this is true or not but it would be very interesting if it turns out to be true. Was Mario getting too close for comfort?

Wukong

[weezer]

Originally posted by limakey
I find it laughable during the criminal trial how the cut on Simpson's hand had to have been with the knife, yet in the civil trial, they were fingernail scratches. Now, which one do we believe, the criminal trial expert or the civil trial expert?
I can't figure out if you know that you are posting misinformation or if you really believe what you post. There was no conflict in the testimony to the cuts and scratches on OJ's hand during either trial. You can believe all of the experts -- they all testified to the same thing.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by limakey
I asked you before, what the purpose of a lie? Is it to cover up? Is it to protect? Why are lies told? Can we ask the same about OJ's lies?

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
EDTA is debatable. i thought the prosecution expert said the edta found in the ground samples could have been caused by the big mac oj ate earlier in the day. You thought wrong, again.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by Wukong
I just saw a post on Iago that the Dumb-azz site was shut down by the FBI. Not sure if this is true or not but it would be very interesting if it turns out to be true. Was Mario getting too close for comfort?

Wukong

I am very curious to find out what happened. Mario, please send one of us a PM to let us know what is going on.

:confused:

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
fbg
then what is true according to you. what did he draw and what was later found. Why did he change his testimony ? I don't post 'according' to me and when I venture a theory or opinion, I state that. The Paratis statement and testimony has been posted. He gave an estimate of what he'd drawn. When questioned, he said it was only an estimate and that it could have been less. This was where the defense drew their 'ah-ha' moment. Given all that nonsense by the defense about blood being stolen, it has been proven to a fact that there was no blood planted.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


in color or black and white.? what size xxxl LOL -- black and white of course. Not sure about the size -- if the head shot is actual size, I'm sure it will be more than big enough.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by limakey
For example, the color of the test tube stopper is the proof that the blood was not planted. Well what if the color of the stopper was green, does that then mean the blood could have planted if it was stored in a test tube with green stopper?

IMO, either there was EDTA in the blood samples or it wasn't. And if EDTA was in any of the samples, why didn't all the samples have it? How could the Big Mac Attack account for EDTA to be found in some samples and not in others?

And I do believe that Martz was not fair or honest witness. He was called out and reprimanded about his testimony on the Simpson case. Granted, the reprimand never came out and said he lied or whatever but there was just enough jargon in it to clearly dilute the true reasoning behind him being investigated in the first place and why he was reprimanded. The color of the stopper denoted the fact that there was EDTA in the tube to keep the blood sample from coagulating. Since the blood sample did not coagulate, then we know that there was in fact EDTA in that tube.

There was not EDTA in all of the samples because the blood samples did not come from the tube.

You continue to make reference to Martz and a reprimand -- please post a link to that fact. This did not happen and for you to continue to call his integrity into question is wrong.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


ok

some shirts have pictures on both sides

one side says not guilty and the other says guilty. Okay -- get me the one that shows LAPD on the not guilty side and then OJ's mug shot on the guilty side. I'm liking that picture.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


:lol: Made you think of Petrocelli's description didn't it? Me too. :D

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
did you read the wagner page about rons killing yet? Nah, when I want to read fantasies about the murders, I just re-read some of your posts. Don't mean to be rude but I've told you that I do not believe wagner's theories since they cannot be substantiated by the evidence and for the most part, they are pretty out there. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


Martz problems were discussed previously many many days.
sorry you missed it

He was demoted one rerason is the fbi did not like the way he had testified in some cases.
look it up MARTZ ig report I would like to thank Wukong for posting the Martz information.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
if there is one i think the picture would be of your absolute HERO furhman with the words PLANTER underneath. There you go skewing facts again. Fuhrman is not my 'absolute hero' -- the question of whether or not he was/is a ****** is left to the individual. My defense of him in this case is -- so what? Whether or not he was/is a ****** has absolutely nothing to do with OJ battering/abusing Nicole, nor does it have anything to do with OJ murdering Nicole and Ron. There is absolute proof that there was no planting of anything by Fuhrman and for the NGs to keep insisting that there is is ludicrous. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
reprimanded or demoted? i had read that he was demoted and required to be closely supervised. LOL -- rayray can't even take DOJ's own report as truth.

[Kate Sachel]

When I first came to the forum, I was undecided on guilt/innocence.

One of the main things that clarified my issue was reading all of the information that Wukong made available about EDTA, in addition to all of my research into the civil trial.

Quite frankly, the amount of lying done by OJ Simpson horrified me, and even embarassed me at points. It was especially embarassing to realize that OJ had told the police no less than 5 times that he had cut himself prior to leaving for Chicago on June 12th.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
part of ig report on martz. this is only part of the ig report.
You just re-posted what wukong had already posted.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
ig report
"martz lacks credibility and judgement".


Based on our investigation, we conclude that Roger Martz lacks the credibility and judgment that are essential for a unit chief, particularly one who should be substantively evaluating a range of forensic disciplines. We found Martz lacking in credibility because, in matters we have discussed above, he failed to perform adequate analyses to support his conclusions and he did not accurately or persuasively describe his work You are skewing facts again -- this section from the DOJ report is not talking about the Simpson case.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by limakey


The timeline, the DA's timeline was a joke, yet the civil trial lawyers, when confronted with the facts and the evidence, just changed the timeline and presto, everything works out then.

Yet, they already based their civil trial verdict on the evidence that was presented in the criminal trial. That is why I didn't follow the civil trial closely, because I already knew how it was going to turn out and I was dealing with a very private situation during that time as well.

I'm very surprised that posters insist on saying the civil trial was a search for the truth when according to G's, you already knew the truth and didn't need any more evidence. Sad, very sad, IMO.

limakey,

Masny people, including myself, believe that the prosecution in the criminal trial had many things wrong including the timeline. Why is it difficult to believe that the civil trial prosecution simply got the timeline correct?

I'm saddened that you chose not to pay attention to the civil trial based on a prejudiced notion of knowing the score. You don't think it's fair of people to condemn the criminal jury for having a motive, but apparently feel as though it's fair to condemn the civil jury for having a motive.

I said from day one that the criminal trial left me too many questions. I can assure you that each and every one of my questions was answered in that civil trial, many of them based on the testimony of Orenthal James Simpson.

The civil trial prosecution had so many advantages that the criminal trial didn't. Much more time to research, the depositions of OJ's friends that ended up exposing many of his lies, and access to OJ himself.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
ig report "martz lacks credibility and judgement". you missed the part dealing with Martz's participation in the Simpson case: In raising his concerns, however, Whitehurst has also made numerous serious allegations that are not factually supportable. For instance, we did not find facts to support his allegations that examiners J. Thomas Thurman and Roger Martz perjured themselves, fabricated evidence, and improperly circumvented Laboratory protocols in the VANPAC case. Nor did we find facts showing perjury by examiners Hahn in the Avianca case, Thurman in the Kikumura case, or Martz in the Simpson case.

[weezer]

Socaldiva, did you read Petrocelli's book? When I was reading it, there was a line of testimony and speculation that I had not previuosly caught. I had always thought the questioning about what OJ was wearing on the return to LA had to do with LE still trying to find the dark sweat suit. But in the book, I understand that they were looking for the denim because they (petrocelli) believe that the pants would have shown blood on them from OJ's cut. Petrocelli believed that OJ kept his fingers in his pants pocket to stop the bleeding. Did you or anyone else pick up on that or did I get it wrong?

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


I'm a little less than 1/2 way through Petrocelli's book, so I haven't gotten to the testimony yet. Still on a bench out in the hallway. :D I don't recall reading about this in the depo, but maybe it wasn't asked, or I missed it. Hmmm -- I'll check Toobin's book tonight. There is something about OJ's clothes and whether or not he changed on the plane or after he got to LA. I believe Cathy Randa and Kardashian are questioned about it since. Now it's going to make me nuts.

[audpaud]

Originally posted by tazzybaby

Hi audpaud,

Welcome!

I have wondered the same thing! I am very glad that they slept thru.

Tazzy

Hi & Tx for the Welcome Tazzy! Also, Hi to banditsmom . . . good to see you again!

Me and my brothers were major OJ Simpson Football Fans . . . and I also enjoyed his performances in those Spoof Movies (whose titles escape me at the moment) . . . enjoyed his dry humor!

Always thought more of AC as the co-conspirator vs Arnette. Maybe both? I guess feeding from the trough of the gravy train was more important to these individuals than doing the right thing!:flamemad:

[weezer]

*SNipped Originally posted by audpaud
Always thought more of AC as the co-conspirator vs Arnette. Maybe both? I guess feeding from the trough of the gravy train was more important to these individuals than doing the right thing!:flamemad: Hello and nice to meet you. I also have leaned more toward AC since it was AC in the past to clean up OJ's fights with Nicole. But, there is only one way that Arnelle's laundry got from her room to the washer -- Arnelle had to have brought it. I wonder what it feels like once you've sold your soul to the devil? IMO

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
martz boss recomendations

Bromwich also proposed demotion and possible transfer for Roger Martz, head of the chemistry-toxicology unit, who he said "lacks the judgment and credibility to perform in a supervisory role." WTH does this have to do with the Simpson case. The same panel found Martz had not done anythng wrong in the Simpson case. Do you want to believe them in all the other cases but say they are lying when it comes to OJ? Which way do you want it? Either the OIG investigation was accurate or not.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


PETROCELLI always make proberbably statements

people at rockingham
lax
on the plane
chicago hotel
shook ojs hand.

how was this done if his hands were in his pockets. Just guessing, but I bet PETROCELLI has never made a 'proberbably' statement in his life.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


PETROCELLI always make proberbably statements

people at rockingham
lax
on the plane
chicago hotel
shook ojs hand.

how was this done if his hands were in his pockets. All kidding aside -- I don't have a clue what you are trying to say. Explain?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped WTH does this have to do with the Simpson case. The same panel found Martz had not done anythng wrong in the Simpson case. Do you want to believe them in all the other cases but say they are lying when it comes to OJ? Which way do you want it? Either the OIG investigation was accurate or not.

Bless you.

Thank you for always jumping in and taking the research another step further to help clarify misconceptions.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


you never quit
you keep this up and you will not get a oj tee shirt of him lounging
on the beach in the Bahamas surrounded by a few blonds.



probably:)

You do have a decent sense of humor.

It would be refreshing to see you continue to use it in a way that you did above, which didn't involve any personal attacks.

Kate

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


PETROCELLI always make proberbably statements

people at rockingham
lax
on the plane
chicago hotel
shook ojs hand.

how was this done if his hands were in his pockets.

It's very easy to take a hand out of a pocket for a moment to shake another individual's hand.

[weezer]

Originally posted by Kate Sachel


Bless you.

Thank you for always jumping in and taking the research another step further to help clarify misconceptions.

Kate :o Thanks -- wish I was as smart as some of our posters

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Just guessing, but I bet PETROCELLI has never made a 'proberbably' statement in his life.

That made me laugh out loud. I am going to get in trouble at work now....lol I just pictured Petrocelli saying that......LOL

:lol:

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by DiddleySquat
But that's not to say it didn't come close. At one point in the Fuhrman/Vannatter book, it's revealed that Vannatter himself had suspicions about the placement of the glove and possibly also about Fuhrman. Now Vannatter didn't know Fuhrman before that night. He'd never met him and hadn't heard of his reputation. But he still found the location of the glove and the timing of its discovery slighly odd, to say the least. I can find that quote in the book if you give me some time. Diddley, were you able to find the quote on this? I've been going through my book and have not come across it. Sure would appreciate a page number, etc.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
are you saying that le was looking for the denim clothing oj wore from chicago to lax?

if so oj had on the clothes he wore from chicago to la when vanhatter quesitoned him on 6/13. all they had to do is say oj take off your trousers. See, that's what I'm researching. I think there was two incidents of questions regarding his clothing -- going to Chicago and returning to LA. I'll look it up for sure tonight but I believe he did not have on the denim when he got to his house. I believe he had on dark pants and a white shirt. There's something about him changing clothes -- going to have to do my :read:

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


if so then the other person would have blood on his hand. right. Does OJ shake with his left hand?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by audpaud
*snip*
Me and my brothers were major OJ Simpson Football Fans . . . and I also enjoyed his performances in those Spoof Movies (whose titles escape me at the moment) . . . enjoyed his dry humor!

Always thought more of AC as the co-conspirator vs Arnette. Maybe both? I guess feeding from the trough of the gravy train was more important to these individuals than doing the right thing!:flamemad:

I had nothing but love for OJ Simpson prior to the murders. I have always loved football. I saw his smiling face in the orange juice commercials and running thru the airport. Nothing but good. I think that is why it was so hard for people to think that it was possible that he could have done it. I believe that's why I resisted believing he was responsible.

Yes, I believe AC knows way more than anyone really knows. As far as Arnell, I think she also played a role in it. However, I do believe it was very minimal.

Glad to see you found your way over to this new location.

:seeya:

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo



since you are reading most of the prosecution,detective and plaintiffs books, i thought you may be interested in other possibilities presented by someone like wagner who did maby the best invistigaiton into this case.

unless you are satisfied with a one sided view.
:)

I have read prosecution, detective, and defense books. I have also read Wagner's theories. As someone who was never satisfied with a one sided view I can assure you that Wagner's theories are failry ridiculous.

[weezer]

Criminal trial jury stats:
Final Jury Composition
By Race: 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanics, 2 Whites
By Sex: 10 Women, 2 Men
By Education: 2 College Graduates, 9 High School Graduates, 1 Without Diploma

Some other facts about the final jury: (1) None regularly read a newspaper, but eight regularly watch tabloid TV shows, (2) five thought it was sometimes appropriate to use force on a family member, (3) all were Democrats, (4) five reported that they or another family member had had a negative experience with the police, (5) nine thought that Simpson was less likely to be a murderer because he was a professional athlete.

The racial composition of the initial jury pool differed considerably from the racial compostion of the final jury. The pool was 40% white, 28% black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian.

Anyone have the breakdown on the civil jury?

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
since you are reading most of the prosecution,detective and plaintiffs books, i thought you may be interested in other possibilities presented by someone like wagner who did maby the best invistigaiton into this case.

unless you are satisfied with a one sided view.:) I read wagner's theories and some of his stuff was very thought provoking. However, his theories were not substantiated by evidence. Therefore, I examined the next set of cirumstances, see if they are substantiated by evidence and so forth. Through a process of examination, elimination and a little common sense, I came to the conclusion that OJ Simpson murdered Nicole and Ron. There was/is no credible evidence that anyone else was at the murder scene except OJ, Nicole and Ron. OJ is still alive. Nicole and Ron are dead. I believe that confirms OJ is their murderer.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by tazzybaby
Yes, I believe AC knows way more than anyone really knows. As far as Arnell, I think she also played a role in it. However, I do believe it was very minimal. OJ is as famous for running his mouth as he was for running down the football field. No way was he with AC all those hours and NOT blurt/confess to what happened. AC knows. As far as Arnelle, her playing a minimal role in the coverup of the murders is like someone being a little bit pregnant.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
additionally they stated that if a syringe was used, Paratis would definately know how much blood he drew from oj because the syringe is calibrated with marking on the side of the tube. He would only have known how much he had drawn IF he looked at the calibrations -- whether on the tube or the needle. Obviously, he did not do that. Sorry wukong for jumping in.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Thanks for the refresher on the composition of the criminal jury. I don't have the breakdown for the civil jurors, but I bet it is very different than the first. I actually posted this in reply to an earlir post questioning why two juries could come to diametric opposite conclusions. I thought we should compare the statistics from each jury to see if anything was obvious.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
the final jury was selected by the prosecution and the defense. this looks like a good cross section of people that would agree to serve on a la jury.

civil trial
ALL WHITE. Do you not find it interesting that the percentage of blacks on the jury does not reflect the racial make up of LA?

Actually, you're almost right about the civil jury: Jury consists of nine whites, one black, one Hispanic, and one person of mixed Asian and African ancestry.

How about some stats on gender, education, etc. Anyone?

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


is this a way to start talking about race again??let me know.

The jury in the civil trial was primarily White (nine Whites, one Latino, one Asian and one person who is Black/Asian). The criminal jury had nine Blacks, two Whites and one Latino. Good grief no -- just thought it would be interesting to comparing ALL stats for both juries. Race was only one of those. I simply can't find anything on the civil jury except the racial make up and I was hoping someone else had the rest.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


fbg
what is the racial makeup of LA????

the racial makeup of la has nothing to do with the jury.
people are selected at random i assume by a computer, from voter rolls. if you have a beef with this blame it on the la jury selection computer system. Would you just freakin' stop it! Of course the racial makeup of LA has something to do with it. A defendant is suppose to be given the benefit of being tried by his peers. That does not mean "same race" -- that means a balanced of people who lives in his community.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


one jury was mostly black and one was mostly white. what else. That was my question. Gender? Education? Any of the other info we have about the criminal jury.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i don't know any nurse that uses a syringe that would not look to see how much they had drawn. Paratis was full of it. You are something else! Paratis said that he was taking blood from a live person. Didn't think about it except that "that looked like enough." I believe him. If he was going to lie, why wouldn't he have said that he had only taken 6.5 cc's of blood.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


oj wore denim trousers white shirt and denim jacket to chicago.

i am sure he would put on fresh clothes to return to la. Going to do some research -- I think I was so distracted with other stuff in the book that I kind of glossed over the clothing part but for whatever reason, I kind of had this thought creep across my little tiny -- so now I'm driving myself nuts trying to remember what it was about. I'll know tonight.

[weezer]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Going to do some research -- I think I was so distracted with other stuff in the book that I kind of glossed over the clothing part but for whatever reason, I kind of had this thought creep across my little tiny -- so now I'm driving myself nuts trying to remember what it was about. I'll know tonight.
OMG -- am I starting to sound like rayray? LOL

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i don't know any nurse that uses a syringe that would not look to see how much they had drawn. Paratis was full of it. I can see that a nurse would pay very close attention when injecting but I bet even your nurse friends will tell you that there is no such thing as an exact withdrawal......

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i don't know any nurse that uses a syringe that would not look to see how much they had drawn. Paratis was full of it.


rayraytwo, Peratis was asked about that.

The Prosecution Responds
"When you looked at the syringe, did you look at the calibrations.?"
"No. They were on the other side. I just looked at the syringe, and it looked like
enough. And that was it. Bing, bang, boom."

Triumph of Justice
As it turned out, Peratis, a frail, elderly man, was mistaken. Medvene had talked to him at length and found that, in drawing Simpson's blood, Peratis had not filled the 8 cc test tube to the top. In fact, because of Simpson's muscular arm, Peratis had to use a different syringe device that routinely draws out a bit less blood. "Good luck if you can fill the vial up all of the time," Peratis said, "It looked like it was enough blood to test. I said, 'Officers, is this enough?' I heard a 'Yes.' I withdrew the needle." Nurse Peratis had innocently underestimated. There was no missing blood.

bobaugust

[Wukong]

Ray,

I should not have said that the blood flow could not be controlled, my mistake. Using a vacutainer just makes it more difficult to control in comparison to a syringe because with a syringe you just stop drawing and the blood stops. With a vacutainer you need to perform different tasks to stop the blood; pulling the strap or removing the butterfly.

Phlebotomists draw blood all day long for a living. Peratis was a very experienced phlebotomist and has probably (don't know his work history, just assuming here) drawn blood thousands of times. His job was to draw blood for testing. He had said he did not look at the scale on the tube but he had hit the opposite wall of the vein, stopping the flow. At that point he looked at the tube and based on experience felt he had more than enough. In every persons job there are exact procedures for how to perform certain tasks. After performing those tasks thousands of times you understand what is important and know how to do your job.

This discussion about whether he drew 6.5cc or 8cc is an exercise in futility as far as I'm concerned for reasons I have previously posted.

Wukong

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i have picturtes of white and black people, some in the same picture of various corporate award dinners. sometimes during the year i take all the pictures down and put up all art work. my wife does actually.

the only one that is constant is a color print of Beethovens head that i purchased at the PARIS Oprah House gift shop it remains in the front entrance hall all the time.

oh and my twin grandbabies.

Grandparents are not allowed to ever every take down pictures of their Grandbabies. I have to keep looking for extra wall space, because there are 3 Grandbabies and I can't bear to take down any of their younger one. :)

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


NETTA

this just another instance where prosecution witnesses testified to one set of facts, and when challanged they change their testimony and people like bob say oh it was just a honest mistake. yet when oj changed his testimony he is a confirmed serial lier. now that would be really funny if it were not so sad.



rayraytwo, what is sad is that you can't seem to understand is that there are mistakes and there are lies. You evidently can't tell the difference between the two so this may be hard for you to accept.

A mistake is something that was said in error and then corrected A lie is when someone doesn't correct his mistake even when what was said is contradicted by many witnesses and physical evidence. An untrue statement with the intent to deceive.

Simpson was impeached by authenticated photographs, telephone records, and even a defense doctor's notes. Simpson was defending himself against accusations of murder. The fact is that if he told only one lie in his defense it would be incriminating let alone many lies. Demonstrative lies.

How do you explain or in your case excuse Simpson's lies if not evidence of guilt?

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i have picturtes of white and black people, some in the same picture of various corporate award dinners. sometimes during the year i take all the pictures down and put up all art work. my wife does actually.

the only one that is constant is a color print of Beethovens head that i purchased at the PARIS Oprah House gift shop it remains in the front entrance hall all the time.

oh and my twin grandbabies.

Hey, rayray..do you do this because a jury who is deciding your fate is visiting your house and you are trying to prove something. I think there is a big difference between what you might do and what OJ's lawyers did. IIRC one of the pictures was a nude one of Paula B. I am sure you don't have anything like that.

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


if i said i took the pictures of my grandbabies down i was wrong.

rayray, you didn't say that. I was just making the comment that we are never to take down those picture. :)

[alien]

Originally posted by bandit's mom
[QUOTE]Originally posted by audpaud
[B]Hi All!:)

.

Wondering how many of you agree that had Sydney and Justin come outside at the "wrong" time, OJ would have slaughtered his kids just like Nicole & Ron?:eek:

It's an interesting question. I remember when it first happened,
my husband didn't think OJ could have done it, because any
father would have been afraid that his children would have
been the ones to find their mother like that, and it's really
amazing that they didn't. Of course that was before
the chase and before the mountain of evidence, when
just about everyone I knew was insistent that OJ was
innocent. My husband, like me and everyone else we knew,
soon changed out minds.

GULP GULP...SOB SOB (as in crying). I really tried to snip, but couldn't. :mad:

I wanted to respond to the first question. I never thought about that in depth before, but MOO is that he would have killed them. I think at that point OJ was an angry out of control person and wouldn't have thought about anything, but killing Nicole and anyone who would get in the way or be able to identify him.

On another post it mentioned how he told the police, he went "bonkers" when he was told about Nicole. Another example of how he loses control of his "cool".

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

A.C., Arnelle and Rosey Greer all lied to protect OJ?

Yes, except Rosey. Whether he liked it or not, he had to keep his mouth shut because of his position as a Minister. I am sure OJ's confession haunts him to this day.

JMO and MOO!

[2L8 4A D8]

Originally posted by nettathirty

Robert Kardashian?

Johnnie Cochran?

[alien]

Regarding a "jury of your peers"...

IMO. A jury of peers for OJ would have been people who turned their backs on their background because suddenly they had wealth. Also, OJ lived in an affluent part of LA. They didn't get any of those people on the jury. They got people from a different part of LA.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


NONSENSE


rayraytwo, very good, I agree.

The only way to explain Simpson's lies is evidence of guilt, any other explanation is just nonsense.

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo



so far no jury or no le person has had a reason to come to my house. but i do know that this does not mean that it could not happen.

i think that the jury commented that oj had a fabulous home.
so whatever they did it seemed to have been the right move.

i don't see anything wrong with oj lawyers telling him to get those funky pictures off his walls.

if you had a wall of naked men in your house and your preacher was comming for tea and cake what would you do.:)

rayray, if you are like me you have no reason to believe that LE would ever come to your house, but as you say it could happen. However, we would probably not have enough notice to change pictures around or take them down. This incident of the jury visiting OJ's house was planned so things could be changed to make OJ look like a different person then what he really was. MO of course. MO of course is that OJ wanted people to believe that he belonged to the Afro American community.

When you say funky pictures, does that include pictures of your friends? The picture of a naked Paula B probably should have been taken down just because it may be inappropriate. Would I want strangers to see a picture of my naked husband. Of course not. That is for my eyes only. :D

And I have to tell you that there won't be any Preacher coming to my house for tea or cake. Maybe a beer :D And the only nake men pictures would be of Mr Alien and those would be in my bedroom. Of course there aren't any of those pictures. Children and Grandbabies coming over and all. As Mr Alien would say..."Oh my God, my eyes are burning...Make it go away". TEE Hee.....

[alien]

HELP!!!!!

How do I snip. What I did before isn't working.

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo



alien
when you say THEY GOT. who are you referring to?

All potential jurors are selected by computer from voter rolls. regradless of financial status or any particular neighborhood one might live in. this is by law.

when you say a jury of his peers then would that be all ex professional football players with a net worth of over $10,000,000
that live in brentwood.

rayray, I should have said my comments where IMO...I understand the whole selected by computer voter rolls. But don't the Prosecutor and Defense get to strike potential jurors? I think what I am trying to say is that I don't think the jury was IMO a jury of peers. Do the people who were on the jury understand the life that OJ lived? And while we are on the subject, how many ex professional football players with a net worth of over $10,000,000 who had such a disasterous relationship with their ex-wives are out there. It wasn't so much about his profession, but his way of life. Does this make any sense?

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo




i think that the jury commented that oj had a fabulous home.
so whatever they did it seemed to have been the right move.

i don't see anything wrong with oj lawyers telling him to get those funky pictures off his walls.





rayraytwo, you don't see anything wrong with Simpson's lawyers telling him to get those funky pictures off his wall? Funny. His lawyers didn't tell him, they did it themselves.

American Tragedy,
All day Saturday, members of the defense team are hard at work establishing O.J.'s African American identity at Rockingham.

Cathy Randa and Arnelle have worked hard on the project. Rockingham is now sparkling, the furniture arranged for maximum effect. O.J. wants a fire in each fireplace. A thousand dollars worth of flowers have been ordered. The America flag must fly on the flagpole out front.

A nude portrait of Paula Barbieri vanishes from its spot near the fireplace in Simpson's bedroom. There will be no pictures of white women in O.J.'s bedroom. A silver framed picture of O.J. and his mother goes on his bedside table.

The white women on the walls have to go, and the black people have to come in. All along the wall on the curving stairway, pictures are taken down. Ditto for the photos of white women downstairs. A few pictures of white female movie stars are left near the bar. Simpson always surrounded himself with photographs of his friends. Rockingham's walls, end tables and shelves overflowed with them. The faces were overwhelmingly white. That's not the way to please a jury dominated by African American women.

"We've got to have pictures of his family, his black family, up there," Cochran says.

Kardashian has photos enlarged at Kinko's, then framed nicely. One is even carefully placed in the kitchen. The jurors won't notice that they are color photocopies.

We're getting manipulative here, Bob (Shapiro) thinks. He is embarrassed. Then he resolutely shoves the feeling aside. If the prosecution is too dumb to check the photos they took of those walls the day after the murders, it's not our fault, he decides. If they can't figure out that we'll show the jury O.J.'s proud to be a black man, too bad.

Cochran wants something depicting African American history. "What about that framed poster from my office of the little girl trying to get to school?" he asks.

Johnnie means Norman Rockwell's famous 1963 painting. 'The Problem We All Live With," in which a black grade school girl walks to school surrounded by federal marshals.

They hang the framed poster at the top of the stairs, where the jury can't miss it as they go up to Simpson's bedroom. Everyone is pleased. This has little to do with a search for the truth. This is stagecraft.

bobaugust

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


if i had notice that a jury was comming to my house my wife and i would clean and make the house give as possitive impression as possible. i have some art work that could be considered funky
by some and that would come down

My house isn't the cleanist one on the block, but that is because I don't have tons of time to make it that way. But, it is presentable. I would want people to see the real Alien, not what I think people want to think of me. I will never hide the true person I am. So now, funky is in the eye of the beholder IMO. What is your idea of funky?

[alien]

Originally posted by bobaugust




rayraytwo, you don't see anything wrong with Simpson's lawyers telling him to get those funky pictures off his wall? Funny. His lawyers didn't tell him, they did it themselves.

American Tragedy,
All day Saturday, members of the defense team are hard at work establishing O.J.'s African American identity at Rockingham.

Cathy Randa and Arnelle have worked hard on the project. Rockingham is now sparkling, the furniture arranged for
maximum effect. O.J. wants a fire in each fireplace. A thousand dollars worth of flowers have been ordered. The America flag must fly on the flagpole out front.

A nude portrait of Paula Barbieri vanishes from its spot near the fireplace in Simpson's bedroom. There will be no pictures of white women in O.J.'s bedroom. A silver framed picture of O.J. and his mother goes on his bedside table.

The white women on the walls have to go, and the black people have to come in. All along the wall on the curving stairway, pictures are taken down. Ditto for the photos of white women downstairs. A few pictures of white female movie stars are left near the bar. Simpson always surrounded himself with photographs of his friends. Rockingham's walls, end tables and shelves overflowed with them. The faces were overwhelmingly white. That's not the way to please a jury dominated by African American women.

"We've got to have pictures of his family, his black family, up there," Cochran says.

Kardashian has photos enlarged at Kinko's, then framed nicely. One is even carefully placed in the kitchen. The jurors won't notice that they are color photocopies.

We're getting manipulative here, Bob (Shapiro) thinks. He is embarrassed. Then he resolutely shoves the feeling aside. If the prosecution is too dumb to check the photos they took of those walls the day after the murders, it's not our fault, he decides. If they can't figure out that we'll show the jury O.J.'s proud to be a black man, too bad.

Cochran wants something depicting African American history. "What about that framed poster from my office of the little girl trying to get to school?" he asks.

Johnnie means Norman Rockwell's famous 1963 painting. 'The Problem We All Live With," in which a black grade school girl walks to school surrounded by federal marshals.

They hang the framed poster at the top of the stairs, where the jury can't miss it as they go up to Simpson's bedroom. Everyone is pleased. This has little to do with a search for the truth. This is stagecraft.

bobaugust

Still....(deep breath) can't snip...(deep breath)

bobaugust. Thanks for this post. This is what I was thinking when I was posting. Apparently the pictures of the white women didn't have to much of an affect on the Afro American female jurors.

[alien]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i will say this again
oj was black when he played football, black when he was running through airports tv, black when he was down town in his tux mixing with la best. white america labeled him black when the trial started and after. it seemed that the only group that always saw oj black were blacks.

My dear rayray...some how I don't think we are on the same page. This didn't answer my question. We aren't talking so much about OJ being Black, we are talking about him trying to change his way of life and appearances.

Please answer my questions like I have been answering yours.

Anyway, it has been nice having a decent discussion with you. Grandma Alien worked her day shift today and it was a long one. I am so off to my wonderful comfy bed and Mr Alien. Have a good night and I look forward to "chatting" with you tomorrow.

[alien]

socal, my Buddy where are you with your input. I need help with snipping.

If you saw my post to rayray, I am off to my comfy bed and Mr Alien.

Hope to chat with you tomorrow.

Have a good night, Girlfriend.

[tazzybaby]

When the jury went on their "field trip" to Bundy and Rockingham they went to Bundy first. Bundy was empty at this time. Nicole's family had already cleaned up and moved her stuff. So, when they toured Bundy it was just an empty Condo. Nothing to help them connect to Nicole. Nothing. The prosecution didn't go thru and rent furniture and put up pictures. They didn't transform Bundy into a warm and fuzzy place. They only wanted them to get an idea of the crime scenes. Then they go to Rockingham. They were led thru OJ's trophy room. Why? For impressions. There was a fire in every fireplace. Flowers everywhere. They purposely set the stage to show OJ's home as something that it wasn't. They had to help his image. Why? Why would they have to help in that way? That is misleading. OJ was treated as a celebrity instead of a defendant thru this entire ordeal. No matter how any one tries to defend this, it was wrong. Ito should have never allowed it. The prosecution tried to argue it down and Ito still allowed it. Ito was star struck also. What does he do? He tells him to take down the picture of his mother and turn out the fires in the fireplaces. Then he says "nice try guys". That's it?!

When everyone is talking about how misconduct flows through the prosecution side they also need to consider this type of behavior from the defense. The defense pulled every trick they could get away with to get OJ off. Poor Nicole. She knew this would happen. That's why she tried to document the abuse and save pictures. She even went so far as to put them in a lockbox. But, they still didn't believe her. Even with pictures they didn't believe her. Or they blame her.

I believe Nicole.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



A.C., Arnelle and Rosey Greer all lied to protect OJ? Yep

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
vanhatter was sitting next to him and oj.
since a syringe was used. it would be simple for Paratis to inject 6.5 cc into one vile and 1.5 cc into another vile. OMG --

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i understand
reading pretocelli can be confusing as he did toss everything against the wall to see what would stick. LOL -- this from the conspiracy theorist of all time. LOL

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


Robert Kardashian? Yep

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo

Cora Fishman and Fayes ex boyfriend????? Yep

[weezer]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Yes, except Rosey. Whether he liked it or not, he had to keep his mouth shut because of his position as a Minister. I am sure OJ's confession haunts him to this day.

JMO and MOO! Going to have to disagree with your assessement of Rosey. He should never have chosen to take the devil's side. He knew the truth but kept quiet and I am not convinced it was because he was a minister. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty


What did Cathy lie about? Just about everything. She had been a part of OJ's life for years. She knew the relationship between OJ and Nicole for what it was - abusive and controlling. She lied about the IRS letter and how and why that came to be. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by 2L8 4A D8


Johnnie Cochran? Yep - him above all else.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo



alien
when you say THEY GOT. who are you referring to?

All potential jurors are selected by computer from voter rolls. regradless of financial status or any particular neighborhood one might live in. this is by law.

when you say a jury of his peers then would that be all ex professional football players with a net worth of over $10,000,000
that live in brentwood. From reading your post, I'm not real sure you understand how jury selection works. Toobin has an excellent section on it in his book that you might benefit from. MOO

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by nettathirty

This is the BIGGEST MYSTERY OF ALL FOR ME!!! (personally)

A.C., driving the Bronco after the warrant for OJ's arrest is public as the world watches... I have talked to all my black male friends, not a one myself included would have done this.. Not even for a family member..
IIRC, that was AC's Bronco they were making the flight/suicide/"I just want to be with Nicole" ride in. Read AC's deposition -- he did this and more for his bud OJ......much more.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by nettathirty
The driver of the Nissan, Jill Shiverly witnessed a car nearly rammed by OJ at the intersection on the 12th about 10:45p.. THERE IS NEVER ANY MENTION OF THIS PERSON, HE or SHE NEVER COMES FORWARD.. THE COPS NEVER PRESS THE ISSUE
Once Jill Shively sold her story, the prosecution (Clark) refused to use her. Which, btw, I think was a big mistake. As far as the other driver, who knows why that person has never come forward or maybe they did and the defense got to them first? LOL (You guys are right. It is fun making this stuff up)

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by nettathirty
OJ has a knapsack to get rid of the evidence, but for some strange reason he doesn't put the right hand glove in the bag??
WTF -- he'd already lost the glove by then. Using your logic, why didn't he put his cap and left hand glove in it?

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by nettathirty
OJ was to turn himself into police sometime during the late afternoon on the 17th., He and A.C. leaves Kardashian's home in Encino, CA., and can't be found.. Ask any BLACK MAN you know, or come in contact with " would he flee with his BEST FRIEND who's being sort by POLICE for killing his X- WIFE and another HUMAN BEING... Watch his facial Expressions!!! OJ was suppose to turn himself in that morning. Shapiro negotiated an 11 a.m. time. What does being Black have to do with whether or not you'd help your best friend?

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
tazzy

am i correct in saying that it was the browns that closed down the bundy condo very soon after the murders and had the whole crime scene wiped clean. we have no idea of what was inside nicoles house, pictures etc. whoes fault is that ojs??

i think some people are trying to say SEE OJ we cought you with all those white peoples pictures on your wall. this means that you love white people and not black people. shame on you.

this is pure bs.

Do you know how long after the murders they toured? Of course her stuff would be cleared out. Who's fault was it that OJ's house was turned into something that it wasn't? Nicoles? The prosecution? No. It was the scheme team directed by OJ. The only way they could get OJ off of his murder rap was to decieve and mislead. They had to do everything they could.

I am trying to say that they misled the jury and tried to play on their emotions. Shame on OJ and his scheme team for their dirty tactics. Why would he take the pictures down? Was he ashamed of having the white peoples pictures on the wall? What was he trying to accomplish by replacing pictures? What was the point?

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by nettathirty
ps: both the victims were white and the primary suspect is VERY FAMOUS and BLACK.. This one made me pause -- just for a moment I thought maybe you were OJ but then I saw that you wrote, ". . . and BLACK." Then I knew it couldn't be OJ because he says, "I'm not Black. I'm OJ."

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
Just about everything. She had been a part of OJ's life for years. She knew the relationship between OJ and Nicole for what it was - abusive and controlling. She lied about the IRS letter and how and why that came to be. MOO

She also destroyed documents. She destroyed a document that detailed the abuse that OJ committed against Nicole. She shreaded it. Hmmm....why?

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by nettathirty
Black People and other minorities know that if a crime goes down, you in NO WAY SHAPE or form involve yourself if you are not the perpetrater(sp) Yet AC is driving the Bronco in a Slow Speed Chase, knowing full well RODNEY KING got beat and he hadn't been accused of killing anybody (WTF) I'm just following your reasoning here: Guess white truck drivers and other whites know that in NO WAY SHAPE should you go through a neighborhood during a riot, knowing full well REGINALD DENNY got beat and he was only trying to get through an intersection. Hmmmm.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


no one i know would do this. but maby some people here know many people that would. Ray, please follow HC's guidelines on posting.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


everyone woud try to put their best foot forward if a jury was comming to their house. it makes no sense to do otherwise.

the jury heard some info about oj and nicoles troubles. rayray, how about you look at socal's instructions to alien on how to snip?

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
supose the jury had been white and oj had a house full of pictures of the nation of islam in his house, would you suggest
that they be taken down before the all white jury came to see if you were his lawyer? The statement was that NO changes should have been made to the house.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
tazzy

'Defense tried every trick in the book"

by law it is the duty of every defense attorney to use every bit of info at their disposal to try to establish reasonable doubt with the jury. defense lawyers are required to use every means possible to do this.

now since you have never been accused of a crime and had to hire a lawyer, maby this has no serious meaning to you. but if you are ever accused, you would demand that your lawyers do the same.

Hi rayray,

I don't think the defense is required to lie to get their client off. I understand that every defendant should be vigorously defended. I agree with that. But, if it is lies, dirty tricks and smoke & mirrors then it is wrong. That is not justice.

I would never demand that my lawyers lie and turn me into something that I'm not. I would never be accused of something like this in the first place. Not worried. If OJ were any kind of man he would have taken a plea. He wouldn't of done what he did in the first place.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


what about faye?

judge ito? Faye did not tell ALL of the truth. Ambiguous? Maybe. She told her truth. And like the defense staging OJ's house for the jury, she put herself in the best light possible. Which, btw, wasn't a flattering light at any rate. Unfortunately, she sensationalized some of her story in order to sell her books. I think most people looked at her for what she was/is -- or at least I did. Wonder where she is now?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
*Snipped Once Jill Shively sold her story, the prosecution (Clark) refused to use her. Which, btw, I think was a big mistake. As far as the other driver, who knows why that person has never come forward or maybe they did and the defense got to them first? LOL (You guys are right. It is fun making this stuff up)

Apparently the driver of the Nissan did come forward. Because the Prosecution had already dismissed Jill, they chose not to go any further with it.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
tazzy
am i correct in saying that it was the browns that closed down the bundy condo very soon after the murders and had the whole crime scene wiped clean. we have no idea of what was inside nicoles house, pictures etc. whoes fault is that ojs??
A little difference in the two locations that you may not have thought of -- One of them was covered in blood and the person that lived there was dead. Hmm.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
i think some people are trying to say SEE OJ we cought you with all those white peoples pictures on your wall. this means that you love white people and not black people. shame on you.

this is pure bs. I, for one, am not trying to say OJ loved white people and not black people. I believe what is being is said is that OJ/defense set a stage that did not reflect who OJ was, who/what he surrounded himself with -- in other words, they snookered the jury using smoke and mirrors. (no pun intended)

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


cora told the truth but you did not like it because some of it was not in nicoles favor. Blatantly not true. Cora, like Faye, told her truth. She was the one that was sleeping with the grocery bag boy and trying to get Nicole to cover for her with her husband.

It was Nicole who was angry with Cora for putting her in that position and told her she wouldn't do it.

It was Nicole who helped to arrange the intervention for Faye.

Yet, the Nicole bashers would have you believe that Nicole was a bad person and was doing all the same things. There is no proof that Nicole was with anyone but OJ while they were together. No one says Nicole did drugs -- even Faye says "once in a blue moon." When are you guys going to get over trashing the victim? Nicole and Ron did NOTHING to deserve to be butchered by OJ Simpson. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


fbg

from your previous post you have made two things clear.
1. black people think differently than whites
2. you have no idea as to how or why black people think they way you think they do. from your previous post you have made two things clear.
1. you are black
2. you have no idea as to how or why white people think the way you think they do.

I do not want this discussion to turn ugly and racial. Let's get back on track.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


ok
you tell me how the jury selection works in your words. I have niether the time nor the inclination to educate you on jury selection which is why I suggested you read the section in Toobin's book. I understand the process that was used and I hope with a little research on your part, you might become a little more conversant in it also. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


ok

now tell me what the motive was for the browns to empty nicoles house very quickly and have the scene washed down. didn't the prosecution tell them that a jury visit may be required. OMG --

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


bottom line is that this circle of people men and women all seemed to be living a kinda loose life style. seems like everyone had some kind of extra activities going on. so who knows who was doing who. Including OJ? You should be ashamed of yourself. Nicole and Ron did NOTHING to deserve being butchered by OJ Simpson.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


tazzy

the prosecution labeled almost all of ojs house a crime scene. so it was necessary for the jury to walk all over the house.
kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, foyer front and side yard. etc

i think only nicoles front steps and walkway was a crime scene.

Hi rayray,

No, it should have only been where evidence was found. There was no evidence found in his trophy room.

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


ok

now tell me what the motive was for the browns to empty nicoles house very quickly and have the scene washed down. didn't the prosecution tell them that a jury visit may be required.

Motive? I don't mean to be rude, but are you really serious in asking this question?

Two people were viciously murdered there, and a pool of blood streamed out from the entryway to the sidewalk. Are you suggesting that the carnage was to be left there for months so that a jury could view it on their walk through?

For the record, the city would have demanded that the crime scene be washed down long before that could have happened.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
STALKING: When they were separated, O. J. said he and Nicole lived in the same neighborhood, they liked the same places and the same restaurants. In one and a half years, they showed up at the same restaurant twice. One time, he was having dinner with a friend at Mezzaluna; they went in and Nicole was there. She came over and kissed him and invited him over (Keith was there and O. J. didn't know him). O. J. bought them drinks, they bought O. J. drinks. Nicole and Cora Fischman were going dancing and invited O. J. to go. He went and then went to Nicole's home that night. The other time was at a restaurant named Tryst. He went there to join a party that was already there before Nicole's party showed up. These incidents were not "stalking." At that time, O. J. and Nicole were having dinner together about three times a week. She slept at his house, and he slept at her house. She didn't have a boyfriend, and O. J. didn't have a girlfriend. O. J. went by her house after going to a dance. As he approached her front door he could see the front window was open and he could see her head. He saw "what was happening" [Nicole with Keith]. He didn't try to stop them; he rang the bell as he left so they would be aware they were in the open. The next day, he spoke to Nicole's mother and went by and talked to Nicole. Keith was there, and he told O. J. "You're right, it was wrong [doing that with the kids there]." O. J. shook his hand. O. J. said there was nothing romantic between Nicole and Keith; they were friends, but they had been drinking. That is the so-called "stalking" incident misrepresented by the prosecution and the media. As always, you are the one doing the misrepresenting. You use OJ's statements concerning the stalking but refuse to give credance to any other testimony/statements. Nicole's neighbors said they would often see OJ standing out on the sidewalk staring at Nicole's house. There was testimony from many, many people about OJ showing up and scaring off any guys that might be showing any interest in Nicole. As far as the Keith incident, IIRC, it was stated -- by OJ no less -- that the curtains were not open BUT he could see between the space where the curtains met. LOL. Yah -- if you're skulking around in the bushes.....LOL. And, don't you find it laughable that he would be so outraged at the alledged sex act taking place with sleeping children in the house but not think anything of keeping a naked picture of Paula B on his bedside table? Says alot about the man and his defenders. MOO

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


i am not speaking about the bodies.

le can determine what is a crime scene and it will stay a crime scene until le says take it down. no one can tell le when to remove it.

You were, however, speaking of the blood which is evidenced in your "washed down" statement.

The LAPD had removed the crime scene tape and allowed family and others into the scene, thus removing the "crime scene" status. Had the areas still been decalred a crime scene, no one would have been allowed entrance to the property.

After that, the city of Los Angeles does indeed have the authority to make such a clean up call and would not have allowed pooling blood to remain at a property and on a city sidewalk for months.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


*snip*
now you know if the jury passed his trophy room they themselves would say let me see. as a matter of fact i think the jury wanted to see all they could see in a celebrity home. human nature.

That is exactly my point. The defense knew that too. That's why they did what they did to the house. They took them through the trophy room. Not past it. This is more predjudicial than beneficial. There wasn't a need to see the inside. Pictures would do fine. I can understand seeing Kato's bungalow or the path where the glove was found. But, not the inside of the house. Especially with the defense manipulating the house.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


no but if he put the knife and the shoes in the bag why not the glove. earlier someone had posted that he put the kinfe, shoes and glove in the bag. had it on his shoulder and when he jumped the back fense, the glove just fell out. haha



rayraytwo, ha ha, that's probably what happened.

Simpson would have still been wearing his shoes when he scaled his fence. His hat and his left hand glove were at Bundy. Simpson could have been carrying the small dark colored knapsack over his shoulder. The knapsack would have contained the towel he used to wipe up the blood he saw in his Bronco, the murder weapon and his right hand glove.

When Simpson jumped from the top of the four and a half foot high fence to the narrow south path he hit the back wall of Kaelin's room with his right shoulder hard enough for Kaelin to feel the vibrations on his back and tilt a picture on that wall. That's when the glove fell out of the bag. It was very dark back there and Simpson never knew he dropped it. Simpson recovered his balance and continued down the south path.

bobaugust

[tazzybaby]

Simpson had a history of beating Nicole and she made more than 30 911-calls to the police. In 1977, neighbors overheard O.J. beating Nicole. In 1982, he threw her against a wall, smashing pictures of her and her family. In 1987, he hit her and threw her to the ground. In 1988, O.J. beat Nicole on a New York street corner and also beat her in a separate incident for letting a gay man kiss their son. In 1989, O.J. slapped Nicole and pushed her out of a slow-moving car. The same year, the police found Nicole hiding in the bushes outside their home wearing only a bra and sweatpants and O.J. was arrested and convicted for battery. After this incident, Nicole had her sister Denise take pictures of her bruises and locked the photos in a safety deposit box "as proof that O.J. beat me. Without proof no one will ever believe me. The public thinks he's a crazed hero who can do no wrong." In 1993, Nicole called 911 again...

http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_10.26.95/NEWS/nec1026.htm

[weezer]

*SNipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
now i will tell you something else. after seeing that i am sure it was very easy for him to let go emotionally. there was nothing there. Then why was he willing to kill himself "to be with her."?

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
fbg 'because i know you are easedropping: a female white woman, a friend, suggested i send you a oj bobblehead for your car. LOL -- a big ole bobblehead of OJ? Love it. You made me laugh.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Ah, the PAID employee of Simpson.....no bias there :rolleyes: He means the one that tried to pull Nicole out of the police car telling her she didn't want to make trouble. At least I'm pretty sure that's the one she means.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


tazzy

the jury wanted to see where the socks were planted. they wanted to see the location of the phampton dark blue suite washing machine. the back door, the kitchen, etc
pictures never do as well as in person. jurors go to location all the time.

cochran should have arrange to give all 12 a oj jersey or a little key chain.

fbg 'because i know you are easedropping: a female white woman, a friend, suggested i send you a oj bobblehead for your car.

The judge ruled that the only thing that the jurors could see is where the socks were. So, why again did they go through the trophy room?

And, I'm sure if Cochran thought he could get away with it he would have passsed out suiveniers.

And, that little comment that you made lets me know that you are not serious about actually discussing this matter.

so........:tongue:

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


you should read michells(oj maid) version as to why nicole ended up outside with sweat pants and bra.

Michelle hated Nicole. I don't believe Michelle. She knew OJ was cheating and she helped him hide it.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
THE 911 CALL IN 1993: O. J. said if you listen carefully to that tape you know that nothing physical took place. He does not apologize for that incident. Nicole was yelling at him and he left her house and went home to avoid a fight. She called him at home and said they had agreed to talk things back, so he went back over there. She was yelling at him outside, and then turned and went in the house. O. J. followed her and kicked the door (it was already broken). Kato arrived. Nicole went upstairs, O. J. went upstairs and knocked, then back downstairs, venting (yelling) to Kato. He did not know Nicole had called 911. The operator told her to stay in the bedroom, but Nicole said she didn't want to stay there. She went downstairs, she was not afraid. When the police came, they surreptitiously taped the conversation with Nicole and O. J. [this was played later at the civil trial]. O. J. said if you listen to that tape, you hear Nicole say the door was broken already, and when the cop asked if she thought O. J. was going to hit her, she said "No." She also said O. J. hadn't hit her since 1989. When it was all over, O. J. left, and Nicole called him the next day and apologized. Link to this story line please

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


THE 911 CALL IN 1993: O. J. said

*snip*



I don't believe OJ because he is a liar. I want facts only. The facts are that she was afraid (and said so) that he was going to "beat the **** out of me".

He didn't care about his children being asleep upstairs. He didn't care about anything except what he wanted. And, at that time he wanted in the house to freak out on Nicole.

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva


Right, but my point is that the maid was dependent on income from Simpson & it would have been in her own interest to brush stuff under the carpet. imo Whoops -- there was a typo in my post. I understood your point -- I was being facitious and it should have read, ". . .at least that's the one I think HE means."

But, that's all moot. You were quicker than me and picked up the first of his post, "OJ said. . .." Good catch.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by fbgweezer
He means the one that tried to pull Nicole out of the police car telling her she didn't want to make trouble. At least I'm pretty sure that's the one she means.

Yes! That's the one. The one who didn't care if Nicole was hurt. The one who only cared about what it would do to OJ's public relations.

[tazzybaby]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


tazzy
i am just as serious as you are. otherwise i would be doing some work.

or talking to someone else.

rayray,

Okay, so are you seriously telling me that you think Cochran should have given out a key chain or little jerseys?

:punch:

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty
Thanks for proving my point

- Since Mr Denny's misfortune during the riot, motorist have used alot more caution in similar situations ..

- However in the case of AC driving OJ, he placed himself right dab in the middle of what would have been a very dangerous situation for a MINORITY MALE.. Being chased by LAPD with a FAMOUS BLACK Double Murder Suspect, in the SLASHING DEATH OF 2 INNOCENT WHITE PEOPLE... Just on the HEALS of the BEATING OF Black Motorist Rodney King for his wreckless driving..(WTF) - Makes NO Sense !!! OMG -- LOL

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


here is a snipit of what happened that day. not all the details but a summary

1. nicole heard part of a conversaiton by some friend. she thinks
it was about some oj girl friend. she is mistaken.
2. she starts a argument in ojs bed room. in pants and bra.
3, he get her out of the bedroom
4. she gets a key and comes back
5. he gets her out again.
5 she goes to maids room and socks her because she thinks the maid knows about it.
6 oj comes to the maids room. pushing back and forth. oj leaves nicole calls 911. oj cames back breaks up the fight.
7. nicole leaves the house by maids room door. in bra and pants.
8. police come nicole in bushes. oj comes out front to police..maid comes out. nicole comes out of bushes as she has no other way to get back into the house.

nicole claims he hit her.
police resolve the issue some way. what about the other beatings? Was that Nicole and the maid then too?

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
nicole claims he hit her.
police resolve the issue some way. You are a sad little man -- it was resolved when OJ paid a fine and did community service. The system let Nicole down as did the friends/families/maids who didn't stop his abuse.

[weezer]

Originally posted by nettathirty



You think Shively made up the Nissan Driver Story? Nope -- she told the story BEFORE anyone knew the details of what had happened that night. No. I believe she saw OJ running back to Rockingham after murdering Nicole and Ron.

I was making up the part about the defense getting to the Nissan driver before LE could -- you know, bought/scared them off. I know it's not true but you guys seem to enjoy making up stuff so I thought I'd try it.

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
THE SUICIDE NOTE: O. J. said he wasn't "running" in the Bronco chase. If he wanted to run, he had enough time to get $50K and do that. He knew that morning he was going to be arrested, so he gave the money to A. C. for Arnelle and Jason in case they needed it, and some for Paula. He wanted to see Nicole's grave, wanted to be with Nicole. He was even more depressed because of the medication they had him on. He had the gun, and he just wanted it all to stop. When A.C. got to the cemetery there were police cars blocking the entrance so they tried to find another way in. After awhile they heard on the radio that the police were looking for him. A. C. decided to take him home; he told O. J. he was taking him to see his mother [at Rockingham]. O. J. said he "didn't give a ****" that the police said he was a fugitive, at that point it didn't matter what the police thought. My, my, my. quite a little drama we've got going on here. I'm a little confused. What pain was he feeling?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


here is a snipit of what happened that day. not all the details but a summary

1. nicole heard part of a conversaiton by some friend. she thinks
it was about some oj girl friend. she is mistaken.
2. she starts a argument in ojs bed room. in pants and bra.
3, he get her out of the bedroom
4. she gets a key and comes back
5. he gets her out again.
5 she goes to maids room and socks her because she thinks the maid knows about it.
6 oj comes to the maids room. pushing back and forth. oj leaves nicole calls 911. oj cames back breaks up the fight.
7. nicole leaves the house by maids room door. in bra and pants.
8. police come nicole in bushes. oj comes out front to police..maid comes out. nicole comes out of bushes as she has no other way to get back into the house.

nicole claims he hit her.
police resolve the issue some way.

Are you aware that Michelle stated later on that she herself almost got beaten by OJ that night because at one point he thought she was Nicole and he grabbed her (Michelle) by the hair and threw her over his shoulder until she yelled "OJ, I'm not Nicole, I'm Michelle"?

[Kate Sachel]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
WHAT HAPPENED IN CHICAGO: O. J. knows exactly what the detective said who called him from Los Angeles and told him Nicole was dead. He said she was murdered, or killed, that the kids were okay and that they couldn't tell him anything because they were trying to find out what happened. That's all they ever told him. They called him, then he went in the bathroom and broke a glass. He was trying to use a face towel to push the broken glass into the sink and he cut himself. He signed autographs on the plane, at the airport and in the hotel lobby in Chicago, and nobody ever reported seeing any bandages on his hand.

I don't know about anyone else here, but if I had just found out that my ex-husband whom I still love was just killed the last thing in the world I would be doing is signing autographs for people in a lobby or on an airplane.

[weezer]

*Snipped Originally posted by rayraytwo
He signed autographs on the plane, at the airport and in the hotel lobby in Chicago, and nobody ever reported seeing any bandages on his hand. Is OJ lefthanded?

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
oj was not running anyplace.only to nicoles grave. ac was not going to no mexico with oj or no one else.he could not have gotten out of la in that white bronco.

i think he was very sad that someone had killed nicole. now you may continue to try to reduce him to a person with no emotions and feelings if you like because you THINK he killed nicole. but that just shows what hate can do to some people when they allow it to consume then totally.:) You still haven't answered the question -- what pain was he feeling? Why would he be rolling around in the back of AC's bronco, hanging onto pictures of his family and holding a gun to his head?

I don't hate OJ. I don't have to. I have a very firm belief that the devil willget his due -- hopefully it will be something like JC -- MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


people expect celebrities to give them attention regardless of what they may be going through. i have seen people walk up to a celabrity while she was eating dinner in a resturant with her kids and husband and stand there to ger a autograph. You didn't answer me -- is OJ lefthanded?

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


if you are talking about shaking hands it does not matter.
i don't think he was shaking his right hand with his left in his pocket. don't think he was having a cocktail on the plane with his right hand with his left hand under his butt.

people would remember that for sure. So, I can take it you don't know.....LOL. Sometimes you are pathetic -- this is one of them. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
'boy
you are still smiling because j.c. has died. i think you should keep this to yourself. You smiled because OJ walked after butchering two innocent people. I smiled when the soul-less person that helped him do that died. Don't see any reason to keep that to myself. MOO

[weezer]

Originally posted by socaldiva
:confused: RR2 moving backwards....still confused regardless of how many times posters have tried to correct him.... :lol: Thanks for the giggle. I'm out of here. You guys have a safe weekend.

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



Thanks for proving my point

- Since Mr Denny's misfortune during the riot, motorist have used alot more caution in similar situations ..

- However in the case of AC driving OJ, he placed himself right dab in the middle of what would have been a very dangerous situation for a MINORITY MALE.. Being chased by LAPD with a FAMOUS BLACK Double Murder Suspect, in the SLASHING DEATH OF 2 INNOCENT WHITE PEOPLE... Just on the HEALS of the BEATING OF Black Motorist Rodney King for his wreckless driving..(WTF) - Makes NO Sense !!!



nettathirty, sure it makes sense, Cowlings was Simpson best friend, He was tying to talk Simpson out of killing himself.

Simpson had tried to find a place to kill himself at Kardashian's house the morning that he was to be arrested but Kardashian talked him out of it doing it there finally suggesting Simpson go to the Bel Air Church, where he was married, to commit suicide. Kardashian then turned Simpson over to Cowlings just before the police arrived hoping Cowlings would talk Simpson out of it.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
WHAT HAPPENED IN CHICAGO: O. J. knows exactly what the detective said who called him from Los Angeles and told him Nicole was dead. He said she was murdered, or killed, that the kids were okay and that they couldn't tell him anything because they were trying to find out what happened. That's all they ever told him. They called him, then he went in the bathroom and broke a glass. He was trying to use a face towel to push the broken glass into the sink and he cut himself. He signed autographs on the plane, at the airport and in the hotel lobby in Chicago, and nobody ever reported seeing any bandages on his hand.



rayraytwo, I have no idea where you are getting this information from. Either you're making it up yourself or you're copying it from some unknown source.

Simpson never said under oath he cut himself on glass using a face towel to push broken glass in the sink. And his signing autographs is not proof of anything. Simpson was right handed. What ever he was signing he held in his left hand covering the cut across the knuckle on his left hand.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo
this is exactly what the jury was talking about. park lied


LIGHTING IN THE HOUSE: The front entrance of the house faces west and O. J.'s bedroom faces east. It is not possible to see lights on in the house except Sydney's room and the kitchen. Marcia Clark emphasized there were no lights on until the "figure" entered the house and turned all the lights on. This is incorrect and O. J. demonstrated why. Alan Park could not possibly have seen from the Ashford gate whether there were any lights on in the house.



rayraytwo, I have no idea where you're getting this false information from. Either you're making things up again or your copying some other source that is wrong.

Post the transcript where Marcia Clark said there NO lights on in the house until Simpson entered the house and tuned lights on. Park didn't say that. Park testified there were was a light on upstairs but dark downstairs.

Simpson demonstrated no such thing.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



JC did not lie, his closing statement was a bit over the top..

btw
ALL the jurors in the criminal trial said they were not impressed with it...



nettathirty, Cochran came as close to lying about many things he said, but one lie he told the jury was about Simpson and Paula's relationship at the time of the murders.

Triumph of Justice,
"Johnnie Cochran had emphasized Paula's relationship with Simpson in the criminal trial. Simpson, he told the jury, had no motive to kill Nicole because he was deeply involved with Paula at the time of the murders. They were back together, he said, Simpson had even called an interior decorator to design a bedroom at the Rockingham estate to Paula's tastes. They had attended a fancy party Saturday night, June 11, and witnesses saw Simpson and Paula there, happy as lovebirds. They were embarking on a life together, perhaps even looking toward marriage. So, according to Cochran, why kill Nicole? Simpson wasn't obsessed with Nicole, he had Paula."

After the criminal trial when Paula Barbieri gave her deposition it was learned for the first time that she had broken up with Simpson leaving him a long dear john message on his cell phone message center early in the morning of the murders. Simpson had tried calling Paula many times that day. After the recital when Simpson got home his telephone records show that he called his message center and listened to Paula's message that she had left. Simpson either lied to Cochran or Cochran outright lied. Take your choice.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by nettathirty



I say all of that to say, I understand that I might fit the description and until I prove I'm innocent I will first be considered guilty.. Why would I put myself in harms way? AC was free and clear, it was a suicide move on his part to involve himself in the Bronco Chase(unless he knew something, we all didn't know).. Not one black male that i've had this discussion with, has said they would have done it... It makes NO sense to me... It will forever remain a mystery to me, among other things in this case..

imo



Nettathirty, it's no mystery. I guess you just can't comprehend the close friendship that Simpson and Cowlings had.

bobaugust

[bobaugust]

Originally posted by rayraytwo


do i have to demonstrated to you daily that everyone but you and m clarke know park either lied or had a habit of being confused or he smoked too much.



rayraytwo, more false accusations from you.

Park did not lie, Simpson did. Did you see his demonstration? I doubt it. Simpson's demonstration was a farce. Park testified that the only outside light on that night was the front entry light and a light on near the garage. When Simpson supposedly demonstrated what Park could see or not see, that front entry light wasn't even turned on.

Simpson's never contradicted Park's testimony that an upstairs light was on.

You just keep posting pure bull crap ignoring the reality of the testimony and calling people who contradict your false beliefs, liars. The only one here who has a habit of being confused is you, ray.

bobaugust